bracketing advice

[bernhund]

We've booked our summer break and will be travelling over a 2 night stop enroute to our final destination..Lake Garda. So basically we're going to be in The Alps and I'd like to get some half decent pics if possible. I'm thinking that early morning or evening light could be gorgeous but will no doubt throw some very contrasty dark shadows in mountainous areas. I assume this is where bracketing will be required, but to be honest, I don't really know anything about it! Could someone explain a step by step process for my D7100? For example, I'm not sure whether multiple exposures are taken with just one press of the shutter button or if I have to take a few one after the other. Am I even correct in thinking this would be a likely place to use bracketing?

[K12beano]

Sounds likely that bracketing will help.

If you switch to continuous shooting your Nikon should run off the number of shots in the bracketing you have set - however I was reading elsewhere that the buffer isn't great on that model - get out and practice!

Edited by K12beano on Monday 2nd March 20:29

[bernhund]

K12beano said:

Sounds likely that bracketing will help.

If you switch to continuous shooting your Nikon should run off the number of shots in the bracketing you have set - however I was reading elsewhere that the buffer isn't great on that model - get out and practice!

Edited by K12beano on Monday 2nd March 20:30

Practice I will! Any thoughts on what increments work best or is it a case of 'get as many as possible'?

[Simpo Two]

The original idea of exposure bracketing (film days) was to ensure you got one shot that was exposed correctly. That can still be true, but it's also the start of taking multiple exposures so that they can be blended together later - in other words, the best of 2 or three images combined.

If shooting multiple images to combine later then the subject should be stationary, and you'll need a tripod so they line up.

Another option is to shoot RAW (you can still bracket) and beat the crap out of it in processing to recover highlights and shadows. This works well for moving subjects because only one image is used, and you don't need a tripod.

You can set the camera up to autobracket - ie it will take a sequence of different exposures as you choose - but IMHO this is not a great option as you will forget to switch it off and then wonder why your subsequent exposures are all wrong...

[bernhund]

Simpo Two said:

The original idea of exposure bracketing (film days) was to ensure you got one shot that was exposed correctly. That can still be true, but it's also the start of taking multiple exposures so that they can be blended together later - in other words, the best of 2 or three images combined.

If shooting multiple images to combine later then the subject should be stationary, and you'll need a tripod so they line up.

Another option is to shoot RAW (you can still bracket) and beat the crap out of it in processing to recover highlights and shadows. This works well for moving subjects because only one image is used, and you don't need a tripod.

You can set the camera up to autobracket - ie it will take a sequence of different exposures as you choose - but IMHO this is not a great option as you will forget to switch it off and then wonder why your subsequent exposures are all wrong...

Thank you. Would the quality of the end result suffer more if the highlights/shadows are dealt with in PS rather than the bracketing method?

[K12beano]

bernhund said:

Thank you. Would the quality of the end result suffer more if the highlights/shadows are dealt with in PS rather than the bracketing method?

The point is whether you have the detail there. Mk 1 eyeball can cope with something like 24 stops of dynamic range. No current camera sensor, no matter how good, can go anywhere near that so shifting the exposure to capture for highlights and for shadows is currently the only way to do that. No amount of Photoshop can recreate the detail if it wasn't captured in the first place.

But it's been a perennial problem - it's what the Zone System was invented for.

[ExPat2B]

Set the camera to aperture priority mode for constant depth of field. Shoot RAW. Use a tripod. I prefer the automatic bracketing mode as there is less chance of nudging the camera whilst changing settings. Due to the way to sensor works, the best quality image is always obtained by slightly overexposing ( until you just about get flashing highlight warnings ) each part of the scene, Sky, landscape, shadows, and then underexposing in post process. If you try to push the shadows too far in post, you lose detail and introduce noise.

Best software is photomatix to combine the exposures. It depends what you are shooting, if you have a "busy" transition from light to dark ( for example a treeline ) then good quality automatic software is best as it avoids haloing. If you have a sharp transition then you can manually process the RAW file and output to multiple TIFF's and combine in photoshop using layer masks.

[Simpo Two]

bernhund said:

Thank you. Would the quality of the end result suffer more if the highlights/shadows are dealt with in PS rather than the bracketing method?

I don't think there's a problem with reducing the brightness of a bright area, but when you lighten dark areas you can introduce noise (speckling). This is worse when working from JPG than RAW. So to get it as right as possible at the time of shooting is the best of all. With a bit of practice you'll soon see just how much you can 'push' shadows before the noise becomes intrusive. In short, if the contrast is not too great you can hammer it out in Photoshop etc from a single image, but beyond a certain point, you need multiple exposures to start from.

If you shoot JPG and want to get the best out of your photos, now is a good time to learn about RAW, because the ability to recover detail from highlights and shadows is much greater. But note that if you overexpose to the point where part of the image is solid white (255:255:255) then you can't recover any detail, only make it grey, so watch for that. The histogram and zebra (flashing highlight warning) are invaluable here.

Bear in mind you're sure to encounter 'specular highlights', eg small glints of sun off a wineglass or lake, which really have to stay white - partly because that's how they look in real life, but also because if you do expose for them, the rest of the image will be almost black!

[bernhund]

Simpo Two said:

bernhund said:

Thank you. Would the quality of the end result suffer more if the highlights/shadows are dealt with in PS rather than the bracketing method?

I don't think there's a problem with reducing the brightness of a bright area, but when you lighten dark areas you can introduce noise (speckling). This is worse when working from JPG than RAW. So to get it as right as possible at the time of shooting is the best of all. With a bit of practice you'll soon see just how much you can 'push' shadows before the noise becomes intrusive. In short, if the contrast is not too great you can hammer it out in Photoshop etc from a single image, but beyond a certain point, you need multiple exposures to start from.

If you shoot JPG and want to get the best out of your photos, now is a good time to learn about RAW, because the ability to recover detail from highlights and shadows is much greater. But note that if you overexpose to the point where part of the image is solid white (255:255:255) then you can't recover any detail, only make it grey, so watch for that. The histogram and zebra (flashing highlight warning) are invaluable here.

Bear in mind you're sure to encounter 'specular highlights', eg small glints of sun off a wineglass or lake, which really have to stay white - partly because that's how they look in real life, but also because if you do expose for them, the rest of the image will be almost black!

I do shoot RAW already, then put it through Lightbox; but don't really know what I'm doing with it. I need to get to grips with the histogram business I think, so I actually understand what I'm looking at and for!

[Simpo Two]

Think of RAW as a starting point. It's RAW data, and how you process it is essential to get the best looking photograph out of it.

Histograms tell you about the exposure, and can be assessed both at the time of shooting (on camera), and during processing (in software). You can't judge exposure from just looking at the camera monitor, or at an uncalibrated computer monitor - so learn what histograms mean and how to use them. That way you can be sure that any image you produce is correctly exposed, whether that's been achieved when shot, or later by adjusting the shot image.

So that's exposure and highlights/shadows done. The next great thing about RAW is getting the white balance right, and by the time you have all that right, you should have a decent photo - at least from a technical POV. What you photograph and how you compose it is up to you!

[andy-xr]

I think I'd bin RAW and shoot 3 fine jpegs, one for the shadows, one for the midtones and one for the highlights. The advantages of RAW in this case arent great, other than white balance. You're going to be getting the detail in the different exposures, so rather than trying to pull up the shadows from a RAW file and getting noise, shoot the shadows as you want them. 3 RAW files means 3 lots of editing the same way, which when you've pressed, added, slighly lowered mask luminosity, forgot what you did, cant replicate it, becomes a pain in the arse.

You put it into bracketing mode by holding down the button next to the flash and moving one of the rotators around, 3 shots of -2 0 +2 should be enough. You could do 5 if you wanted to I guess, but if you have enough from 3 then it's easier to put together later. Same shot setup, same focal length, same composition, same white balance because it's really annoying when you handheld something only to find you adjusted your compsition on the middle one and now it doesnt line up and the whole thing needs cropping.

Layer then together in Photoshop, add layer masks, either normal or luminosity and get rid of what you dont want to keep. Go in fairly tight with a small brush set fairly soft and you'll be able to sort it out inside half an hour

One thing to remember though, if you've seen a scene and want to capture it as was, shooting dark shadows as midtones gives you greys that arent representative of what it looked like, and it can turn into a HDR'd flattened out mess.

[Simpo Two]

Often one RAW is enough - having a choice of three bracketed ones just allows you to decide the best one to process. And if the subject or camera are moving you can't take three shots and composite.

In a fusion of both methods I often process one RAW into two versions, dark and light, and blend manually in PS. So it's a bit like having two JPGs, but they are a pixel-perfect fit.



PS Half an hour?!

[K12beano]

Photomatix.

It's not just for evil, grungy HDR

And you can merge 9 shots, removing ghosting AND align (if you were too lazy for a tripod) and you would be hard-pressed to get a kettle to boil for a nice cup of tea in the time it takes.....

Half an hour??? (Do you take two bottles into the shower?)

[andy-xr]

K12beano said:

Photomatix.

It's not just for evil, grungy HDR

And you can merge 9 shots, removing ghosting AND align (if you were too lazy for a tripod) and you would be hard-pressed to get a kettle to boil for a nice cup of tea in the time it takes.....

Half an hour??? (Do you take two bottles into the shower?)

Simpo Two said:

PS Half an hour?!

Sure, I'd be happy to spend that or more getting things how I wanted if it's say something to print out or display. A quick half hour to me would be time spent doing a bit of cloning if needed, some repair work, bit of colour alteration, contrast, checking I'm happy with how it's looking and doing a few other things.

There's a canvas I had hanging just above my monitor that always narked me when I looked at a few things that I knew I should have cleaned up and sorted, but couldnt be arsed at the time and just sent it off. If I'd spent more time on it I'd have been happier. I have a limit of course

[K12beano]

Ah! You bit!

No - I agree. In fact there's some shots it's worth picking up and putting down over a few days to get what you want.

IMHO, bracketing can have its place. But if you're going to do it a fair amount, it's worth a more automated process, hence confirming a previous poster's 'matix recommendation.

If you're bothering with RAW and bracketing you can get plenty of scope when revisiting stuff.

If you don't want that flexibility, learn about what the HistyFit will tell you and shoot to the right. I'm not a fan of shooting JPEG, on the simple premise of "why would I want to throw away a pile of information having spent so much on latest sensors and good old glass" but horses for courses, shoot in that, bracketing in intervals of ⅓ EV and just pick the best!

[Simpo Two]

andy-xr said:

Simpo Two said:

PS Half an hour?!

Sure, I'd be happy to spend that or more getting things how I wanted if it's say something to print out or display. A quick half hour to me would be time spent doing a bit of cloning if needed, some repair work, bit of colour alteration, contrast, checking I'm happy with how it's looking and doing a few other things.

Point is, you were implying how long and difficult it was to work from RAW, and to use multiple JPGs instead. Firstly, not only will that not work in many circumstances, but I can go from RAW to fully processed highlight/shadow-recovered/composited result in 5 mins.

[andy-xr]

Simpo Two said:

Firstly, not only will that not work in many circumstances,

OK....is there a For Instance?

Simpo Two said:

but I can go from RAW to fully processed highlight/shadow-recovered/composited result in 5 mins.

It's not just that I mean though, it's easy enough with a pair of curves layers to straighten out an exposure, or even just Fill and Recovery in LR then export. I'm talking more about putting 3 jpegs together with different exposures, creating one image and then working on that image to get it in as good a shape as possible for print or display. That could be further local contrast, bit of tweaking, bit of colour adjustment, some dodge and burn.

I get that you can go from zero to hero in about 3 clicks and move on, and appreciate that as a professional you probably want to spend as little time editing as possible if you're doing a run, but there's also other ways to go about it and it's fine to spend as much time as you (read I) want

[Simpo Two]

andy-xr said:

Simpo Two said:

Firstly, not only will that not work in many circumstances,

OK....is there a For Instance?

Simpo Two said:

And if the subject or camera are moving you can't take three shots and composite

It's not just that I mean though, it's easy enough with a pair of curves layers to straighten out an exposure, or even just Fill and Recovery in LR then export. I'm talking more about putting 3 jpegs together with different exposures, creating one image and then working on that image to get it in as good a shape as possible for print or display. That could be further local contrast, bit of tweaking, bit of colour adjustment, some dodge and burn.

I'm talking more about processing a RAW file twice, once for highlights, once for shadows, blending either manually or via layer mask technique to create one image. As it's then in Photoshop, any other minor stuff (in your words 'local contrast, bit of tweaking, bit of colour adjustment, some dodge and burn') is quick and easy. No need for dodge and burn because those bits have already been dealt with.

If you take your photography seriously, as you probably do because you spend up to half an hour beasting an image to make it look nicer, why on earth start with JPG? Start with the best material.

But we seem to have moved from a bracketing issue to a RAW vs JPG issue, and that has been done before

[andy-xr]

Simpo Two said:

because you spend up to half an hour beasting an image to make it look nicer, why on earth start with JPG? Start with the best material.

But we seem to have moved from a bracketing issue to a RAW vs JPG issue, and that has been done before

I've spent a lot longer than half an hour on some, there's been times where 5-10 hours have gone into them. That's obviously fairly severe, and not something you'd do all the time, every time. Something you really want sorting out though, I dont have an issue with putting more time into it. I know it'll be worth it for getting it exactly how I want it. I'm sure other people do more, and loads do less.

Half an hour was a rough guesstimate of what I'd probably spend on something if I wanted it to look good. Depending on how you do it, it doesnt have to be at the expense of overall quality, you can do it fine with a jpeg and non destructive editing. It might be that I work slower with my editing than some do, I like smoking and drinking tea, and I only do one of them at once.

I see what you're saying with probably a pair of Curves, one pulled up, one pulled down, and that's a neat way of sorting out things on overall exposure, but I was going further into it than just shadows and highlights

[Simpo Two]

andy-xr said:

I see what you're saying with probably a pair of Curves, one pulled up, one pulled down

Curves is only one bit - try 'highlight recovery' when you're in the area and watch the magic happen - but yes, you have the general idea - and as they derive from a single shot, it works for racing cars too.

Conversely, if you have the wallart shot of a lifetime but with a telegraph pole in the way, yes, it will take a while to clone it out