lighting issues

[KemP]

Hi

I'm hoping to get some pointers of where I am going wrong with my photography. Through the view finder the below photo looked great and the light house wasn't just a dark object. I didnt have much time to play with the setting with the camera at the time and I was being bounced around by the waves. I assume to get the island and light house less dark I need to decrease the shutter speed?

Camera is a Nikon D90 with a 18-220 lens.

Store Torungen by kempy535, on Flickr

[K12beano]

Dynamic range probably a bit high for what the sensor might be able to cope with.

Plus - and just a guess, I haven't seen the EXIF - you may have been in some sort of auto exposure mode and camera has believed you want sky exposed "correctly".

Without doing anything much differently, you could have spot metered for the building itself (although sky would probably be blown, of course)

[PBLP]

KemP said:

... I assume to get the island and light house less dark I need to decrease the shutter speed?

No you want to let more light in to the camera, so you want to increase your shutter speed. Its an easy image to fix, just increase the shadows.

[Simpo Two]

If shooting with auto exposure, use EV. In this case, +2 would do it.

If shooting with manual exposure, you need either a longer shutter speed or a larger aperture, or increase ISO.


Describing shutter speed as 'increase' and 'decrease' is a bit confusing in this contest. Does 'increase' mean longer or faster...? - they are opposites.

[Jollyclub]

I don't see where the confusion is coming from.

Going to 125 from 500 is a decrease in shutter speed.

Obviously a decrease in shutter speed is an increase in exposure time, but the OP made no mention of this.

Selecting a lower number on the shutter speed dial would indeed have 'lightened up the lighthouse.'

[Simpo Two]

Jollyclub said:

I don't see where the confusion is coming from. Going to 125 from 500 is a decrease in shutter speed.

It's a decrease in exposure but an increase in 'speed'. 500 is 'faster' than 125. So you decrease it to make it faster? - not logical to a beginner. That's the confusion. Faster and slower tells it how it is.

Jollyclub said:

Obviously a decrease in shutter speed is an increase in exposure time, but the OP made no mention of this.

KemP said:

I assume to get the island and light house less dark I need to decrease the shutter speed?

[Jollyclub]

Simpo Two said:

Jollyclub said:

I don't see where the confusion is coming from. Going to 125 from 500 is a decrease in shutter speed.

It's a decrease in exposure but an increase in 'speed'.

No. I think you must have misread the to and from. Going to 125 from 500 is increasing exposure time.

As the OP stated. This would have lightened the Lighthouse.

[KemP]

Thanks all for the input. Its possible I created some confusion with my use of the incorrect terms. I did indeed mean making the shutter stay open longer would lighten the lighthouse. Ill be heading out again tonight so will try some of your suggestions and see how I get on

PBLP that was pretty much what the image looked like through the view finder

[K12beano]

KemP said:

PBLP that was pretty much what the image looked like through the view finder

For the avoidance of doubt, what you see through the viewfinder isn't the same as what the sensor "sees" during exposure.

[markmullen]

K12beano said:

KemP said:

PBLP that was pretty much what the image looked like through the view finder

For the avoidance of doubt, what you see through the viewfinder isn't the same as what the sensor "sees" during exposure.

Indeed, and if the OP had taken the shot to expose the lighthouse like Paul has the likelihood is the sky would have been plain white.

You've discovered the difficulty that cameras have in that they are unable to do as good a job as resolving a scene with very bright areas (the sky) and dark areas (the lighthouse and rocks) as your eyes do.

Normally I'd recommend neutral density graduated filters to get around the issue, they're dark at the top and clear at the bottom and even out the exposure but in the situation you faced they'd not help much as whilst they'd sort the rocks out they'd also darken the lighthouse.

Your options are:

1. To expose the shot like you did and brighten the lighthouse and rocks in post processing like Paul did. That may well bring in some noise into the shadows.
2. Expose it a little more, by lengthening the shutter speed, to the point just before you lose the detail in the highlights, then darken the sky in post processing. Due to a weird way sensors work this would reduce noise in the shadows compared to number 1.
3. Expose two frames, one exposed for the lighthouse, one for the sky and combine them in post processing.

On a shot like that, without massively bright clouds to worry about, I'd probably go with number 2.

[akirk]

option number 4 - shoot for the shutter speed you want, shoot in raw, post process to where you want it - using something like lightroom you can easily place a grad filter on this photo and adjust exposure differentially across the photo - assume the OP was in a boat so actually a grad filter on the camera wouldn't be easy to line up...

[LongQ]

akirk said:

option number 4 - shoot for the shutter speed you want, shoot in raw, post process to where you want it - using something like lightroom you can easily place a grad filter on this photo and adjust exposure differentially across the photo - assume the OP was in a boat so actually a grad filter on the camera wouldn't be easy to line up...

The "noise" challenge is likely to be a little greater with older camera bodies when taking this approach.

[Jonsv8]

If your camera has an auto bracket function (automatically take 3 pictures - 1 under exposed, 1 over, and 1 to what the camera thinks is the right exposure) try using that. When you get home you can play with pictures and see which ones worked best for you, which one is easiest to correct if you've shot in raw as there are limits and/or combine them. You sound like you want to learn and that would give you material to play with.

[Simpo Two]

Autobracket is a double-edges sword in my experience. You set it for one occasion, then forget you have set it, and then wonder why your exposures the next day are all over the place...

[Jonsv8]

Simpo Two said:

Autobracket is a double-edges sword in my experience. You set it for one occasion, then forget you have set it, and then wonder why your exposures the next day are all over the place...

One in three (or 5 or 7) should be right

I agree though and I never really use it personally, it was more an easy way for the OP to collect a range of material that he could play with later