Winter Photography.

[Allan_Love_Jr]

Hi everyone.
I bought my Camera in the Spring of this year and need some advice to prepare myself for Photographing Trains when there is snow on the ground. I know that the snow can and will cause my photos to be underexposed. I am use to an ISO 200 and an ISO 400. I have also backed off from from using a Shutter speed of 1/500th to 1/400th and sometimes gone as low as 250th now because of my long Lens. It is a 75mm 300mm Lens. I shoot in TV Mode. Question? What do I have to set my Camera to when there is snow on the ground? Because I don't want my photos to come out dark. Thanks.

BTW. Can you show some of your Winter Photos and give me an idea in what setting to use. Now that Winter is here.

[tonylong]

To get a consistent exposure, I would figure your desired shutter speed (at least 1/500) and aperture (depending on how much of the train you want in focus), set them in Manual, then meter on the snow and adjust your ISO until your meter shows between +1 and +2 EV, maybe +1 2/3.

[dustyporch]

If you normally use Tv mode, then just use the Exposure Compensation function, and add a stop (+1). Watch for blinkies and the histogram after a test shot, and you are ready to go!

[rral22]

While I shoot with spot metering a lot, a "rule of thumb" for matrix metering when shooting outside in snowy scenes is to simply dial in 1.5 stops of exposure compensation and go at it.

The problem is that the meter sees all the bright snow and tries to make it come out 18% gray like it is programmed to do. You need to understand that, and trick the camera into adding some exposure to make the snow return to white, and everything else will be properly exposed.

There are many ways to do that, depending on the actual situation. It will take experience to understand when your meter is being tricked by all the white, and when the white is not dominant enough to fool the meter. But generally, if snow is making your meter behave badly, 1.5 to as much as 2 stops of compensation will fix things.

[Bosscat]

Underexposed by 2/3 of a stop. I always under expose when shooting on snow.

[lgunnz]

Just remember your camera's meter is going to want to turn your snow grey so meter the snow around +1 or more.

[timstreet]

Honestly, you will have to do a couple of test shoots. The snow is only part of the factor here, the brightness of the sun too will play a bigger part in all of this. Same holds true while shooting around or over large bodies of water. Remember you do have a LCD screen to view after a shoot is taken. I know it's small and may be hard to get a 100 % feel for how the pictures are turning out, but at least you should be able to see if they exposed proper.

[amfoto1]

Or just get a handheld incidence meter, learn how to use it (it's dead simple) and switch the camera to M.

This will eliminate having to dial in any over or under exposure (which is always somewhat of a guessing game). You'll no longer need to try to figure out what the inherent errors in any camera's reflective meter system are up to. Just take a reading, set the camera and shoot.

Some incidence meters can also measure flash in addition to ambient light, or a combination of flash and ambient light.

[Dennis_Hammer]

Bosscat, brilliant photo, top notch. I would definitely take your advise on shooting snow.

[BobOh]

Well, now I'm confused. Should you overexpose a snow shot or underexpose (from what the camera meter indicates)?

[shingo43]

do u need any protection for the camera when shot in a extremely cold condition?
ex.ski resort

[Bosscat]

If anyone understands the sunny 16 rule, you have to underexpose when you have all kinds of light bouncing off the snow.

Ever hear of snowblindness? Its because of the reflection of light. But remember that the amount to under expose is determined by the type of snow, and not all snow is the same.

I just take my camera out of the bag in the car and start shooting. If its really cold, I always keep my hand over the battery area to help battery life. The above pic was shot at 40 below zero in Valcourt Quebec, and my cameras worked fine all weekend.

[number six]

Well, now I'm confused. Should you overexpose a snow shot or underexpose (from what the camera meter indicates)?

Overexpose if you want the snow to look white.

This shot was taken with EC of +1.33 and it wasn't enough, I had to brighten it more in PP. It would have been about right at +2, I think:

318163

The snow was really blindingly white in the sun, and that's what I wanted to see in the photo.

-js

EDIT: if you look at the EXIF, you'll see the 1.33 EC was exactly right by the Sunny 16 rule - ISO 800, 1/800 at f/16.
That's what an incident light meter would have read, too. Funny, it all works out...

[tonylong]

We seem to have two opposite opinions/techniques, but if I understand what bosscat is talking about, I think it's two different approaches to getting the same basic result.

js and I were saying set your camera to meter off the snow itself. The camera meter "interprets" the snow as a medium tone (grey) and if you left the EV at 0, that's what you would get -- grey snow. So, you set your exposure to interpret the snow as very bright -- close to pure white, so to ensure you get some detail in the snow you might set your exposure to +1 2/3 EV.

Bosscat was, I presume, referring to exposing for a subject in a scene where the reflectance from the snow might make a medium exposure too bright, so you would dial down the exposure to keep highlights (the snow) from blowing out. Different technique, same results.

If you set your meter to evaluative or center averaged, your results will be hit-or-miss, depending on the other elements in the scene. You'll want to do careful histogram checking in any case.

[Bosscat]

EDIT: if you look at the EXIF, you'll see the 1.33 EC was exactly right by the Sunny 16 rule - ISO 800, 1/800 at f/16.
That's what an incident light meter would have read, too. Funny, it all works out...

The sunny 16 rule is to underexpose by at stop for snow. Sunny-16 rule applies to "full daylight", with a bright sun and dark shadows with hard or sharp edges,

IMO you blew out the snow.

[primoz]

Underexposed by 2/3 of a stop. I always under expose when shooting on snow.

That's definitely not true. Camera by itself takes reading so, that snow is kinda gray (18% gray to be exact). If you underexpose for another 2/3 of stop, snow will slowly turn dark gray. Next to that, if you have people on photo (sorry yours is not exactly right sample, because under helmet you see shiny goggles not human skin, and that's a lot different. But even on your photo, all you can see under helmet and goggles is dark black thing, no face no nothing), their skin is much darker then snow, but mostly it takes just small part of scene, so camera is fooled and it takes reading from rest of scene. Even without underexposing, human skin will be extremely dark.

So only chance to have white snow is to overexpose (from 1/3 of a stop up to even 2 stops). If you have people on photo, then meter for their face and forget about snow. You can never have face and snow lit perfectly, because difference is just too big.

PS: This one for example is overexposed for 1 to 1 1/3 of a stop. Now imagine, how it would look like with -2 stops ;)

http://www.photo.si/img/sport/spo_skiing_20081025nw_00277.jpg

[Bosscat]

But even on your photo, all you can see under helmet and goggles is dark black thing, no face no nothing),

Of course you are seeing all black, because he is wearing a black half-mask for frostbite protection of his face.

[number six]

The sunny 16 rule is to underexpose by at stop for snow. Sunny-16 rule applies to "full daylight", with a bright sun and dark shadows with hard or sharp edges,

IMO you blew out the snow.

As I said, the sunny 16 rule gave the setting I shot at, +1.33 EC, which was (IMO) underexposed.

Agreed, the show is blown in the brightest areas, by my choice - that's because I added another 1/2 stop or so in PP. That's how it looked to the naked eye and that's what I wanted in the picture. When I looked at the snow in the bright sunlight I couldn't distinguish details, just as in this picture.

-js

[chauncey]

Anytime you shoot snow and include anything else in the image, you a fighting dynamic range.
Something won't be properly exposed, sometimes "close" is about the best one can do.

[number six]

I'm afraid I confused the issue by posting a shot that I'd adjusted in PP as well as in-camera. So I went back into the archives and got the originals, one shot at 0 EC and one at +1. No processing applied except for cropping and cut/paste. (And text.)

At 0 EC the snow looks dirty. It wasn't - it was blindingly bright. At +1 EC the snow is about right but the colors are washed out, which required increased saturation in subsequent PP:

318329

[Microcosm]

The sunny 16 rule is to underexpose by at stop for snow. Sunny-16 rule applies to "full daylight", with a bright sun and dark shadows with hard or sharp edges,

IMO you blew out the snow.
It's blown by a lot, not a great example. But I think he meant to do so?

[number six]

It's blown by a lot, not a great example. But I think he meant to do so?

Yes, I did. It was blindingly bright and I wanted the picture to show that.

See my later post for more pics...

-js

[HappySnapper90]

Overexpose if you want the snow to look white.

This shot was taken with EC of +1.33 and it wasn't enough, I had to brighten it more in PP. It would have been about right at +2, I think:

318163

The snow was really blindingly white in the sun, and that's what I wanted to see in the photo.

-js

EDIT: if you look at the EXIF, you'll see the 1.33 EC was exactly right by the Sunny 16 rule - ISO 800, 1/800 at f/16.
That's what an incident light meter would have read, too. Funny, it all works out...

Do you have a calibrated monitor? The snow in your photo is completely blown out and is pure white with no detail in most places.

I generally with digital use EC +2/3 when metering off of a subject of mostly snow but film will need about +1 1/2 stops in the same conditions due to film's greater dynamic range.

[number six]

Do you have a calibrated monitor? The snow in your photo is completely blown out and is pure white with no detail in most places.

Yes, my monitor is calibrated. I have said twice that the snow was blindingly white in the sun and I wanted to show that. Why is this hard for people to understand?

-js

[Microcosm]

Yes, my monitor is calibrated. I have said twice that the snow was blindingly white in the sun and I wanted to show that. Why is this hard for people to understand?

-js
Haha, I think the problem is that people are trying to determine the 'correct exposure' meaning no blown highlights and such. Despite the fact that you did indeed mean for your photo to have that effect, people haven't read the entire thread. As a result, everyone is pretty confused right now.

[number six]

Haha, I think the problem is that people are trying to determine the 'correct exposure' meaning no blown highlights and such. Despite the fact that you did indeed mean for your photo to have that effect, people haven't read the entire thread. As a result, everyone is pretty confused right now.

You're right, and it's my fault that the issue got sidetracked.

None of the pics I posted are very good, but they demonstrate the exposure issue - I shouldn't have posted the first which I had PP'd - that confused things.

In my second, with the two shots straight from the camera, the top one is "correct" and makes the snow look dirty. It wasn't - it was brilliant white in the sun.

As chauncey said, the dynamic range is too much for the camera. Funny thing: in this scene it was too much for my eyes also. Almost blinding.

BTW: it was a great motorcycle ride over Mt. Lassen!

-js