How could I prevent "hotspots" on faces?

[markubig]

Sorry, in advance, if this is posted in the wrong section. Totally not sure where this question is supposed to go (camera, lenses, lighting, talk about photography, etc.), but anyway . . .

How do I prevent bad blow outs (hotspots) on people's faces when I'm under the sun? I have attached a sample from an outdoor party I had today. The photo was taken with my 300D and Tamron 28-75 (w/ hood attached) at around 2:30pm today.

EXIF Info:
Av Mode
1/125s
f/4.0
ISO 100
75mm
no flash

I am so upset right now, because 95% of my outdoor shots from today are ruined because of these blown highlights. Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong, so this doesn't happen again . . . Thanks.

[mtndew]

Filters, Either a circular polarized or ND grad filters or even a warming filter 81a

[wolf]

Looks like you were using evaluative metering which set the exposure for the overall darker majority of the scene. Partial metering would have been a better choice in this situation.

[PacAce]

Did you stop to take a look at the histograms of the first couple of shots to make sure your exposure was set properly? If you had, you would have seen the blown highlights and corrected for it.

[HJMinard]

Did you stop to take a look at the histograms of the first couple of shots to make sure your exposure was set properly? If you had, you would have seen the blown highlights and corrected for it.

Yes, histograms rule! Additionally, reviewing the image on LCD reveals the "blinkies", which identify blown out highlights.

[markubig]

Hi Leo/HJMinard . . . Yes, I did look at the histogram as i took the shots, and it was not gathered to the right, showing overexposure. it was showing an pretty even distribution. Yes there were "blinkies", but i thought that as long as the histogram was ok, you could disregard the blinkies. I have attached a nother photo to the this post, in which the histogram is actually more gathered in the 3 left columns. The EXIF info is (Av Mode, 1/200s, f/4, ISO 100, 75mm, no flash). On this photo, the blinkies are on the side of the child's head.

Wolf . . . I believe evaluative metering is the standard metering mode on the 300D. I think partial metering is available w/ AE lock. Should I have used AE Lock (* button)? If so, what should I have metered?

mtndew . . . I had posted an earlier question about Circular Polarizers (I have a Hoya CP) and i believe someone said that they were best for landscapes and not people shots . . .can they be used for outdoor people photos, or do I need to get the ND or warming filter 81a (what do these two filters do?)

Thanks for your responses . . . i need to get this straightened out 'cause spring/summer's here and i'm going to be using my gear outside a lot in the coming months.

[ScottE]

Are you shooting RAW mode?

If the histogram is all in the graph range you can usually salvage something when you convert. You may have to play with the contrast ranges and exposure compensation a bit before converting.

Scott

[robertwgross]

Yes there were "blinkies", but i thought that as long as the histogram was ok, you could disregard the blinkies.

"Blinkies" are blinking for a reason. They are not there for entertainment.

---Bob Gross---

[markubig]

Mark,

After awhile, you will be able to see the potential problems in a lighting situation and avoid them. Just moving to the right would have backlighted the child's head and have rimlighted him.

You can take histogram readings galore,and change metering modes until you're an old man, and you can waste time fiddling with filters and the like, but if you don't learn to see potential problems, you'll make the same mistakes over and over again. If you can recognize a five-stop difference in lighting, you'll be able to learn to avoid these problems. Gadgets and camera settings can't replace experience and critical judgment.

I'm willing to bet that the next time you see a five stop difference in lighting, you'll automatically change your position so that the lighting works to your advantage. You won't need a histogram to tell you what to do.

Thanks, Bloo . . . also got your PM. Thanks for your help. I never had any formal education/training and I just flat-out lack experience, so I still do not recognize subtle (and i suppose simple) details like where to position myself in relation to the sun. Speaking of which. . . is there a "rule-of-thumb" as to where you have to position your camera and subject in relation to a bright mid-morning or mid-afternoon sun?

.

[markubig]

"Blinkies" are blinking for a reason. They are not there for entertainment.

---Bob Gross---

thanks, Bob . . . i realize that now http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif.

.

[markubig]

Are you shooting RAW mode?

If the histogram is all in the graph range you can usually salvage something when you convert. You may have to play with the contrast ranges and exposure compensation a bit before converting.

Scott

Hi Scott. Thanks. Yes, I am shooting in RAW and use the PSE3.0 Raw converter. I've tried to fool around with the ranges, but the blown-out spots are just unrecoverable.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif

[wolf]

Wolf . . . I believe evaluative metering is the standard metering mode on the 300D. I think partial metering is available w/ AE lock. Should I have used AE Lock (* button)? If so, what should I have metered?

In your posted example partial metering on the face would have have given a good exposure to the area of most importance. I used partial metering a lot with my 300D even though it meant an extra step in shooting. I use it all the time with my 20D as I can now set the camera to partial and just leave it there. A person has much more control with exposure using that method of metering.

[markubig]

In your posted example partial metering on the face would have have given a good exposure to the area of most importance. I used partial metering a lot with my 300D even though it meant an extra step in shooting. I use it all the time with my 20D as I can now set the camera to partial and just leave it there. A person has much more control with exposure using that method of metering.
Thanks for the advice, wolf. I am going to incorporate that extra step into my pre-shot routine to see if I get better results. Hmmmm . . . reason to upgrade to 20D? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif just kidding ... still need to improve my skills first.

Just so you know that it wasn't a total loss, I did have a few good ones. I posted an example here
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66916

[pcasciola]

Mark, I'm no pro, but have you tried exposure bracketing? Whenever I am unsure of myself I just turn that on, and set it to continuous drive. If you set it to +1/-1 for example, holding the shutter down will result in three frames being taken, one at 0 EV, one at -1 EV and one at +1 EV. I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do, but it's worked for me on several occasions.

[markubig]

Mark, I'm no pro, but have you tried exposure bracketing? Whenever I am unsure of myself I just turn that on, and set it to continuous drive. If you set it to +1/-1 for example, holding the shutter down will result in three frames being taken, one at 0 EV, one at -1 EV and one at +1 EV. I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do, but it's worked for me on several occasions.
Hi Phil . . . no, I have never tried exposure bracketing. I hadn't yet been faced with a difficult lighting situation where changing ISO, shutter speed, aperture, or even shooting RAW couldn't fix. . . . until today, of course http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif (i only started photography a few months ago). I guess it's a good time to try it outhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif.

So does exposure bracketing output 3 separate photos (-1,0,+1) or does it output the average of those photos? Thanks for the suggestion.

,

[pcasciola]

It takes three seperate exposures. If you have it on continuous drive, each time you hold down the shutter release it will take a three shot burst and then stop. Or, if it's on one shot you have to press the shutter release three times to get the three exposures. For the shots where the sun was in a bad spot like the first one, you would just pick the -EV exposure. Try it out. It's a pretty nice feature.

[markubig]

i will try it out . . .thanks, phil!



http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif

[J Rabin]

Markubig. Besides moving the subject to diffuse shade (can't in candid photography), I am surprised no one else has suggested the way I (or photogs in general) always deal with EXCESSIVE CONTRAST RANGE: daylight auto fill flash! This what fill flash is all about. Set the camera to meter ambiant light in Tv or Av or M mode, get a focus point over a medium tone on the subject (less necessary with E-TTL II) and bang. Nicely balanced pictures. Read the flash manual. Hope this helps. Takes some practice, but works great. J

[robertwgross]

It takes three seperate exposures.

The trick is in deciding how wide to bracket. I generally set it to -2/3, 0, and +2/3.

Then, I can almost guarantee that one of those will be really bad, one will be close, and one will be almost right on.

---Bob Gross---

[pcasciola]

The trick is in deciding how wide to bracket. I generally set it to -2/3, 0, and +2/3.

Then, I can almost guarantee that one of those will be really bad, one will be close, and one will be almost right on.

---Bob Gross---The few times I used it for real I just went with -1/+1, but I ended up adjusting the exposure up a little from the -1 with ACR, so I'll try 2/3 next time.

I wish there was a way to adjust the "zero" down. I'd like to be able to do -2, -1, 0, or -1 1/3,-2/3, 0 for example.

[markubig]

J Rabin . . . thanks for your input. there were times that i was using fill-flash today, but i have to look at what the output was . . . haven't look at all the EXIF info on all the bad photos yet. Is it just good practice to always use fill-flash? With fill-flash, does it matter whether you use the on-camera flash or an external flash?

Bob Gross . . . thanks for the input on the exposure bracketing . . . i'm going to give it a try.

Phil . . . it's 1am for us in NJ . . . can't sleep either? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

[pcasciola]

J Phil . . . it's 1am for us in NJ . . . can't sleep either? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifI can't sleep because I'm trying to fix some photos from today's bright sunny baseball game. :lol:

Here's one before I adjusted it. Blown out face and shadow under the helmet.

http://www.casciola.com/pics/baseball.jpg

[robertwgross]

I wish there was a way to adjust the "zero" down. I'd like to be able to do -2, -1, 0, or -1 1/3,-2/3, 0 for example.

Very easily done on the 20D.

The topic is exposure compensation. If you set it to "center" on -1, and then if you bracket by plus and minus one, then you get -2, -1, and 0.

---Bob Gross---

[pcasciola]

Very easily done on the 20D.

The topic is exposure compensation. If you set it to "center" on -1, and then if you bracket by plus and minus one, then you get -2, -1, and 0.

---Bob Gross---You gotta be kidding me!!!! I thought the expsoure compensation was completely independent of the bracketing. :o :o :o