Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Birds 
Thread started 10 May 2007 (Thursday) 20:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Bird Photography Exposure Compensation (pics and tutorial)

 
morehtml
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 10, 2007 20:40 |  #1

Lately I've seen a lot of confusion on here about exposure compensation in relation to bird photography. I will refer to this as EC from now on. Hopefully this thread will straighten out some things. I'm going to make this a really simple thread.

First I use evaluative metering which basically averages the whole scene and makes it look like 18% gray in black and white. The following examples assume EVALUATIVE metering is used. Although you can shoot in raw and fix exposure problems to some degree you will get a much better photo if your exposure is correct in camera. For example a lot of noise will result if you underexpose a image and later boost exposure in photoshop.

18% gray looks like this (this may look dark on a monitor but it's close). So your camera's meter is trying to make your photos average the gray patch below. If your photo AVERAGES lighter than this then the camera will Underexpose the image. If the photo AVERAGES darker than this and especially if your subject is white the camera will overexpose your subject.

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/gray.jpg

Now here is a example pic with it's B&W counterpart

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/VIS_0058w.jpg

And here is what the meter sees in B&W
IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/VIS_0058bw.jpg

^As you can see in the photos above the photo 'averages' to lighter than the 18% gray so the camera tries to darken it (underexpose). So in this case for a situation where the photo is lighter than 18% gray you need to add EC to expose this properly. In these cases EC of +2/3 to + 2 are in order. In this example +1 was used although the correct EC was + 2/3 probably because of that dark stripe on top.

---------------

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/VIS_0304w.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/VIS_0304bw.jpg

^OK in this example we see the photo is much darker and averages to darker than 18% gray. Not setting EC here will cause the camera to overexpose the photo and burn the whites on the Stork. So in this case mainly when part of your subject has white on it you will need to adjust EC negative. The darker the photo average the more negative you need to go. -1/3 to -1 1/3 usually get it. In the example above -2/3 was the ticket.

---------------

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/SF5B5932w.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/SF5B5932bw.jpg

^Here is a common Bird in Flight Setting against a very light gray sky. In this case as in in case #1 above the meter will underexpose. Generally for birds in flight against a bright sky I set EC to #1 and adjust from there. In this case + 2/3 worked well mainly because the large group of birds darkened the average. If it was only 1 bird in this frame + 1 1/3 may have been better.

That's all the time I have to type tonight. I hope this helps some who are confused. I know this leaves A LOT of info out but maybe it's a start.

As said above this example assumes evaluative metering is used. If you are using spot or center weighted average then you can still apply these principals below but must do so using only the area of the viewfinder that the camera is metering.

---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EdV
Goldmember
Avatar
3,257 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
     
May 10, 2007 20:46 |  #2

Thanks Allen. I for one will admit that EC throws me sometimes when I am in the field. I really appreciate this primer.


"the earth has music for those who listen."
Visit my Website: Ed Vatza Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hTr
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
22,453 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Northern Alabama
     
May 10, 2007 20:51 |  #3

Thanks Allen I probably will still make mistakes but I will do it with more knowledge now.

LOL, Joking

I appreciate the help


gary

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 10, 2007 20:53 |  #4

EdV wrote in post #3186403 (external link)
Thanks Allen. I for one will admit that EC throws me sometimes when I am in the field. I really appreciate this primer.

Yea it throws me too because it's difficult to adjust on the fly in the field or I just plain forget to change it. But usually now I'm within 1/3 stop of where I want it in the raw converter.


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 10, 2007 20:55 |  #5

hTr wrote in post #3186420 (external link)
Thanks Allen I probably will still make mistakes but I will do it with more knowledge now.

LOL, Joking

I appreciate the help

Well most photos are average and 0 or +1/3 is the most useful setting.


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hTr
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
22,453 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Northern Alabama
     
May 10, 2007 20:58 |  #6

morehtml wrote in post #3186434 (external link)
Well most photos are average and 0 or +1/3 is the most useful setting.

Actually with my 20D body and either 300/4 or 500/4 my Average EC is -1/3 After a few thousand shots I'm fairly sure of this.


gary

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 10, 2007 21:03 |  #7

hTr wrote in post #3186454 (external link)
Actually with my 20D body and either 300/4 or 500/4 my Average EC is -1/3 After a few thousand shots I'm fairly sure of this.

In relation to your eagle shots (ie white subject against a fairly dark bg) I'd agree, for other shots I would think -1/3 would 'generally' underexpose.


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hTr
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
22,453 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Northern Alabama
     
May 10, 2007 21:08 |  #8

morehtml wrote in post #3186479 (external link)
In relation to your eagle shots (ie white subject against a fairly dark bg) I'd agree, for other shots I would think -1/3 would 'generally' underexpose.

Here is a shot at -1.0 and it seemed to work.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

gary

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 10, 2007 21:16 |  #9

hTr wrote in post #3186512 (external link)
Here is a shot at -1.0 and it seemed to work.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Yes and it fits the darker than 18% gray rule and has a white subject. Negative EC is the correct way to go there just as in my 2nd example. Usually most pics average to 18% gray and the meter is right thus 0 EC works a lot of times. In shade the meter underexposes some so +1/3 is a little better for average photos. Thus 0 and +1/3 are generally pretty close in most situations. It just pays to know when the EC really needs changing as is the case with your Egret Pic. 0 EC would burn the whites(especially the ones in the sun).


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonloader
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
52,911 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 135
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Behind A Camera
     
May 10, 2007 21:42 |  #10

I've got a good handle on the whites and blacks, but what about something a little harder? What do you do about reflected light, like the irridescent blue on a tree swallow in strong sunlight? Or sunlight on a beak, or the red patch on a redwing or the reds on a red belly or cardinal. These are always blown out for me and I haven't figured it out. :(


Mitch- ____...^.^...____
Gear List, My You Tube (external link)
War is not about who's right, it's about who's left.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMays
Senior Member
712 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Nebraska
     
May 10, 2007 22:17 |  #11

Thanks Allen. I will certainly try this out this weekend. I've been stuck on using center / spot metering. This makes much sense.


Canon 40D, 5D MK II
Speedlites 430EX & 580EX II
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (Non IS), Canon Extender EF 1.4 X II,
Canon 400 f/5.6 L, Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro,
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 10, 2007 22:27 |  #12

canonloader wrote in post #3186664 (external link)
I've got a good handle on the whites and blacks, but what about something a little harder? What do you do about reflected light, like the irridescent blue on a tree swallow in strong sunlight? Or sunlight on a beak, or the red patch on a redwing or the reds on a red belly or cardinal. These are always blown out for me and I haven't figured it out. :(

In harsh light it is probably not possible to avoid clipping the red channel on the ones you described and at the same time capture shadow detail. In these cases it is probably best to expose the image to gather shadow detail and slightly clip the red channel then use a raw converter to recover the blown red channel. It will depend on the lighting and contrast of the scene as to how much is clipped. You can use the RGB histogram to see the clipping if it is enough to show up on the graph. For a static subject you could also bracket and merge the exposures in PP.


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonloader
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
52,911 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 135
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Behind A Camera
     
May 11, 2007 16:41 |  #13

Do you use CS2? In RAW Editor, I can't find any way to edit individual color channels, but in CS2 Photoshop, you can edit them individually in Levels. I was going to try that, but I can't find any old RAW files handy to do it on. I've got thousands, somewhere. It's just a matter of going through my 4 hard drives and stacks of DVD discs to find one. ;)


Mitch- ____...^.^...____
Gear List, My You Tube (external link)
War is not about who's right, it's about who's left.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
May 11, 2007 17:25 |  #14

canonloader wrote in post #3191055 (external link)
Do you use CS2? In RAW Editor, I can't find any way to edit individual color channels, but in CS2 Photoshop, you can edit them individually in Levels. I was going to try that, but I can't find any old RAW files handy to do it on. I've got thousands, somewhere. It's just a matter of going through my 4 hard drives and stacks of DVD discs to find one. ;)

I've got CS3. CS3 ACR4 has a recovery slider that will recover a 'small' amount of red clip. You have 3 options as i see it for the situations you describe as it may be more dynamic range than can be handled.

1) Shoot the subject in overcast, shade or early light

2) Shoot subject and expose the shadows as much as possible and clip reds slightly. Then make 2 exposures in RAW in PP and merge the 2.

3) Underexpose the scene (loose shadow detail) to not blow the red channel and brighten the image in pp.

I rec #1 or #2 but yes this is a challenge!


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonloader
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
52,911 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 135
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Behind A Camera
     
May 11, 2007 17:34 |  #15

Hmmm, #2 sounds feasible. I'd rather have nice overcast days all the time, but... :)


Mitch- ____...^.^...____
Gear List, My You Tube (external link)
War is not about who's right, it's about who's left.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

4,768 views & 0 likes for this thread, 5 members have posted to it.
Bird Photography Exposure Compensation (pics and tutorial)
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Birds 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2729 guests, 163 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.