| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2005 04:16:58 PM · #1 |
This shot is typical of the problem I experienced shooting a polo match yesterday when play was occurring directly in front of me. Sun was low and to the left. The rider isn't in shadow (see grass), but the background was.
This seems way underexposed to me, but I was too far away for a fill flash to have reached. Is the problem simply one of lighting? Or if I had used a filter, would that have helped? If I needed a filter, should it have been a polarizer, a Neutral Density filter, or a UV filter? (I don't really understand when to use any of the three.)
If someone can point me in the right direction, I'd sure appreciate it.
--Laurie |
|
|
|
07/24/2005 04:33:15 PM · #2 |
Looks like your camera exposure was taken on one of the bright highlights which would cause harsh shadows even though the subject was not in a shade. A little luminosity adjustment in PS will help. Hope you didn't mind but I gave it a try.
 |
|
|
|
07/24/2005 04:49:08 PM · #3 |
Ok here is my take. Even though the horse and rider werent in shadow, the horse was running directly into the sun . The fact that the sun was low and there is no shadow on the ground is probably because the shadow was thrown way to the right of the shot. If you had exposed for the dark side of the horse (or even taken a reading off the crowd) then you would have had a better exposed shot. You obviously took the reading off the grass which caused the underexposure. Always check carefully which direction your light source is coming from when you shoot, sometimes it only takes a slight angle adjustment of the subject to throw the whole side of the subject into shadow especially late in the day when the shadows are hard and long. You probably would have been better off to move round the "field" (not sure what they call it in polo)so that the sun was behind you. It probably would have meant that you would have shot more pics from the front because I am sure that is where the goals probably were and they would have been moving towards you. I hope this makes sense and hope it helps.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2005 05:01:20 PM · #4 |
Neutral density filters reduce the amount of light entering the camera. This is useful for those times when you want to take a long exposure in a lighting situation where holding the shutter open would otherwise cause overexposure (e.g. taking a photo of a waterfall in broad daylight and you want the water to appear as a painted-looking blur).
Polarizing filters only allow light that's polarized in a particular direction to pass through. This in effect means that reflections from most non-metallic surfaces can be eliminated. This allows photographs to be taken of items which are below the surface of the water, through windows, and in other situations where glare would normally prevent you from taking a usable photograph. Because it blocks incidental light which would otherwise muddy the colors, polarizers also tend to increase the saturation of subjects. Since polarizing filters do block light, they require an increase in exposure, usually of 1-2 f-stops.
UV filters block ultraviolet light, which can make photographs taken outside have a blue cast, particularly as the distance from the subject increases (this is often most noticeable on landscapes). If a UV filter had been used when taking this picture, the distant hills would have looked more like the closest one, rather than looking more like blue shadows as the distance from the camera increased. Since UV filters don't change the exposure like a polarizing or neutral density filter, many photographers leave UV filters on their lenses full-time to protect the glass from scratches, dirt, etc. Some photographers argue that using filters strictly to protect the lens may cause ghosting and providing no substantial protection in most cases.
Regarding your question, I don't think that any type of filter would have helped you to get a better shot. As you stated, it appears to be an exposure problem. I suspect that the low angle of the sun caused light to enter the lens and cause glare which fooled your light meter into under-exposing. If this is the case, a lens hood or anything which prevents light from entering the camera from the side would prevent the problem. Another cause could be if there was a very bright item in the center of the frame or lots of back-light, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Sorry for the long winded post.
Edit: added a link
Message edited by author 2005-07-24 17:15:40. |
|
|
|
07/24/2005 05:58:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by A1275:
If someone can point me in the right direction, I'd sure appreciate it.--Laurie |
I mentor a DPC Exposure Mentor Group. See this thread. We are working through just the kind of issues you experienced here. The group is full but you are welcome to lurk (follow along) with what we are doing and PM me with specific questions. I think it might help you. |
|
|
|
07/24/2005 06:35:24 PM · #6 |
With dark trees in the background it's always going to be difficult to get good exposure. Auto metering won't always get it right in difficult conditions.
I wouldn't use a filter in this scenario because I wouldn't expect it to make a big difference, but it will shorten your shutter.
I would use Ev compensation possibly +1/3 or +2/3 Ev to expose the images more correctly.
Polo shot of mine
|
|
|
|
07/24/2005 07:02:53 PM · #7 |
Certainly looks like the camera metered for the grass, I don't know much about your camera but I do believe it has different metering modes? Have have you tried selecting spot or center weighted modes? However dark horses on dark backgrounds are always tricky, it may have helped to move so the sun was behind you rather than at the side. Although that is easier said than done when there are polo balls flying around!
For best results just avoid harsh conditions :-)
 |
|
|
|
07/24/2005 09:11:41 PM · #8 |
| I assume your camera has a variety of metering modes and probably some sort of matrix mode which compensates for everything in the viewfinder (more or less). I agree that when shooting in bright sun a hood definately helps and also agree there is no filter that would help you here. If your camera has a tendency to underexpose (shoot a number of test shots inside , outside etc.), if they all come out a bit dark you might want to set your exposure compensation up a bit. Every camera company uses their own ideas when setting the metering electronics up. Check the manual out though on the meter thing ... I know I have inadvertently spot metered because I forgot I left it in that mode and I have gotten some wacky shots to show for it :) |
|
|
|
07/25/2005 03:29:06 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kawhona:
... I know I have inadvertently spot metered because I forgot I left it in that mode and I have gotten some wacky shots to show for it :) |
Theoretically spot or ceter weighted would have coped better in this situation as the underexposed focal point of the shot is in the center of the frame. |
|
|
|
07/25/2005 03:44:25 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
Originally posted by kawhona:
... I know I have inadvertently spot metered because I forgot I left it in that mode and I have gotten some wacky shots to show for it :) |
Theoretically spot or ceter weighted would have coped better in this situation as the underexposed focal point of the shot is in the center of the frame. |
I agree. I pretty much Spot or center weight my shots anyway. I want my subject exposed right, especially in something fast paced. If you have the time then using compensation, etc with Matrix may work better.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 07:25:41 PM · #11 |
Wow! Holy awesome responses! Thanks very much, guys.
I was using multi-pattern (matrix) metering and can see now where spot or center-weighted metering would have greatly improved shots taken in this direction. About half of the time I was shooting with the sun at my back, but as I was following the action down the field that's where I got into trouble. Couldn't run faster than the horses! :)
My lens hood arrived today, so I'll be ready for next time.
@metoecus: That is quite possibly the best explanation of filters and their uses that I have ever read. Links to the example photos were the icing on the cake! Thank you very much...
@Digital Quixote: Thanks for the link to your group. I've marked it so I can easily find it again -- lots of good advice there and I look forward to following along.
@SDW65 - thanks for your example. I had played around in my software editing program to achieve better results, and we were thinking along the same lines. It's just that I'd like to take the shot correctly so I don't have to do so much editing! I have almost 1 gig of data for the day....
It never ceases to amaze me when I post a question in the forums - always get great advice from the many helpful folks here. Thank you again!
--Laurie |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 12:44:20 AM EDT.
