| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/19/2009 02:55:16 PM · #1 |
Hello all
I recently bought my first slr - D5000. Went to the beach and wanted to shoot some sunset picture BUT with my wife in the foreground. No matter what I changed in the camera settings, I could only get the silhouettes of her. Attached is a picture of the sunset.
Is there something I can do in Lightroom or photoshop to bring details of her or should I have made some changes in the camera while shooting?
The image info is - ISO 200, 55mm, f/8.0 1/250 sec
 |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:16:43 PM · #2 |
I think to expose for both you would have had to use a flash.. I don't think any camera can expose a sunset or sunrise and someone in the foreground correctly too with out some form of extra lighting on the subject in the foreground..
You can probably play with it in PS by doing a curves layer and see how well you can get her to come out then just mask out the sunset so it's basically removed from that curves layer & not effected by it.. Cause, to change her exposure it's going to really blow out your sunset..
edit to add: I just tried to adjust levels, curves & exposure.. It seems there's no image data in most of your wifes image so I couldn't get it to come out.. Maybe someone else with more experience with PS could..
This is the kind of image where you'll probably have to take her to full darkness to be happy with it.. Then it doesn't look like a mistake, it looks like you did it on purpose.. :-)
Message edited by author 2009-07-19 15:20:44. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:19:44 PM · #3 |
| You could have exposed her correctly by placing the camera on manual and basing your exposure on her face (or by applying exposure compensation in aperture or shutter priority), BUT in that case the sunset would have been blown out. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:21:28 PM · #4 |
| The highlight/shadow adjustment may work as well. I did that recently though the dynamic range in my scene wasn't as drastic as yours. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:26:34 PM · #5 |
I do believe it will be hard to get a desirable result in photoshop.
This is just the nature of silhouettes - the sun is so bright and your wife's face is in the shadow of it, there is no great way of making both the sun and your wife be properly exposed.
Having said that, you can experiment in photoshop with the highlight/shadow tool, dragging the shadow slider to bring out some details. Or you can apply a separate level/curves adjustment to increase brightness on her face and mask out the rest of the image (which is already bright enough).
But really in back-lit situations like these, especially a sunset, you need a flash or a reflector to bounce some light back on your subject b/c the brightness of sun will necessitate a far shorter exposure than anything in the shadows.
It's kinda like how your eye works if you think about it - we squint when we look at bright objects to decrease the amount of light coming in, and our pupils dilate when we require more light. Sometimes the difference in luminosity between 2 subjects is so great that you can only properly 'expose' for one of them at a time. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:27:22 PM · #6 |
As an alternative to a fill-flash, if you are composing close-in to your subject as in your example, you could probably place a large reflector just out of the frame to the left, to reflect some of the sunlight back onto her face.
If you can get her to hold quite still, you could bracket exposures and combine with HDR processing. You could also shoot a studio shot of her using a green-screen, and drop in a properly-exposed sunset later ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:29:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by rlewis:
You could have exposed her correctly by placing the camera on manual and basing your exposure on her face (or by applying exposure compensation in aperture or shutter priority), BUT in that case the sunset would have been blown out. |
or you could have done this! |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:36:12 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by rlewis:
You could have exposed her correctly by placing the camera on manual and basing your exposure on her face (or by applying exposure compensation in aperture or shutter priority), BUT in that case the sunset would have been blown out. |
or you could have done this! |
But doesn't THIS defeat the purpose of what he's trying to accomplish.. I too have tried this and find that there is no one way to expose correctly for a sunset and a person in the foreground with out using some sort of additional lighting on the person.. ie: fill flash or reflector...
It seems he's trying to ask if there's a way to do this in camera... Is the answer to this questions simply NO.. and you have to always add light to your subject if you want to have the sunset exposed correctly?? |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 03:37:35 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by rlewis:
You could have exposed her correctly by placing the camera on manual and basing your exposure on her face (or by applying exposure compensation in aperture or shutter priority), BUT in that case the sunset would have been blown out. |
or you could have done this! |
But that wouldn't have given him the result he wanted, would it?
eta; Kandy's too quick :)
Message edited by author 2009-07-19 15:37:58. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 04:07:01 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
It seems he's trying to ask if there's a way to do this in camera... Is the answer to this questions simply NO.. and you have to always add light to your subject if you want to have the sunset exposed correctly?? |
To expose "correctly", I think yes.
However, there are some other factors that can have an impact on how much detail you are able to retain in the 'silhouette'...
For example, just how bright the sunset is (how low to the horizon, how many clouds in the sky...), as well as I've found that the smaller the aperture you use (and thus the longer the exposure), the more leeway you have, and the better chance you have of either not blowing out the sky or not having the subject completely black.
I think this is because the longer you leave the shutter open, more light is able to slowly register from those really dark areas that just would not register anything in a quicker exposure, even though the actual "exposure level" is equivalent. Does that make sense? Haha
So I'm saying that in my experience, a 1-second shot at f/32 would have more details in the shadows than a 1/3000th shot at f/2.8 (assuming they are equal in exposure level, i did not do the computation :P) |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 04:09:33 PM · #11 |
| Oh and I will add that the quality of your camera will determine how 'wide' that exposure range can go before being blown out/under exposed, and finally, I have found that increasing the ISO can bring out more details in the shadows, compared to equivalent exposure levels at lower ISOs. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 04:11:03 PM · #12 |
I tried adjusting in PDP with Topaz, but to get it much lighter than this, you wind up getting blocky artifacts on her cheek and neck, from the jpeg compression. If you are shooting raw, you might be able to get a little more.
Here is what I was able to get.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2009 04:19:33 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by AP:
... I've found that the smaller the aperture you use (and thus the longer the exposure), the more leeway you have, and the better chance you have of either not blowing out the sky or not having the subject completely black.
I think this is because the longer you leave the shutter open, more light is able to slowly register from those really dark areas that just would not register anything in a quicker exposure, even though the actual "exposure level" is equivalent. Does that make sense? Haha |
That's not referred-to as "Haha" but rather as "Reciprocity Law Failure" -- however I think your analysis is essentially correct.:-) |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 12:37:26 AM · #14 |
Ambaker
I have the raw file. I will play with it in Topaz and see.
And thanks everyone for your replies.
The funny thing is that my naked eyes were able to see both my wife and the sunset clearly. I just that cameras can also capture what our eyes can. :)
Message edited by author 2009-07-20 00:37:54. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 09:55:01 AM · #15 |
I have read that EV range for a good digital camera is about five, and for the human eye, it's about 12. Your eyes can see a much greater dynamic range than your camera is capable of capturing in one shot.
Even if you shoot several exposures and use HDR to blend them, you may end up with an unnatural looking result. A good reflector and maybe flash just out of the scene is probably the best option to get the result you want.
|
|
