Newbie Q - Canon 550D - Landscape photo issue
Discussion
Hi,
As a new owner of a 550D, but also new to SLR photography, I've been playing about a bit with the various settings on the camera and come up with an issue.
I'm not confident enough (by some distance!) to use full manual, so have resorted to using the smart-auto settings, portrait, landscape etc. However, I've found that using the landscape setting in mountainous regions tends to over-expose the background (often the distant peaks I'm snapping at) in priority of the greeny browns of the foreground. I'll post a pic below as and example, but any and all advice would be very welcome.
It seems a bit catch-22. I worry if I play with too many settings, I'll c0ck up all my photos, so have nothing of the day out/trip I'm on, but on the other hand, I'm clearly doing something so monumentally dumb on the auto-modes, I'm defeating their idiot-proof nature!
I should add that I know, with some time and effort, I can get to grips with the settings. I'd just like the photos in the mean time to be half decent and not rubbish. Many thanks in advance!
Classic example below...
As a new owner of a 550D, but also new to SLR photography, I've been playing about a bit with the various settings on the camera and come up with an issue.
I'm not confident enough (by some distance!) to use full manual, so have resorted to using the smart-auto settings, portrait, landscape etc. However, I've found that using the landscape setting in mountainous regions tends to over-expose the background (often the distant peaks I'm snapping at) in priority of the greeny browns of the foreground. I'll post a pic below as and example, but any and all advice would be very welcome.
It seems a bit catch-22. I worry if I play with too many settings, I'll c0ck up all my photos, so have nothing of the day out/trip I'm on, but on the other hand, I'm clearly doing something so monumentally dumb on the auto-modes, I'm defeating their idiot-proof nature!
I should add that I know, with some time and effort, I can get to grips with the settings. I'd just like the photos in the mean time to be half decent and not rubbish. Many thanks in advance!
Classic example below...
Don't be too hard on yourself. I think you've just tripped over a classic problem. Basically your camera has a poorer dynamic range than your eyes. Whilst you can see the bright blue sky and dark shadows on the ground all at once, your camera can't and so it has to choose whether it is going to expose for the bright stuff or the dark stuff. Generally, they'll expose for the dark stuff which leaves you with a big white sky (though why your's is blue I have no idea) and other areas of pure white (blown highlights).
There are several ways to get around the problem. Firstly, if you shoot in raw, you might find you can recover a lot of the lost detail.
If you're are happy that your foreground is going to be dark, you could point your camera up to the sky and then hold down the exposure lock button and recompose your image. You should find that the sky and other bright areas are exposed nicely and your foreground is very dark
You could wait until the light is such that there is less light difference between the bright areas and the shadows. Typically this would be facing away from the sun.
You could take two exposures, one for the highlights and one for the shadows and then merge them afterwards to get one good exposure.
Lastly, you can use graduated filters. These have a dark area on so that you can balance the brightness of the sky against the foreground.
There are several ways to get around the problem. Firstly, if you shoot in raw, you might find you can recover a lot of the lost detail.
If you're are happy that your foreground is going to be dark, you could point your camera up to the sky and then hold down the exposure lock button and recompose your image. You should find that the sky and other bright areas are exposed nicely and your foreground is very dark
You could wait until the light is such that there is less light difference between the bright areas and the shadows. Typically this would be facing away from the sun.
You could take two exposures, one for the highlights and one for the shadows and then merge them afterwards to get one good exposure.
Lastly, you can use graduated filters. These have a dark area on so that you can balance the brightness of the sky against the foreground.
Thanks for the input. Having read some forum posts, read the basics of the manual and so on, it makes sense and in reality, I'm just going to have to practice or be clever, as described above.
I figured it was probably something to do with where I'm aiming for focus, though irritatingly the phenomenon seems most prevalent where there is relatively close foreground and then very distant background, like many mountainous regions tend to have. It's not such an issue when I have images with all the land in between, so I think I may need to pay attention to where I'm pointing the camera, so to speak, and also try two or more exposures of the same photo for combining.
Practice, practice, practice!
I figured it was probably something to do with where I'm aiming for focus, though irritatingly the phenomenon seems most prevalent where there is relatively close foreground and then very distant background, like many mountainous regions tend to have. It's not such an issue when I have images with all the land in between, so I think I may need to pay attention to where I'm pointing the camera, so to speak, and also try two or more exposures of the same photo for combining.
Practice, practice, practice!
The other thing is that unlike film, it doesn't cost you anything to take a few shots of the same thing.
I don't shoot Canon, but I'm sure it must have a bracketing mode somewhere? This will shoot shots exposed more and less than what it thinks it should be. You just choose the best one.
As has been said, if you use RAW you get more dynamic range too.
I don't shoot Canon, but I'm sure it must have a bracketing mode somewhere? This will shoot shots exposed more and less than what it thinks it should be. You just choose the best one.
As has been said, if you use RAW you get more dynamic range too.
As GW says, you've got a really tricky exposure to work with there, very dark foreground, very bright and light background, more than the camera can cope with.
In the interim I'd look at using HDR on a scene like this, download a demo of Photomatix or Nik HDR Efex and have a play.
If you're keen on landscapes I'd get a set of graduated ND filters and learn how to use them, the effort will pay off in the long run. If you need any advice on them just shout up.
In the interim I'd look at using HDR on a scene like this, download a demo of Photomatix or Nik HDR Efex and have a play.
If you're keen on landscapes I'd get a set of graduated ND filters and learn how to use them, the effort will pay off in the long run. If you need any advice on them just shout up.
Smitters said:
Thanks for the input. Having read some forum posts, read the basics of the manual and so on, it makes sense and in reality, I'm just going to have to practice or be clever, as described above.
I figured it was probably something to do with where I'm aiming for focus, though irritatingly the phenomenon seems most prevalent where there is relatively close foreground and then very distant background, like many mountainous regions tend to have. It's not such an issue when I have images with all the land in between, so I think I may need to pay attention to where I'm pointing the camera, so to speak, and also try two or more exposures of the same photo for combining.
Practice, practice, practice!
It's a classic compromise situation that, traditionally, has been addressed using filters of one sort or another.I figured it was probably something to do with where I'm aiming for focus, though irritatingly the phenomenon seems most prevalent where there is relatively close foreground and then very distant background, like many mountainous regions tend to have. It's not such an issue when I have images with all the land in between, so I think I may need to pay attention to where I'm pointing the camera, so to speak, and also try two or more exposures of the same photo for combining.
Practice, practice, practice!
The exposure can be based on different areas of the image - all or it, bits of it, usually more central, or a very small specific part of it should that be required. Usually some of the options will offer to be tied in to the point of focus if the setting is looking for some specific subject whereas for a Landscape it may be more general.
What the programmed settings are actually doing is another matter - the manual will probably give guidance.
There are a number of ways to approach the need to assist the camera's ability to take the image you want to take not the one the camera has been programmed to offer. The beauty of digital is that you can try them in seconds and look at the recorded information to show you what worked and what didn't. Don't be afraid to experiment as part of your learning experience.
Once you have got to grips with what the camera can deliver there will be computer based processing to discover.
So many options, so little time ...
markmullen said:
If you're keen on landscapes I'd get a set of graduated ND filters and learn how to use them, the effort will pay off in the long run. If you need any advice on them just shout up.
^. Get yourself a graduated ND8 or whatever it's called. Ideally you want an ND4 and an 8. Also, don't buy the cheap crap off Ebay either, get the proper Colin or Lee filters. Be warned, the pros will tell you that Cokin is crap and you shouldn't buy anything less than Lee....either way, just don't buy the rubbish off Ebay.I wouldn't do HDR with landscapes. But if you do - under no circumstances mention that you did. And make sure all "ringing" is hidden. Ringing is where HDR finds a contrasting part of the photograph and then over exposes the light part very slightly along the contrasting edge. It's an easy HDR tell. HDR tends to fail the moment someone can spot it.
And if it makes you feel any better, the shot you took is a really difficult shot in the first place. I'm playing with mountain shots at the moment, mostly failing.
What they all said..
Look at the hitech filters from : http://www.teamworkphoto.com/
Not as good as Lee, but you can get an entire set (x3 GND x3 ND) for the cost of one Lee filter. I used a cookin hlder which is cheap, but does the job
Look at the hitech filters from : http://www.teamworkphoto.com/
Not as good as Lee, but you can get an entire set (x3 GND x3 ND) for the cost of one Lee filter. I used a cookin hlder which is cheap, but does the job
Gad-Westy said:
Don't be too hard on yourself. I think you've just tripped over a classic problem. Basically your camera has a poorer dynamic range than your eyes. Whilst you can see the bright blue sky and dark shadows on the ground all at once, your camera can't and so it has to choose whether it is going to expose for the bright stuff or the dark stuff. Generally, they'll expose for the dark stuff which leaves you with a big white sky (though why your's is blue I have no idea) and other areas of pure white (blown highlights).
There are several ways to get around the problem. Firstly, if you shoot in raw, you might find you can recover a lot of the lost detail.
If you're are happy that your foreground is going to be dark, you could point your camera up to the sky and then hold down the exposure lock button and recompose your image. You should find that the sky and other bright areas are exposed nicely and your foreground is very dark
You could wait until the light is such that there is less light difference between the bright areas and the shadows. Typically this would be facing away from the sun.
You could take two exposures, one for the highlights and one for the shadows and then merge them afterwards to get one good exposure.
Lastly, you can use graduated filters. These have a dark area on so that you can balance the brightness of the sky against the foreground.
I would have responded almost word for word.There are several ways to get around the problem. Firstly, if you shoot in raw, you might find you can recover a lot of the lost detail.
If you're are happy that your foreground is going to be dark, you could point your camera up to the sky and then hold down the exposure lock button and recompose your image. You should find that the sky and other bright areas are exposed nicely and your foreground is very dark
You could wait until the light is such that there is less light difference between the bright areas and the shadows. Typically this would be facing away from the sun.
You could take two exposures, one for the highlights and one for the shadows and then merge them afterwards to get one good exposure.
Lastly, you can use graduated filters. These have a dark area on so that you can balance the brightness of the sky against the foreground.
Wow. Lots to digest there, especially filters. I have a lot of my Dad's slr stuff, inc filters, so will sort through. In the long term I'm after a wide angle for landscapes, but in the short term I'm off on hols, so will try to understand what the camera is trying to do in auto and work around that as best I can, plus scale down my expectations on eye versus camera. Oh, and not shoot at midday and expect magic...
Smitters said:
Wow. Lots to digest there, especially filters. I have a lot of my Dad's slr stuff, inc filters, so will sort through. In the long term I'm after a wide angle for landscapes, but in the short term I'm off on hols, so will try to understand what the camera is trying to do in auto and work around that as best I can, plus scale down my expectations on eye versus camera. Oh, and not shoot at midday and expect magic...
Discover bracketing as a first step to seeing what the camera will do based on the sort of manual settings you might deploy. It's automated so makes using is a doddle.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff