How to make this shot better next time?

[Golf4food]

I kept this image only to hopefully learn from it. The scene was not nearly this shadowed in the viewfinder or with my eyes (out of the camera), but the resultant photo is obviously quite underexposed on the buildings there in fantasy land behind the castle.

Is this a situation where I needed to use a different metering mode - spot instead of area? Something else? I'm guessing that may have helped and that I just left too much sky in the shot when I took the image (kind of walking along at the the time - mistake number one) and that even if I had just lowered the angle of focus more on the buildings it probably would have helped, but is there anything else?

EXIF Data below:

Camera: Pentax *ist DL
Exposure: 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture: f/9.5
Focal Length: 30 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0/10 EV
Flash: Flash did not fire
X-Resolution: 72 dpi
Y-Resolution: 72 dpi
Software: *ist DL Ver 1.03
Date and Time: 2007:09:06 09:05:59
YCbCr Positioning: Co-Sited
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
Date and Time (Original): 2007:09:06 09:05:59
Date and Time (Digitized): 2007:09:06 09:05:59
Metering Mode: Pattern
Color Space: sRGB
Sensing Method: One-chip colour area sensor
White Balance: 1
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 45
Subject Distance Range: 3
Compression: JPEG
Image Width: 2000 pixels
Image Height: 3008 pixels

 

[MICKEY88]

there are 2 ways to get a better shot in this type of lighting...spot meter the building and lock exposure, then recompose..or use exposure compensation, probably +2 would have worked

 

[extreme8]

Cameras have a much smaller dynamic range than the human eye, so often times with a shot like that you're going to need to give up something. You need to decide whether you want to loose detail in the bright areas or loose detail in the shadows.
If you choose to get a nice blue sky you're not going to see the front of the buildings, if you expose for the buildings the sky is going to wash out.

There are a few things that could work in that situation.

A circular polarizer might help to expose for the buildings and keep some color in the sky.

A graduated neutral density filter would certainly do the trick.

You could set up a bunch of flashes to illuminate the buildings to the same level as the background (I know, not practical, but I thought I'd add it anyway)

HDR would work if you had the time. So would compositing multiple images in photoshop (or similar).

 

[Golf4food]

Cameras have a much smaller dynamic range than the human eye, so often times with a shot like that you're going to need to give up something. You need to decide whether you want to loose detail in the bright areas or loose detail in the shadows.
If you choose to get a nice blue sky you're not going to see the front of the buildings, if you expose for the buildings the sky is going to wash out.

There are a few things that could work in that situation.

A circular polarizer might help to expose for the buildings and keep some color in the sky.

A graduated neutral density filter would certainly do the trick.

You could set up a bunch of flashes to illuminate the buildings to the same level as the background (I know, not practical, but I thought I'd add it anyway)

HDR would work if you had the time. So would compositing multiple images in photoshop (or similar).

I was using a CP filter the angle was not correct for it to any good on that particular shot. An ND filter is my next filter purchase. I have been coming across more situations where one would be necessary.

I like the idea of carrying in a bunch of large flashes for illumination best, lol.

 

[Golf4food]

there are 2 ways to get a better shot in this type of lighting...spot meter the building and lock exposure, then recompose..or use exposure compensation, probably +2 would have worked

Thanks! This is what i need to know and figure out when to use.

We'll be back down in November, so I'll have more chances to practice then.

 

[MICKEY88]

then there is the option of shooting at a different time of day if the sun would be in position to light the buildings...

 

[MICKEY88]

or there is saving it in post processing

I tried this quick with your pic I hope you don't mind..

I selected the sky, then inverted my selection, so I was working with the buildings..I then adjusted the brightness

 

[Disney*Dreamer]

or there is saving it in post processing

I tried this quick with your pic I hope you don't mind..

I selected the sky, then inverted my selection, so I was working with the buildings..I then adjusted the brightness

Wow that looks great!!!! What did you do to select around the buildings when selecting the sky? I can never seem to master that.

 

[MICKEY88]

I use paint shop pro photo x2,, I picked the selection tool , then the magic wand, I set the tolerance to 15 held the control key and clicked around the sky 'till I had it all..

 

[NostalgicDad]

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of using this as a perfect example of why I love CaptureNX2. Using the selection control point tool, it literally took me 10 seconds to adjust the D-Lighting solely on the buildings without even touching the sky. I left the setting on the low side since I personally like to leave some shadow effects.

Using exposure compensation as previously mentioned would help as well as a graduated neutral density filter. I would certainly meter on the buildings with or without the filter, though. Matrix or pattern metering "should" be able to allow for a decent exposure as I think spot metering in this situation might really cause the sky to get blown out since there are some really darker areas in the scene which would cause too slow a shutter speed. It's tough to get these types of shots right though.

 

[ukcatfan]

If you had shot in RAW, then you could have boosted the shadows without too much extra noise in that part of the pic. Doing this method is almost like you shot at ISO 800-1600 for the shadows and 200 for the highlights. You should always try to get the best capture, but at least in RAW, you can recover better when you mess up.

 

[Super]

If you have photoshop, just use the shadow lightness adjustment. This took me 2 seconds to open Photoshop, 1 Second to drag and drop the photo, 2 Seconds to click menus, satisfied with my defaults and another 2 seconds to save (took about 30 seconds to upload it and type this)

 

[Golf4food]

All the postprocessing tips are great, but my software is 10 years old and isn't too likely to be upgraded anytime soon, so it lacks a lot of the modern features and conveniences. I'm more concerned with getting it right "in camera" anyway - whenever possible. I would certainly love a new editing program, though - it would make life easier...

 

[bob100]

I'm more concerned with getting it right "in camera" anyway - whenever possible. I would certainly love a new editing program, though - it would make life easier...

but many times it isn't possible to get it right "in camera" perfect every time. That side of the building at that time will always be in the shade. Some post processing helps even the best photos. There's plenty of software tools out there to enhance pictures and many are free!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

First and most importantly, I would recompose the shot. Why is there so much open sky in the photo? Have the building go nearly to the top of your picture.

If you do that, your camera will meter off of the building and it will look much lighter. You won't need to do anything fancy like spot metering or exposure compensation.

When you recompose and the building is much lighter, the sky will be much lighter as well. Because the building is in the shade, the sky will probably be too bright for your camera and will just look white. That's a hard problem to solve. You could try to light the building with a flash to make it brighter, but it's too big. You could take to pictures (one with a bright building and one with a blue sky) and then merge them together (look up HDR).

Another thing that I think would help would be a scantily clad female. An attractive young lady with an exposed midriff (maybe Jasmine or Ariel) really makes a picture POP!

Now some of you are thinking that is sexist and that a scantily clad male would work just as well. You're wrong. Go to the grocery store and look at the pictures on the covers of magazines. The guy magazines have pictures of scantily clad women, presumably because that is what guys want to see. The women's magazines also have pictures of women (OK, they usually aren't quite as scantily clad) on them. I can only assume from that that everyone prefers scantily clad women in their pictures.

 

[RBennett]

Another thing that I think would help would be a scantily clad female. An attractive young lady with an exposed midriff (maybe Jasmine or Ariel) really makes a picture POP!

Now some of you are thinking that is sexist and that a scantily clad male would work just as well. You're wrong. Go to the grocery store and look at the pictures on the covers of magazines. The guy magazines have pictures of scantily clad women, presumably because that is what guys want to see. The women's magazines also have pictures of women (OK, they usually aren't quite as scantily clad) on them. I can only assume from that that everyone prefers scantily clad women in their pictures.

That is BRILLIANT logic!!!! Think I can convince my wife of this???

 

[MICKEY88]

First and most importantly, I would recompose the shot. Why is there so much open sky in the photo? Have the building go nearly to the top of your picture.

If you do that, your camera will meter off of the building and it will look much lighter. You won't need to do anything fancy like spot metering or exposure compensation.

When you recompose and the building is much lighter, the sky will be much lighter as well. Because the building is in the shade, the sky will probably be too bright for your camera and will just look white. That's a hard problem to solve. You could try to light the building with a flash to make it brighter, but it's too big. You could take to pictures (one with a bright building and one with a blue sky) and then merge them together (look up HDR).

Another thing that I think would help would be a scantily clad female. An attractive young lady with an exposed midriff (maybe Jasmine or Ariel) really makes a picture POP!

Now some of you are thinking that is sexist and that a scantily clad male would work just as well. You're wrong. Go to the grocery store and look at the pictures on the covers of magazines. The guy magazines have pictures of scantily clad women, presumably because that is what guys want to see. The women's magazines also have pictures of women (OK, they usually aren't quite as scantily clad) on them. I can only assume from that that everyone prefers scantily clad women in their pictures.

my experience has been that Jasmine or Ariel, are often busy due to job assignments from Disney, so I always take a model with me, even if it means leaving a family member at home to make room for the model.

Your family won't mind once they see that your WDW photos are the best you've ever taken..

 

[webshark3]

First and most importantly, I would recompose the shot. Why is there so much open sky in the photo? Have the building go nearly to the top of your picture.

I agree. Or better yet, something about it screams "landscape" over portrait. It's been a year though, I forgot what's on the other sides.

I'd also like to see something that would help add some depth to the photo. It looks flat. Not sure how to do it myself, just throwing the idea out there.

And like they all say, shoot RAW.

 

[ukcatfan]

All the postprocessing tips are great, but my software is 10 years old and isn't too likely to be upgraded anytime soon, so it lacks a lot of the modern features and conveniences. I'm more concerned with getting it right "in camera" anyway - whenever possible. I would certainly love a new editing program, though - it would make life easier...

Didn't Pentax Photo Lab come with your camera? It is the RAW processing software that comes free with the camera. It is surprisingly powerful and could easily recover the shadows. You have to shoot in RAW though. Also check out Raw Therapee for another free option. For free photo editing similar to PS, check out The Gimp.