The Moon

I hope anyone reading this is staying safe. I am doing my best to which is staying away from as many people as I can and wearing a mask when I can’t.

So I went out to get pictures of NEOWISE with a friend at Seven Magic Mountains outside of Las Vegas. We got some pictures of it. While we were there I pointed my camera at the moon and he seemed surprised when I told him my settings. They were 210mm, iso 400, f4.0, and 1/1250. From my experience of taking pictures of the moon only manual exposure works. If I had a greater focal length then it might not be an issue, currently though I am limited to 300mm max well technically it would be 450mm with the crop factor. It might work with adjusting the exposure compensation. I am of a mind that if I have the time I might as well go full manual if I need to adjust exposure comp.

The problem with small bright objects in a night frame is that they get blown out. The camera tries to bring the whole screen to an even exposure. A night scene generally doesn’t want that. A night sky is supposed to look nearly black. At 300mm the Moon doesn’t take up enough room in the frame to make a big difference to the sensor. So it treats it as a mostly dark frame and over exposes the moon, which leaves a bright spot in a black frame because the sensor is trying to get a curve in the histogram. It can’t because there is to much difference between the bright Moon and the dark sky. So you get an overexposed moon with very little detail. This was taken at 210mm 1/15 second iso 400 f5 which is what my camera meter said was was exposed properly. Click on it to zoom in for detail.

As seen above the camera doesn’t always know what is correct. Granted this has limited editing, I only changed the WB. If I wanted I could bring down some of the highlights and get more detail. Or I could not listen to the camera and get a better exposure. I took it again with what looked correct to me in manual. The camera said it was very under exposed. Click to zoom.

I included the full image in here to illustrate how little of the frame the moon will fill. With a longer focal length this might be a non issue. Even with a 300mm lens attached to a crop sensor it is still an issue. I hope this was informative. If you have any questions feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer. Again stay safe and wear a mask.

~Scott

Light Pollution

Hello again,

So a question came up while talking about photographing the Milky Way. It was basically can the Milky Way be photographed when it can’t be seen because of city lights. My response was no because of the light pollution. I never really tried though so while going out of town to get some Milky Way images I decided to see what the images would look like to have my own proof to my statement. So I live in Las Vegas which is a pretty bright place with the strongest beam of light in the world coming from the Luxor on top of all the other lights coming from the Strip, Downtown, and the surrounding city. It is the biggest light polluter in the state of Nevada, with the help of a few smaller cities it ruins the night sky for most of Clark County going past the borders of neighboring states. So I was going to Big Dune which is about 2 hours away from where I live just South of Las Vegas. I made some stops and took some pictures with settings that I have used to capture the Milky Way.

All of these images were taken with the same settings 10 seconds, f2.8, iso 1600, 28mm and facing roughly South.

The first image was taken from an overpass roughly 15 miles from the center of the city some stars can be seen but the lights over power most of it. It picked up more stars than I could make out with my eyes though.

The second image was 10 miles later or 25 miles from the center of the city. It was actually facing closer to south. I had time to figure it out as I wasn’t illegally parked. That 10 miles decreased the city lights quite a bit, they can still be seen though and the truck driving by didn’t change it much. I had one with no lights going through the frame and it was nearly the same but I bumped the tripod so there was camera shake.

The third image was another 15 miles later or 40 miles from the center of town. The amount of stars increased drastically by adding that distance. At this point I am still seeing the light from the city on the left of the image.

The fourth image adds another 25 miles making it 65 miles North West of the middle of Las Vegas. The main difference now is that the sky is more black. It doesn’t seem like there are many more stars noticeable to me they appear more prominent in the blacker sky though.

Here is an image taken with the same settings and processed the same. This was from about 100 miles North West of the center of Vegas in Big Dune. It was aimed more South West than South though.

The difference between 65 miles and the 100 miles might not be that great, to me it was less interference, no cars, the quiet, being able to take my time, and again the quiet. I wasn’t going out there to take pictures of just the stars I was doing it to get the Milky Way which is processed differently. The reason the above image is South West is because of the Milky Way.

Above is all of the images edited the same as I would for the image of the Milky Way. To me the only one that looks right like this is the one of the Milky Way. The rest the stars look altered and the rest of the lights look either way too warm or purple. I was just doing it for comparison. I hope that I gave out some worth while advice. Again I would enjoy seeing images that were helped by this in the comments.

~Scott

Layers

Good morning,

So I started writing a blog talking about how I made one of the more recent pictures that I posted and realized that the actions that it took had not been explained. Like layers. So I use photoshop and lightroom. They have become familiar and if you are a student or a teacher they have a discount on the software. I am not sure if it works with the subscription plan that they have now though.

So layers if you are not familiar are like putting a bunch of pieces of paper on top of each other. Depending on the paper it might not do all that much. If it is construction paper then you only see the top sheet, if it is tracing paper then you can see a few sheets down, if it is celluloid then the only part that you can’t see is the part that has writing or drawing on it. It depends on how you treat the layers in photoshop and if you use a mask (layer masks will be discussed at a later time).

Let’s start with a star trail stack. After taking the images using a sturdy tripod or mount go into photoshop, cut and paste the images on top of each other. This will make layers starting at 1 with a Background. You could also got to File>Automate>Photomerge and pick auto. I have not had much luck with it I have met people who have. The results are similar though.

These three images add up to about 14.5 minutes of exposure. I put the same settings on all of them when converting to jpeg then stacked them in photoshop. After you do that then you will only see the top layer. There is a drop down menu in the layers tab/window that should say “normal.” The trick here is to go to that drop down menu and pick “lighten” for everything except the background. The parts of the image that add light will show up through the layers.

Above is all three images stacked with the “lighten” setting then I went to Layer>Flatten Image which will put all the layers together into one that can be saved as a tiff or jpeg. Notice that the sky got brighter from the light pollution, being near a bright city doesn’t work well with astrophotography. This will work with other times when trying put together multiple images, car trails, I even heard that it will work with water to mimic a long exposure (I haven’t tried it though). So grab a sturdy mount, a remote, your camera then go out and shoot.

~Scott

Star Trails

Good afternoon,

Today it is onto star trails which are very different from getting the stars to be static. Similarities are; needing a sturdy tripod, know what you are trying to capture, a foreground interest can make a picture, and planning helps.

Now the differences; a high ISO is not needed, a large aperture is not as important, and a remote release is important. After about 15 seconds or so the stars can be seen as more than a dot. With trails we want that so that is why ISO and a large aperture aren't as big of a deal. 

Here is a stack of 30 second exposures taken back to back from a balcony in Lake Tahoe. Pointed North - Northeast. Around 140 images put together for a total of a 70 minutes exposure, each photo was 30 seconds each, 28mm, f2.8, 200 iso.

So there are 2 ways to go about star trails. Either taking a bunch or photos and stacking them afterward like above. The benefits are; less noise, if frames have something unwanted (planes, satellites, UFOs, etc) they can be left out. The down side it is time consuming in post.

Below is the other way which is to keep the shutter open for a really long time. I have heard of all night exposures. Personally I have gone with a couple of hours at most with good results. The benefits are it has more of a set it and forget it approach, and post processing is just a couple of images (if combining exposures of a separate foreground and background). The bad part is if something goes across the frame it is a pain if even possible to remove it and there could be more noise from the long exposure.

This was taken in Death Valley, I light painted the tree. I was trying to capture some meteors in the shot and failed. This was a 29 minute single exposure. 28mm, f5.6, 1759 seconds, 400 iso.

Experiment and see which you prefer. There are programs that are designed to make the stacking process easier, I just use photoshop because I don't take this type of image often. So find a night sky, grab your tripod, shutter release, camera then go out and shoot.

~Scott

Revisiting Photographed Locations

Good Morning,

If one has been photographing a while they probably have an old haunt that they enjoy photographing. Some of us do not though feeling that it has already been photographed. Different times of the year can yield greatly varied results, even a different time of day can, or a different mind set even. 

Below is the same location. One shot during a rain and the other shot the day after one, granted the rains were nearly a year apart. The two images have a completely different feel to them. Same camera, lens, tripod, and focal length. They were taken probably 6 feet or so from each other too. 

This was a calm pool taken the day after a rain in Red Rock Canyon National Conservatory. I found this spot while I went hiking with my daughters and it was empty. I knew I had to come back after a rain and photograph it.

After taking the calm picture and how full the pool was I wanted to come back during a rain and see it with flowing water.

So those places that capture us should be looked at again and imagined in different times of day or year, with different weather, etc. The results might be ho hum or they might be spectacular. So grab a camera , revisit locales, and go out and shoot.

Can wait to see what is produced.

~Scott

Post Processing: Presets

Good Afternoon,

Today we are going to discuss presets in post processing as the title said. There are many options for processing RAW files. Cameras generally come with their own software and it can be all that we need. Other times we need to go outside of what the manufacturer provided. Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, Affinity Photo, DxO Photolab, and many others. I generally use Lightroom to process images and Photoshop if I need to do some more serious editing.

In Lightroom there are presets already present. B&W: Filter, Toned, and just B&W, then Color presets, General presets, and Effect presets which are all fine and dandy for general use. We can make our own though which can be applied during import. It can be brought down to very specific settings. What we do is open our RAW file then adjust it to our liking then save it through the Develop pull down menu. There is a New Preset option or we can hit ctrl/cmd+shift+N. Now this is more for something that will be used often, (such as noise reduction for different ISOs, portrait with a flash, outside portraits, landscapes, sunsets, etc) if we are looking for something just for one group of photos then we can copy (ctrl/cmd+C) and paste (ctrl/cmd+V) the setting to each image or a group in the grid view. This is just a starting point for when importing images to lightroom, not every landscape we do will be optimal for these settings it beats starting from scratch on each shoot.

Here is where we can apply the presets during import and below the circled setting is Metadata that can be applied as well. If the preset is saved we can skip a step in post.

Here are where any presets we create end up. Sony Standard is my normal and mimics what I see through the viewfinder on Standard setting and is a good starting point.

This is the settings for my own Standard which is usually where I end up with outdoor scenes. Mind you this is for a Sony SLT so it might not work that well for a Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax etc.

If lightroom is not what is used there are ways to make our own presets there as well. Now go out and shoot then make a preset or two to edit the images.

~Scott

P.S. there is a comment section under each post I would enjoy hearing from you all and seeing pictures.

Situational Packing

Good morning,

Sorry it has been so long, work and holiday stuff has been taking  a toll. Today we are going to talk about packing gear. Most photographers have more gear than can easily be packed into something that is portable like a backpack. Take the example below.

This is digital cameras a57 on top and a77 on the bottom, then lenses and flashes. This is just the basics not counting chargers, batteries, filters, etc. For size reference each square is 6 inches.

Now most of us probably don't want to have a rolling suitcase in tow or have the ability to have an assistant carry our gear. Most people opt for a backpack or an over the shoulder bag for storage.

Here is my trusty camera bag with a storage area on top. With kids as travel companions it is quite handy. Even with the flap open is doesn't cover the same amount of 6x6 tiles that my gear does.

Situational packing is key for this situation. We can't always bring every piece of gear that we have. First off we can knock out one long zoom, not great lighting anticipated take the faster 70-210 f4, or do we need a little extra zoom the 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 is better. Is macro photography the goal, take the 50mm f2.8 macro if not then the 50mm f1.7. Just those 2 drop it to 6 from 8. Now comes the trickier part. Are wide landscapes or getting the whole room in the frame the goal? If so take the 11-18mm instead of the 35-70mm. If not then we can switch those. If we are taking the 35-70 then the ultra wide and 50mm can be left at home unless you need the 50 for macro. Keeping one lens with a wide aperture is a good rule, in this case it is either one of the 50mm lenses or the 28mm f2.8. The 35-70 covers the 50mm range so the 28mm would be in the bag, if the 11-18 is going then so is a 50mm. Through our image processing software we can see which lenses we use the most to help decide what to pack. Just what has been covered with the lenses cuts them by half.

Not everyone has more than one camera body. So this might not pertain to everyone. If we do though then this is a choice to be made as well. If the situation requires a quick lens change or missing the shot (wedding, sporting event, children playing, etc) then bring two if not then one should suffice. If the environment is not a place we want to change a lens (windy, sandy, dusty, etc) then bring two with the lenses attached that will most likely be used. Most times one camera is fine.

Now to the flashes. If you need them bring them if you don't then don't. If people indoors or in shaded areas are the subject being them though. There are so many times that a fast lens doesn't suffice in those situations.

I will be adding a picture soon of typical packing for different situations.

Magazines

Good evening,

Magazines are a common item to acquire and they often have a useful article or two in each edition. Now keeping a magazine for one article is a little much. Unless we are collecting them to keep in pristine condition as a collectable or because one has been featured in it. Most of the time that is not the case though. I am going to pass on what I do so I don't have stacks and stacks of magazines all over the house.

I took a 3 ring binder and some letter size sleet protectors. I then cut out the articles that I want to keep, staple them together, then recycle the rest of the magazine. Most of it is just advertisements. For the same size as 5 mags we could have about 10 pages worth of articles (and that is being generous most of the time it is 5 pages) from 25 editions or over 2 years worth a monthly subscription.

A 3 ring binder and some sheet protectors

Granted most articles are online now so they could be saved on the computer or cloud and that is fine. Magazines are still being printed so people are still buying them and storing them too. This post wasn't really about photography directly. I just got a copy of a magazine and thought that I would share my storage process with you all. So take the previous information and go out and shoot.

~Scott

Shaped Bokeh

Good day,

Quite a few of us are planning on taking holiday photos. If we want something a little different shaped bokeh is a possibility.

I went with hearts, those are christmas lights in the back. In the front is a little dog my children made.

Hearts, stars, silhouettes, trees... Nearly any simple shape is an option. There are kits that can be bought from what I have seen the shapes are limited and the reviews say they work alright. Once we get the hang of making the cut out it is easy.

Required items are a large aperture lens (the larger the better), some black construction paper, tape, a sharp cutting instrument, a white crayon, lights, and a shape that is smaller than the largest aperture of the lens. Optional is a lens hood, step ring, or square filter holder.

I use a 50mm 1.7 Minolta lens, then cut out a square to fit the ring for a square filter holder, I draw the shape with a white crayon, cut it out with a sharp knife, then tape it to the ring (the paper could just be taped to the lens), I then set up the lights (candle flames, christmas lights, fairy lights, etc) and purposely put the lights out of focus. The distance from subject to lights in the above image was about 5-6 feet. Put them too close and there isn't a shape, put them too far and the image is too small.

Sorry this was late I was in Zion for a few days, updated pictures in the Zion folder will be in the next few days. We even took our family picture with only one take. Make some shapes and go out and shoot.

~Scott

Lenses: Focal Lengths

Good Morning,

Today we are going to talk about focal lengths and their effects on images. We have discussed different focal lengths and what they are generally used for. We have not talked about how they affect the image or rather the relationship between subject and background. Below is a series of a red rose with a praying mantis on it in my backyard. I tried to stay focused on the same spot of the rose but moving and changing lenses does not help, thankfully the wind didn't give me any issues. First image is at 11mm, some distortion can be seen on the wall and the area of focus is wide and it looks like the wall is pretty far away. The second is at 18mm and the wall looks closer, pretty much everything looks closer or tighter, the distortion at the wall is negligible, and praying mantis is still judging us. Third we have 50mm and we can barely see any of the wall, the image is a bit brighter, I didn't have it on manual and it changed shutter speed was changed in Av. The honeysuckle doesn't look as far as it did before and out area of focus seems to have shrunk.  Fourth is 100mm and it was switched to manual mode. The praying mantis is so judgemental and has been for a while. It appears that the honeysuckle is just behind the rose bushes leaves and is rather out of focus. Fifth and final image is at 300mm, sorry the angle changed a little to keep in the same size I had to go up a step. The mantis stared directly at the camera, finally. The leaves are hard to make out on the honeysuckle now and look pretty close.

As can be seen through the images. If a subject is kept the same size the relationship with the background can be greatly affected by the focal length of the lens. What we are trying to convey with our images can be changed by zooming. Now go out and shoot.

~Scott

Equipment: Specialty Lenses

Good Afternoon,

I am planning on changing the posting day to Tuesdays. Sunday just seems rushed. I meant to post this last Tuesday my life has been a little hectic. Next post day should be the 14th unless tomorrow goes amazingly well then I will have a post on 7th.

Last time we talked about regular lenses. Now we will go over specialty lenses. There are quite a few Lensbaby has a whole line, and there are tilt shifts as well. The ones that I have had experience with as of now are Macro, Pinhole, and Fisheye. I don't have a fisheye at the moment but I have used then before and am not a fan.

Macro lenses project the image onto the film or sensor at a 1 to 1 ratio or larger. This means that the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject. With a Sony crop sensor (23.5 x 15.6mm) an image of a dime (17.91mm) would not completely fit on the sensor. There are lenses that have a greater than 1 to 1 ration, there are close up filters, and there is also the technique of reverse mounting a lens. I haven't had a chance to experiment with a greater than 1 to 1 lens, Canon MP-E65 is the only one I can even think of (1x to 5x magnification). There are also some zoom lenses out there that say Macro on them and get you a 1 to 2 or 1 to 4 life size, they are not true macro but they are a step if you want to try it out.

I have tried close up filters when I got my first DSLR (a Canon XTi) and didn't have much luck with them. It goes back to the quality of the glass that you put in front of your lens the ones I had were cheap and came with the camera from an aftermarket seller. Update: I found an old close up +3 filter and tried it on my 75-300mm Minolta. First image is without the filter at 75mm, the second image is with the filter at 75mm. All I did was move the tape measure roughly 3 ft closer to the camera.

Reverse mounting lenses I have tried with minimal success, I might not have given it enough of a chance. It was a dual threaded empty filter ring and the front elements of the lenses were front to front, focusing was done by moving the camera back and forth. There was very limited control and the depth of field was razor thin. If I recall correctly I had part of an insects eye in focus and part out of focus. I will look for some of the results from using it and post them here.

Pinhole lenses, lens is a little misleading, are a small hole that allows light into the camera. Most lenses have a range of f22 to f32 for the f-stop. Each whole stop, DSLRs can generally to 1/2 and 1/3 stops, halves or doubles the size of the aperture depending on if we are making in smaller or bigger. The pinhole in the picture above is around f190 and it roughly equates to a 50mm lens. The clear image above is a 50mm at f7.1 and the not so clear image is about 50mm and f190. If we are serious about pinhole photography then we can alter the thickness of the foil to obtain a more clear picture. I have found interesting images when searching with the parameters of “pinhole” “sun” and “long exposure.” In this case diffraction is the cause of the blurriness and this is the reason that we should probably stick to an aperture around f9 while using a lens. Going from f22 or f32 to f190 is about 6 stops (1.5% of the light) and about 5 stops (3% of the light) respectively. If we have a scene where detail isn't as important as the play of color and light vs dark then a pinhole is great. There are products we could buy for this type of photography or we could make one ourselves. All that is needed is a spare camera cover, a drill, foil, tape, and a needle. I used and insulin needle which I believe was a 31g. Pictures 3 and 4 in this slide show above show my finished result. Personally it is fun to play around with but I have yet to produce a worth while picture with it. That is all I have so go out and shoot.

~Scott

Equipment: Lenses

Good Evening,

We haven't really talked about primary equipment. It probably should have been done before filters. Let's start with lenses. The camera lens focuses light onto the sensor through an assortment of different shaped lenses inside of it. The eye changes focus by changing the shape of the lens with small muscles and this is how we have such a wide range of focus, from around 6 inches in front of our eyes to infinity. Glass lenses can't, at this time, change shape like that so they change the distance between the pieces of glass for a similar effect. The aperture takes the place of the pupil, opening and closing to let more or less light in as the situation demands. The aperture affects the image as well with things such as bokeh and starbursts.

There are many types of lenses which can be broken down pretty far. I am trying something new with the blog, carousels. Click on the pictures to cycle though the images.

Below is the same shot of the moon at 11mm, 18mm, and 35mm.

Wide angle - used for landscapes, cityscapes, and interiors (this would also include ultra wide lenses). Depending on the person this is anything less than 35mm in crop sensor and 50mm in full frame there is wiggle room in those numbers though. There is a wide angle of view on these lenses, not as wide as the human eye though which is about 180 degrees if you have both eyes functioning. For example an 11mm lens on a crop sensor has 104 degree angle of view, a 35mm has 42 degree, and a 50mm has 32 degree.

Below is the moon at 50mm and 70mm.

Normal angle - used for portraits, general shooting. This focal length is more or less how the eye sees the world. If we open both eyes while looking though the view finder each eye will see everything about the same size. For full frame I always heard 50mm and I have heard the same for crop sensors too which doesn't make sense. I just picked up a full frame (FF) and crop sensor (crop) camera and found it to be around 50mm for the crop and 70mm or so for the FF. More or less anything between wide and telephoto.

Below is at 100mm and 300mm which is about a typical or so range for a telephoto zoom.

Telephoto lens - used for sports, wildlife, celestial events, aviation. This type of lens brings everything in close. On the lower focal end they have use in portrait photography and macro photography. The price that we pay to get far away object closer is we loose wide angle of view. As an example a 75-300mm lens has field of view range of 21 - 5 degrees on a crop. If we want a close up of a bird or the moon then we don't need those extra degrees though.

Then there are zooms and fixed. Fixed lenses can often have wider aperture, can cost less, and can be sharper. We have to have many of them though or decide to "zoom" with our feet. Zoom lenses cover many focal lengths, the downside is that they are usually more expensive, they might have apertures that aren't as wide, and less expensive ones might not be as sharp. We come to a point where we make a decision of one over the other and deal with the downsides. I have both zooms and fixed and take which ones I need on each outing that I feel will be suit me. Now lenses don't only have to fit into these boxes. A telephoto lens can be used for landscapes and a wide angle can be used for sports and celestial events. Be creative and see what works for each situation.

I feel that lenses are worth more of an investment than the camera. I have multiple lenses that are still functioning fine that were discontinued in the mid 80s. It was all film back then. If a lens is taken care of it will last longer than the camera it came with. We can get into specialty lenses at a later date. Now go out and shoot.

Filter: Neutral Density Filters aka ND

Good Evening,

Today the little ones and I went to Red Rock Canyon. I brought along some ND filters to show what they can do.

ND filters are basically like putting sunglasses on a camera. They darken the whole thing. There are a few reasons to want to do this. Wanting to use a large aperture to have a shallow depth of field, wanting a long or longer exposure time, making flowing water silky, removing people from a busy location. They come in different strengths. Just like CPL filters they can be costly and we can buy one set for our largest thread lens and then step rings for the rest of the lens. Ultimately we want a filter that darkens the frame evenly without adding a color cast.

I did not use an ND filter for either of these images. I was testing a new lens and seeing what I could get out of it. I was planning on taking some water images today but alas didn't get the chance as there hasn't been any recent rain. This does give an idea of what an ND filter can do to a scene though.

There are also graduated ND filters which are used to darken a bright sky over a landscape so both can be seen. They come in both screw on filters and in a square filter with a holder. Just like the regular ones also come in different strengths.

Here is what I shot today with the girls. Notice both are about even on the ground but with the grad ND the sky looks better and not as blown out. For a scene like this I should have had the grad tilted more toward the sun on the left. I tried it but wasn't paying attention and got my finger in the frame because I was talking to children.

As for removing people from scenes I have pictures of them removed but no before shots. If I go to a populated area where people are moving I will get it. Until then see where an ND might fit into your needs. Now go out and shoot.

~Scott

Filters: Circular Polarizer aka CPL

Good Evening,

I thank you ahead of time for your patience, pictures will follow later for this post. This weekend has been busy, I still have to go through pictures from my 5 year old's birthday party.

Today I am going to talk about equipment starting with filters. Let me start off with saying we want good filters. Anything we put in front of the lens alters the quality of the light hitting the sensor. Poorly made filters will potentially degrade the image quality and/or have color casts. Most filter effects can be done in the camera or in post processing. The ones that can't without difficulty are CPL and Neutral Density aka ND, normal ones and graduated ones too.

We are going to talk about CPL filters which have some useful effects today. They can increase the contrast of the scene which can be very useful in landscapes and images with some clouds in the sky or both, limit reflections on water and non metallic surfaces, reduce glare, make flat screen images disappear, and make plants look more vibrant. I have also read that they make rainbows more prominent in photos, I have never had a chance to test it.

Here is the difference it makes in the sky with clouds, darker greens can be noticed on the tree too.

Some out there may be thinking that all of these things are great let's get one and leave it on the lens all the time, there are some drawbacks. A good one is usually expensive, so I recommend getting a good quality one that fits your largest lens then step rings for the smaller lenses. They decrease the amount of light hitting the sensor by a stop or so. The effect isn't as great on an ultra wide lens.

I have used Hoya, BW, and Tiffen with good effect. Get one if you are so inclined and go out and shoot.

~Scott

Histogram and Perfect Exposure

Good evening,

Today I am going to talk about the histogram which is I believe the defining thing for a "perfect exposure." The histogram is a graph of how much brightness vs darkness you have in an image. On the left we have black and on the right we have white, then bottom to top is how much you have in each. Some histograms like below have colors to go along with them and others just have a black and white graph.

Perfect

This is what our histogram would say is a "perfect" exposure. Not that there is anything wrong with it. Notice on the histogram that everything is right in the middle nothing goes all the way off to the sides or the top.

Highlight

Here we have a highlight image. My daughter was sitting in a little alcove to get out of the sun. If you notice on the histogram there is a spike all the way to the right and some even goes off of it. This is called clipping, in this case highlight clipping, which means there is no image detail in that area it is just white. Generally not a desired characteristic in images. Leaving the image with the highlights shows that it was a really bright day and there was a need to seek shade from the blazing sun. Not "perfect." It works though with what I wanted to express.

Shadow

Now it is the opposite end, shadow clipping. Parts of the pier have no detail, there is also highlights in this where the sun is. I can brighten it but then I start to get to many highlights, I would prefer to just leave the pier as a silhouette so that I can retain colors in the sky and the reflection. Again not "perfect." It portrays what I wanted though and the way that I saw it.

The camera wants to make the images be in middle ground. Sometimes that doesn't leave us with an image that portrays the mood or feel of what we see at the moment. So we change it and take control away from the camera. If we are in the semi manual modes then we can use exposure compensation (it looks like a little +/- icon) to make the image our own. or go to full manual and have complete control over the exposure.

In manual if we want it a little darker or brighter we can just make an adjustment to the shutter, aperture, or iso to achieve the desired effect. each one can change the way the picture looks as previously discussed. Now go out and shoot. Enjoy it, experiment.

~Scott