A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Put away wet - Why?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 19th 08, 12:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Put away wet - Why?

tony cooper wrote:
I don't understand this. I was shooting at a horse track earlier
today and took several images of horses being hosed down after their
workout. Here's a crop of one of images:
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/blowout.jpg

There's no white in that horse's coat. The horse had just been
sprayed with a hose, and that's water on the horse's coat. Blown-out.
Big time.


Specular reflections.

You can get that off wet black asphalt at night too.

Healthy dry horse hair can be almost as reflective as wet in the right
sunlight conditions.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
  #12  
Old December 19th 08, 12:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Put away wet - Why?

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:47:43 +1000, Jurgen wrote
in :

Thomas True wrote:


If you want to emphasis the lighting that would be fine, and some would
take that option. But If it was by accident as you claim, I would take
time to do a lot more photography or maybe take a course on using
available lighting.


Don't you think it would have been easier to offer him advise to meter
for the highlights rather than do a rant about what you perceive are
"his" shortcomings?

FWIW there would be almost nothing anyone could do with a camera to
prevent that happening from that angle. Not even you, 'Whoever you are'
would be capable of doing any better under the same circumstances.

Opportunist photography requires a certain amount of compromise. Having
been to working trainer's stables myself I can tell you there is little
chance of being able to arrange a shot.

Sure experience has a lot to do with when to and when not to press the
shutter but if you have no chance to put the horse in a shady position,
it's shoot and be damned.


The point is that stepping to the side a bit might well have toned down
the reflection, making for a better image. And having worked around
trainer's stables myself, I'd guess there was room to do that.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]
  #13  
Old December 19th 08, 12:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Put away wet - Why?

Jurgen wrote:
tony cooper wrote:


I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?


Did you know that water particles on fur (hair too I guess) act as a
sort of micro lens, reflecting light with more intensity than it
actually is?


All it is is a specular reflection off of wet fur. No different than
off of a vehicle.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
  #14  
Old December 19th 08, 12:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Put away wet - Why?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:20:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote in
:

Jurgen wrote:
tony cooper wrote:


I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?


Did you know that water particles on fur (hair too I guess) act as a
sort of micro lens, reflecting light with more intensity than it
actually is?


All it is is a specular reflection off of wet fur. No different than
off of a vehicle.


You're insulting the horse!
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]
  #15  
Old December 19th 08, 12:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default Put away wet - Why?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:07:58 -0600, Thomas True
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:58:48 -0500, in rec.photo.digital tony cooper
wrote:

I don't understand this. I was shooting at a horse track earlier
today and took several images of horses being hosed down after their
workout. Here's a crop of one of images:
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/blowout.jpg

There's no white in that horse's coat. The horse had just been
sprayed with a hose, and that's water on the horse's coat. Blown-out.
Big time.

I was shooting on Programmed Auto (Nikon D40) and thought I had the
ISO set to 200. EXIF shows it was a 500. The rest was 1/500th at
5.6.

I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?

(Forget the image itself. I just cropped this part out to show the
effect. This is out-of-focus, but shows the effect.)



Specular reflections off the water which could have been attenuated by the
use of a polarizer?



I would also add, that due to the horse being a "dark" surface and the
sun being at 90° from where you were standing, the water basically
turned the hair into a mirror. Every part of the picture that is within
the angle of reflection of the "burn" is fading to white as well. This
show lack of planning and failure to check your TTL settings.

If you want to emphasis the lighting that would be fine, and some would
take that option. But If it was by accident as you claim, I would take
time to do a lot more photography or maybe take a course on using
available lighting.


This group fascinates me. There are some knowledgeable, helpful, and
interesting people...and a ration of assholes. Mr True is truly in
that last group.

This was my second trip to the harness horse training facility where
this picture was taken. The horses go out on the track from about 7AM
to about 11AM and then are brought back to the barns where they are
hosed down. The photographs were taken about 10AM EST. (Uploaded to
my computer at 3PM EST)

Now I had a horse, I had a camera, and the sun was out. My "lack of
planning" was that 1) the horse would be in the barn munching oats if
I waited for the sun to strike it differently, or 2) I couldn't move
the sun, or 3) lack of foresight in not bringing a bucket lift to
change my angle of photographing, 3) something that I came here to
find out. Also, I could have positioned myself in regard to the horse
so the angle of the sun hitting the horse would have been different.
That last is not "planning", though, since I didn't know about the
effect.

I am wondering what Mr True means by "by accident as you claim". Does
Mr True doubt that having a blown-out horse image was an accident?
That I deliberately thought "Let's see if I can take a photograph and
really **** things up in doing so.".

While I do a lot of photography, I admit to not taking a lot of shots
of wet horses. I must make a note to rectify that lack of experience.
I don't have any room around the house to keep a horse to practice on,
but the training facility is only about 45 minutes drive from here. I
did a brief websearch and was unable to find any local courses on wet
animal photography or how to move the sun.

Perhaps Mr True can morph over to a more helpful mode and give me some
pointers on other animals that I am likely to encounter that have
reflective-when-wet coats. The other common animals I might encounter
in this area are possum, armadillo, cows, anoles, dogs, cats,
alligators, pigs, and small children. With the exception of small
children in hot weather, I haven't seen a photo op where any of these
animals are being hosed down.

I do give Mr True credit for noticing that the horse was "dark".

By the way...sweat has a similar effect to water from a hose on a
horse's coat. In this shot, the effect is not quite as noticeable,
but it's there.

http://tonycooper.fileave.com/final-020.jpg


Thanks,


For what?

Thomas


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #16  
Old December 19th 08, 12:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default Put away wet - Why?

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:47:43 +1000, Jurgen
wrote:

That would be a great shot Tony, were the point of focus on a more
compelling area. Blown highlights are not an issue when the human eye
would have seen the 'blown area' not much differently than you show it.


It wasn't a great shot. I selected a shot that showed the effect and
cropped it to show just the affected area. Had there been no
reflection in the shot, it would have been discarded anyway because of
the focus. The original shot is a full shot of the horse and
stablehand.

In this series, I was walking around the horse and stablehand shooting
rapid fire in order to catch the water spray. I wanted that effect of
water droplets bouncing off the horse. I had the camera set to single
point focus, and some came out in focus and others did not.

Here's another shot from that series:
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/bath-010b.jpg

Less of the reflective effect on the horse, but the water on the
ground has a weird look. (straight out of the camera w/o adjustment)

The head isn't sharply focussed, but I like the horse's expression.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #17  
Old December 19th 08, 07:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Jurgen[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default Put away wet - Why?

Alan Browne wrote:
Jurgen wrote:
tony cooper wrote:


I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?


Did you know that water particles on fur (hair too I guess) act as a
sort of micro lens, reflecting light with more intensity than it
actually is?


All it is is a specular reflection off of wet fur. No different than
off of a vehicle.



Is that not the same as a lens reflecting light brighter (more heat)
than that which enters it? Make each hair a micro lens and light gets
reflected at a higher rate than the light being absorbed by darker areas.
  #18  
Old December 19th 08, 10:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Put away wet - Why?

Jurgen wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Jurgen wrote:
tony cooper wrote:


I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?


Did you know that water particles on fur (hair too I guess) act as a
sort of micro lens, reflecting light with more intensity than it
actually is?


All it is is a specular reflection off of wet fur. No different than
off of a vehicle.



Is that not the same as a lens reflecting light brighter (more heat)
than that which enters it? Make each hair a micro lens and light gets
reflected at a higher rate than the light being absorbed by darker areas.


Each hair and water droplet is convex and would scatter reflected light,
not focus it. Microlenses focus light passing through them and out
their convex or flat side, not reflecting off of them.

In fact what is happening is that the wet hair produces a fairly even
surface (surface tension) that acts like a mirror and produces the
specular reflection.

In sum, there is certainly less light reflected off of the horsehair
than light arriving on the horsehair - so your "" reflecting light
brighter (heat) than that which enters it "" is certainly not holding water.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

  #19  
Old December 19th 08, 10:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
jmc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Put away wet - Why?

Suddenly, without warning, tony cooper exclaimed (12/17/2008 9:36 PM):
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:21:49 -0500, jmc
wrote:

Suddenly, without warning, tony cooper exclaimed (12/17/2008 8:58 PM):
I don't understand this. I was shooting at a horse track earlier
today and took several images of horses being hosed down after their
workout. Here's a crop of one of images:
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/blowout.jpg

There's no white in that horse's coat. The horse had just been
sprayed with a hose, and that's water on the horse's coat. Blown-out.
Big time.

I was shooting on Programmed Auto (Nikon D40) and thought I had the
ISO set to 200. EXIF shows it was a 500. The rest was 1/500th at
5.6.

I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?

(Forget the image itself. I just cropped this part out to show the
effect. This is out-of-focus, but shows the effect.)


You don't say if photographing horses is a regular thing for you, but
I've had the same kind of thing, photographing wet horses in sunshine.
The coat of a horse in good health can be very shiny/reflective,
especially when wet. Also, it sort of looks to me as if there might
still be some foamy sweat on the shoulder hotspot and in the lower
right, which wouldn't help. Could be wrong though. A polarizer would
help, I'd think.

Poor horse, looks tired and tense (eye looks tired, posture looks tense
- he's pulling back, or about to, I'd say).


I'm glad to see that others do not find the results particularly
strange. I took several shots of the horses being hosed down, and
some of the shots taken at a greater distance have less of a problem.
It never occurred to me to use my polarizer. When I looked at the
images in-camera, I thought the white was soap suds.

I watched several horses being hosed down. This is a harness horse
training facility, and several were brought in off the track. Some of
the horses seemed to really enjoy being hosed down, and some didn't
like it. Well, as best as I can judge a horse's emotions.

Tough horses to photograph. All bays, chestnuts, and dark horses.
Hard to get detailed shots in bright sun.



Yer tellin' me. I have a black cat. The last two horses I was riding
regular (and photographing of course) were a bay TB with no white at
all, and a jet black furball of a shetland pony.

Long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away, I was a Standardbred groom. My
personal opinion is an incorrectly applied check rein (the one that goes
straight up the top of the neck) can do permanent damage, over time.
Think of being forced to hold your nose in the air (or an arm for that
matter) whenever you run or work out...

jmc
  #20  
Old December 20th 08, 09:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Mark Thomas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 835
Default Put away wet - Why?

Alan Browne wrote:
Jurgen wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Jurgen wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

I've never seen a wet surface blown-out like this. Would the high ISO
do that?

Did you know that water particles on fur (hair too I guess) act as
a sort of micro lens, reflecting light with more intensity than it
actually is?

All it is is a specular reflection off of wet fur. No different than
off of a vehicle.



Is that not the same as a lens reflecting light brighter (more heat)
than that which enters it? Make each hair a micro lens and light gets
reflected at a higher rate than the light being absorbed by darker areas.


Each hair and water droplet is convex and would scatter reflected light,
not focus it. Microlenses focus light passing through them and out
their convex or flat side, not reflecting off of them.

In fact what is happening is that the wet hair produces a fairly even
surface (surface tension) that acts like a mirror and produces the
specular reflection.

In sum, there is certainly less light reflected off of the horsehair
than light arriving on the horsehair - so your "" reflecting light
brighter (heat) than that which enters it "" is certainly not holding
water.

Indeed. And the specularity (?) of the reflections is backed up by the
relatively small areas that have the 'problem' - the water is obviously
sheeting off the fur and providing a mirror like surface that only
causes a problem where the angle of the sun is just right, just like
sunlight reflecting off the sea. You can't really 'control' such
highlights in a typical scene.

I think a lot more is being made of the problem than needs to be - it's
a scene with a huge dynamic range, well in excess of what the sensor
(any sensor) could handle. So you have only got two options, given that
hdr isn't really applicable:

1. Reduce the problem - a polariser might have helped a *little*, but
these are *very* strong reflections of the sun! *It would probably have
helped other parts of the image however*. If you haven't used one much,
do so! I'm a polariser fan, and believe they should be on for all
sunlit shots between 10am and 2pm for latitudes 45°!! This one might
be just outside that range, but I'd consider an exception... (O:

2. Bring the exposure down. But you would likely have just blocked up
the shadows and the highlights would look similar anyway - the edges
might have looked a tad better. Being *hyper*critical and just judging
from the crop I would guess that maybe 2/3-1 stop less exposure would
have kept most shadow detail and given a slightly better result, but
frankly I think you (or the camera) did quite well with that compromise,
and the shot looks quite good to me, given the circumstances.

As for "Jurgen" (O:, I would love to see a link for his assertion that
the water on fur will 'microlense' in some way that refocuses the light
to increase its intensity. I'm sure there is an article on this
somewhere, "Jurgen"???

Like Alan says, it is just specular reflection.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.