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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|