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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
Hi,
I keep reading that if I take (nature) pictures where there is snow in the picture I should select an exposure two stops below what the camera suggests. I haven't tried taking only a few snow pictures, but last winter I took one with mostly snow and some trees on. I tried to set the camera both one and two stops below what it suggested, bot I found both of these pictures gray, dull and dark. So my question is - have I misunderstood it all or do the evaluative metering in my camera (EOS 500N - aka Rebel G or Kiss) actually do this for me when it evaluate the scene? Martin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
Martin wrote:
I keep reading that if I take (nature) pictures where there is snow in the picture I should select an exposure two stops below what the camera suggests. ... The automatic metering in the camera "thinks" that everything is 18% gray, but snow is much closer to pure white. If you take the standard meter exposure with the camera, it will "make" the snow seem closer to 18% gray in the finished image. Obviously, this is not your intended result. Try overexposing the snow by 1.0 to 1.5 stops. Make it brighter. I figure new snow with bright sun on it should be goosed up by 1.5 stops. Old snow with sun maybe 1.0 stop. Very old dirty snow with sun maybe 0.5 stop. ---Bob Gross--- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
Hi,
Robertwgross wrote: I keep reading that if I take (nature) pictures where there is snow in the picture I should select an exposure two stops below what the camera suggests. ... The automatic metering in the camera "thinks" that everything is 18% gray, but snow is much closer to pure white. If you take the standard meter exposure with the camera, it will "make" the snow seem closer to 18% gray in the finished image. Obviously, this is not your intended result. Try overexposing the snow by 1.0 to 1.5 stops. Make it brighter. Doh .. I know what I did wrong ... I turned it the wrong way! I figure new snow with bright sun on it should be goosed up by 1.5 stops. Old snow with sun maybe 1.0 stop. Very old dirty snow with sun maybe 0.5 stop. Thank you for these tips. Martin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:09:23 GMT, Martin Djernæs
wrote: Hi, Doh .. I know what I did wrong ... I turned it the wrong way! Yup. Very common mistake. Make brigher = larger f/stop = SMALLER number on the f/stop ring. -- JC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
"...
do the evaluative metering in my camera (EOS 500N - aka Rebel G or Kiss) actually do this for me when it evaluate the scene? ...." No. Use a hand-held (external, separate) incident exposure meter. "Martin Djernæs" wrote in message news:9_Xvb.282803$Fm2.291896@attbi_s04... Hi, I keep reading that if I take (nature) pictures where there is snow in the picture I should select an exposure two stops below what the camera suggests. I haven't tried taking only a few snow pictures, but last winter I took one with mostly snow and some trees on. I tried to set the camera both one and two stops below what it suggested, bot I found both of these pictures gray, dull and dark. So my question is - have I misunderstood it all or do the evaluative metering in my camera (EOS 500N - aka Rebel G or Kiss) actually do this for me when it evaluate the scene? Martin |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
Martin Djernæs wrote ... Robertwgross wrote: The automatic metering in the camera "thinks" that everything is 18% gray, but snow is much closer to pure white. If you take the standard meter exposure with the camera, it will "make" the snow seem closer to 18% gray in the finished image. Obviously, this is not your intended result. Try overexposing the snow by 1.0 to 1.5 stops. Make it brighter. Doh .. I know what I did wrong ... I turned it the wrong way! I figure new snow with bright sun on it should be goosed up by 1.5 stops. Old snow with sun maybe 1.0 stop. Very old dirty snow with sun maybe 0.5 stop. Thank you for these tips. Martin I 'm a little confused by Bob's recommendation. They may well be okay, but I've found that the need to overexpose is greatest when the weather is cloudy and everything is grey. During a recent snowstorm I found I had to compensate by +1..1.5 stops. As the weather cleared and the sun came out, I had to reduce compensation all the way to the standard -0.5 stops that I use to avoid blown highlights. Based on this experience I'd recommend +1..2 stops when overcast, and 0..+1 stop when sunny, if the scene is dominated by snow. By the way, in those conditions the benefits of the digital camera's histogram diisplay really show up. Some trial and error may still be still needed, but the result can be seen immediately and there are no wasted exposures. /N |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
J C wrote:
Yup. Very common mistake. Make brigher = larger f/stop = SMALLER number on the f/stop ring. Yes, there are several things in photography that have reciprocal relationships. Often, the way that photographers speak of these is contrary to what commonsense suggests. For example, some speak of a shutter speed getting "bigger", like going from 1/100 second to 1/200 second. Of course, that is actually going to a smaller shutter time period. Some speak of a "big" aperture, when in fact the number of the aperture is getting smaller. After practice, pro photographers have these relationships burned into their brains so that they no longer have to think about it. They instinctively know which way to turn the dial. ---Bob Gross--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
Hi,
RSD99 wrote: Use a hand-held (external, separate) incident exposure meter. Thank you, but I will not make that investment. I will have to learn to get the most out of that one ... and when I feel I get more sofisticated I can see if I then need to invest in an incident exposure meter. Martin |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
When sunny, go manual and use the "sunny 16" exposure rool. When cloudy, the
snow really does look gray, at least to me, so the camera auto settings only need a little boost. "Martin Djernæs" wrote in message news:wndwb.289495$Fm2.304660@attbi_s04... Hi, RSD99 wrote: Use a hand-held (external, separate) incident exposure meter. Thank you, but I will not make that investment. I will have to learn to get the most out of that one ... and when I feel I get more sofisticated I can see if I then need to invest in an incident exposure meter. Martin |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Snow
Him
Lew wrote: When sunny, go manual and use the "sunny 16" exposure rool. When cloudy, the snow really does look gray, at least to me, so the camera auto settings only need a little boost. ;-) I will use that as a starting point :-) Martin |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paris under the snow | Daniel ROCHA | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 2 | February 3rd 04 10:22 PM |
Paris under the snow | Justin F. Knotzke | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | January 30th 04 03:39 PM |
(update) Paris under the Snow, the 1st january 2004 | Daniel ROCHA | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | January 28th 04 01:01 PM |
Exposure / snow | Alan Browne | Film & Labs | 21 | October 17th 03 02:30 PM |