# Bit of photo advice please



## Gorbee (Oct 21, 2008)

Was given a tripod and not content with staying in all night, I went for a quick drive around the countryside to grab some night time shots. First ever time I've done such a thing and got some fairly cool shots. However, my problem is most highlighted with this one










I took it with a long exposure time and a large aperture however the foreground is too dark and the background is too light. I wanted to focus upon the puddle on the front but is too dark. The properties are listed below but could anybody advise me on what to do differently please?

Camera maker: Fuji
Camera model: FinePix S1000fd
F-stop: f/3
Exposure time: 8 sec
ISO Speed: ISO 100
Exposure bias: 0
Focal length: 8mm
Max aperture: 2.97
Metering mode: Pattern


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

you need to spot meter if the camera has that function.


----------



## Gorbee (Oct 21, 2008)

What is spot meter?


----------



## slim_boy_fat (Jun 23, 2006)

Most cameras are designed to take readings from various points in the viewfinder and average them for the single exposure.
Spot meter reads a much more closely defined area.


----------



## Gorbee (Oct 21, 2008)

Ok will have a go at fiddling tonight and see what happens. Thanks for the help and the fast responses


----------



## timprice (Aug 24, 2007)

ISO 100 at night?!?!?!


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

timprice said:


> ISO 100 at night?!?!?!


No problem if you've got a tripod, in fact it is better as you'll minimize noise.

OP: If your camera can't do spot metering, then bracket the exposures - take several at different shutter speeds. So for the above pic also take them at 10 and 12 seconds. You've got to get the balance and getting the puddle correctly exposed would have over-exposed the sky. Personally I like that pic, it looks natural, you can see the sky reflected in the puddle which is just enough to add interest to the foreground.

Of course, you could always tweak it in PS to lighten the foreground.


----------



## mattsbmw (Jul 20, 2008)

As parish says, you need to experiment with the shutter speeds and also trying experimenting with the aperture may give a different focus to the pic


----------



## slim_boy_fat (Jun 23, 2006)

Difficult to judge colour at 2nd hand, but something like this?


----------



## Coxy914 (Jan 14, 2007)

Other thing to consider is how much light you have actually on the puddle.

If there is no light on the puddle, you could leave the shutter open for 10 minutes and it won't make much difference.

If you have moonlight to play with and have a good moon (half-full) then as long as you don't have much light pollution, it's should highlight it nicely.

You could try manually using a flash on the puddle area to high light it?


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

It sometimes pays to get to the location a bit earlier, just as the sun goes down and while there's still a little light in the sky as in this picture. It can make a big difference.









or as above, be prepared to increase your exposure times or ISO rating


----------



## Coxy914 (Jan 14, 2007)

to be honest though with your picture and the OP's, you both have the same results where as neither foreground is highlighted.
So, in that respect, taking the photo earlier with a little more natural light has made no difference.
When I take a timed exposure, I will use my flash manually to highlight areas I want to be picked out more or to highlight area which are in darkness. It's a crude way of doing it without using expensive studio lighting.
If you don't then you'll end up with a night shot which has a large percentage of the pic in darkness which to me, doesn't make a great picture.
When you look at your picture of the church, over 30% of it is in darkness and makes the whole image look dark. This can be effective if it was something like an ornate archway entrance or something a like but not when it's trees or bushes en mass. One single tree or an overhanging branch can look effective though when in shadow and can add drama to the picture.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

^^ taking pics at dusk or dawn where the sky is light is a real problem, as the camera meters the exposure to control the brightest part of the image (sky) and you just get darkness in all the other areas - the pics above illustrate that perfectly....

ITS NO DIFFERENT TO TAKING A PICTURE MIDDAY WITH A BRIGHT SKY as the exposure is still dominated by the brightest element - the sky, just with a longer shutter speed to compensate for the overall lower light levels.

If you want to take pics when there is light in the sky then you need to reduce the brightness of the sky relative to the rest of the image. One way is manually using a flash to light aspects like Coxy has said (and it can work really well) or a graduated ND filter on the lens to reduce the light entering the camera from the sky element of the picture.

You MUST have a tripod and either use the self timer or get a remote release to avoid the camera shake in the pic above as well :thumb:


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Coxy914 said:


> to be honest though with your picture and the OP's, you both have the same results where as neither foreground is highlighted.
> So, in that respect, taking the photo earlier with a little more natural light has made no difference.
> When I take a timed exposure, I will use my flash manually to highlight areas I want to be picked out more or to highlight area which are in darkness. It's a crude way of doing it without using expensive studio lighting.
> If you don't then you'll end up with a night shot which has a large percentage of the pic in darkness which to me, doesn't make a great picture.
> When you look at your picture of the church, over 30% of it is in darkness and makes the whole image look dark. This can be effective if it was something like an ornate archway entrance or something a like but not when it's tress or bushes en mass. One single tree or an overhanging branch can look effective though when in shadow and can add drama to the picture.


I understand what your saying and maybe it's not the best picture to show as an example but if you get there that little bit early your photograph will benefit normally by picking up some highlights that wouldn't be there otherwise. This can help when it comes to post editing. As you can see here(and as I said this isn't the best example) with a little bit of shopping, you start to see the highlights come out, which if there is none to start with, cant be lifted. See the foreground in the same photo.


----------



## natjag (Dec 14, 2008)

As Bigpikle mentions a ND Grad would help. You'd cover the lighter areas of the scene (the sky) to balance the exposure between dark and light areas. I'd done a similar thing with the shot below. It still needed work in Photoshop to get more drama in the sky. The time of day does make a huge difference. this was taken at or just after sunset.

The exposure on this shot was 25 secs at f16 ISO 100.


----------



## Bazza155 (Aug 30, 2007)

I see your aperture was f3, try closing it down to f16 to give a greater depth of field.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

... HDR is the only way you'll get detail out of the foreground without lighting it using a flash, unless you're there about half and hour / hour earlier. HDR would definitely be the way to go, though.

Bret


----------



## Gorbee (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks for the hints. Will have to wait till it gets a little darker me thinks before I can do some night shots again  I have seen how to do HDR shots but still cant seem to get it right. Three shots, good exposure, over exposed and under exposed, then overlay them right?


----------



## Bazza155 (Aug 30, 2007)

Or use Photomatix, as you can get an HDR from a single image.

You can use as many shots as you like but 3 is a minimum if you're going to merge images.


----------



## natjag (Dec 14, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> ... HDR is the only way you'll get detail out of the foreground without lighting it using a flash, unless you're there about half and hour / hour earlier. HDR would definitely be the way to go, though.
> 
> Bret


I disagree, photographers where managing to capture this type of scene on film long before HDR techniques were used. HDR is just one method, but not he only way to capture this scene to satisfactory way that the brian sees it.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

Easy solution. Increase your exposure time to the max the camera can do, and shoot at f8!


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

true, I was being a bit too imperative: without filters and / or better ambient lighting, HDR would be a relatively simple way to ensure detail is retained in darker areas without swamping the lighter ones. Alternatives would also be extremely long exposure times, preferably with a very small aperture, but that may also bring other issues and or blowouts.

I'm (in the mean time) a big fan of using HDR subtly, simply because it can even out my dramatic exposure changes whilst retaining detail; since I don't use filters (at all!) I figure this is the simplest way, especially if a tripod is available. Photomatix makes it easy and I'm a fan of using tools effectively.

An HDR from a single image is not really HDR; you'll still have the blowouts. To retain that detail you'll need more than one shot. I personally tend to use five at -3.4, -1.7, 0, +1.7 and +3.4. That way, I have coverage that I know RAW can deal with without too many issues and also retain all the possible detail.

I'll illustrate, since I use both flash and HDR where I find it will work:

This is a reasonably obvious HDR; I could have made it more subtle, but I like the effect.
I also didn't have my flash with me / didn't realise I could use it in the way I did in the lower pic, otherwise I would have done just that.









This is for a calendar. I wanted the delibarate "this is here" effect, though it does tend to look "photoshopped", which is not true. The long exposure means a lot of other details are also around; the flash was also fired from above the camera. (which explains the lit snow in the foreground)










this is more recent; it's a 30s exposure at around sunset and I wanted the car to pop out. You could count the flashes if you wanted to (they're reflected on the rear quarter), I think the flash was set to 1/16 power.










There are lots of ways to skin this cat, i think it depends on what you want - but then you need to understand what's possible, too 
Bret


----------

