# A few of my Focus - tips/advice?



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Following on from my previous thread about getting the correct exposure, I thought I'd post a few of these up - they're not too bad considering I don't know what I'm doing!! I've done a bit of reading that suggests the matrix metering on the D40 is not very good and works in such a way that your photo is never too dark - unfortunately this means they're usually too light! I have been playing around with spot metering on a different area of the car, locking the exposure and then refocussing on the car. I think the car body is slightly underexposed, but the colour looks good and in some shots the background is slightly overexposed. I didn't specifically go looking for a graffiti covered wall, but a wall that was big enough to park a car in front.

Any tips and advice you can hand out? I am struggling to pick out the detail in the headlamps, particularly the projector lenses and don't know how to do this. 
Pics are quite big, let me know if you would like them replaced with smaller ones (look good on my 20" Mac :lol


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

IMO: crop is too close, the exposure is close enough for most. Working in RAW or JPG?

I'd also seriously consider changing aperture to 2.8 or so if possible and walking away to get a larger amount in focus whilst retaining the lack of focus on the wall. Make sense?

Bret


----------



## ksm1985 (Dec 27, 2008)

helpful advice above, but nice pics, and nice looking car, wheels make a fair difference


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Yeah wheels look a lot better don't they? Fairly pleased with them.

Bret - how close would you suggest cropping a shot like that in terms of space around the car? There's not quite a rule of thirds going on in the composition but for me, the car was the subject. I did take most of them at 2.8 and at only around 25 - 30mm (using a 17 - 50mm lens) - I could have stepped back, but I would have ended up in the canal :lol:
Next time I try, I'll look at moving back a bit, but I don't want a meaningless scene with a car in the corner, if that makes sense?
I am shooting jpegs mainly because I don't have the nouse to be able to process the RAW file without learning about it first and I'd rather take the photos!


----------



## butcher (Sep 3, 2010)

Looking at it, to be honest I'm not sure it's underexposed in any area. But it's actually the reflections causing the problem. Take them away, and I think the car would be a little over-exposed, much like the wall - so then you could drop the exposure down and get everything crisp in detail. 

Don't ask me how to deal with the reflections though  

The light looks strong too. You might fair better in less direct sunlight.


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

It was actually overcast when I took those!! 
You'll have to explain to me the problem with the reflections - I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

Going to go back and edit the shots with the exposure details.


----------



## butcher (Sep 3, 2010)

johnnyguitar said:


> You'll have to explain to me the problem with the reflections - I'm a bit slow on the uptake.


If you take the first shot for example. The car looks not badly exposed, but then as you say, you can point out bits that are a bit over.

If you take another look though, the top of the car is quite strongly exposed. The bits that are _looking_ underexposed, are around the bottom of the car, where you can see all the reflections of what's around the car - the road, the buildings, etc. If those (dark) reflections weren't there, the entire car would be over-exposed, and I think you'd find quite an even exposure between the car and the wall.

So if you got rid of those reflections, you could drop the exposure by half a stop or so, and I reckon it'd look pretty much perfect, with the entire car exposed evenly.


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Yes I think I understand what you're saying - but I think it's going to be hard to not get any reflections in the paintwork?


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

yes, it is, which is why you take from a distance and at a slight angle. Or use a tilt/shift lens.

Bret


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

John,

Have a read about circular polarizers for reducing some reflections.

Can i suggest that you have a look at some photography forums? Most of them have tutorials for using RAW that will help you and also tutorials for using PS or GIMP.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

polarizers will help to limit reflections on the windscreen and on the headlights. They can't by definition help with you getting yourself in the pic. 

short version: the light bouncing off something has a directionality which is not normally seen in for example sunlight and therefore the circPol can block / reduce significantly. 

Bret


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

I was a member on talkphotography, but I haven't looked in there for a long time - I think I was happy just trying things out for myself, but I might show the results of this effort there. I also have a CP filter and did think about using it today.

To respond to Bret, there shouldn't be any reflections of me in the paintwork - it is just the surroundings. Will a shiny, polished, relfective surface like car paint not generally reflect all of its surroundings anyway, whether it's tarmac, buildings, grass, etc?


----------



## Dipesh (Oct 12, 2007)

Those wheels are looking spot on John.


----------



## butcher (Sep 3, 2010)

johnnyguitar said:


> Will a shiny, polished, relfective surface like car paint not generally reflect all of its surroundings anyway, whether it's tarmac, buildings, grass, etc?


It's honestly not something I've thought about until today - I don't generally have too many problems photographing the dog 

But imagine if behind you, there was a large wall, and you painted it black. You'd have zero reflections in the car, and most likely, a very smooth and consistent shine on the bodywork. Maybe. Ok, there'd probably still be a couple of reflections, it might have to be more elaborate than that. But you get the idea.

I'm finding this quite fascinating for some reason.. I think I'll have to google it. I guess it's not an easy problem to solve, but I'm sure someone has some ingenious methods to work around it.

I'll be thinking about this the next time I photograph the car..


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

yes, it will. The answer is intelligent positioning or some potatochop work, or a tilt-shift lens, preferably with a 2x teleconverter attached.

Bret


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Dipesh said:


> Those wheels are looking spot on John.


Yeah they don't look too bad at all - I think they look better without the big centres too.

Butcher - interesting what you're saying about a plain black wall, I guess that might work but must be quite hard to find something like that. If the car was shiny enough, would it not just darken the paint? I don't know really, I'm starting to get quite confused.

Bret - the only advantage I can see to using a tilt shift lens is that it would make the depth of field so shallow, it'd effectively remove the reflections right?

To be honest, in line with my other thread about trying to get the correct exposure for a dark car, it's kind of moving away slightly from my original idea of trying to take a shot with fairly standard kit - in my case my D40 and a Tamron 17-55 f2.8 - without having to do much in the way of post processing. I think I should experiment with shooting RAW, but I like the simplicity of taking photos in jpg format and actually just viewing them straight out of the camera.


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Just revisiting this really as I think about it a bit more. I started adding the exposure data under the thread, but it didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. What I need to understand better (and is more important to me at this stage than reflections, positioning, compsoing the shot, etc) is how to use the metering in the camera to set the correct exposure if I am using the idiot's Aperture Priority setting. I guess if I want to use a full manual setting, I'd have to get myself a light meter and take several readings around the car. I was told to meter from a piece of grey card (and I assume there is a specific product for this), but until I get that, I'm no closer to knowing what I need to know!!


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Do you have a camera bag?

the inside is usually 18% grey.


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

I did not know that - yes I do have a Lowepro camera bag and now you mention it, the inside is indeed grey. If I use centre weighted metering, I can just put the bag next to the subject, meter from it, lock the exposure and then recompose the shot? That would work.

I expect (old) grey tarmac probably does a similar sort of job does it?


----------

