Jump to content
SAU Community

Help! Exposing The Foreground/ Darkening The Background


Recommended Posts

Im a begginer DSLR user, just wondering if anyone owns a 400d (im sure most canon's have similar controls either way) and im using a 17-85mm lens whilst taking shots here in europe. anyhoo trying to take shots of some architecture whilst the sun is directly in the background which unfortunately is dominating the photo and washing out my subject. I've tried centre weighted metering but it doesn't seem to do that much. Is there some other variable i can change within the camera body that can bring out the buildings and darken the exposure the sun is giving? or will i have to just get a filter? only got a couple more weeks holidays and dont want to ruin anymore potential good shots

Go back when the sun isn't so dominating. You can try and expose it for the buildings but then your backgrounds are going to be washed out. You could also try multiple exposures.

  • 3 weeks later...

Have you thought of doing a HDR (High Dynamic Range) image? As stated before you take 3 exposures or more of the same image (use a tripod!). One image suitable exposed and then another 2 images one under exposed and one over exposed (probably about -2 and +2). Two of the best ways is to use either AEB (Auto Exposure Bracketing) or to set the apature (and leave it the same for all the images) and select different shutter speeds. Also good to use a 2 sec timer for the shutter release so you don't shake the camera when you press the button. Then, post process the images in Photoshop. It overlays the 3 or more images and you adjust the settings the way you want.

For photoshop CS2 go to File -> Automate -> Merge to HDR. Select the 3 photos that you have taken, it will automatically over lay the 3+ images and give you a slider bar to correct the overall exposure level to the way that suits you most. Just remember to use a tripod as any movements from the original will give a blurred effect. Best to do it with stationary objects. You can do it with one photo taken with RAW and then post process the exposure levels and save them (1 under exposed, 1 over exposed and one suitably exposed). I believe this should work for the photo / look that you want to achieve.

There are heaps of tutorials on YouTube showing you how to do them through Photoshop and Photomatrix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

I have attached 2 photos of a normal shot which is probably similar what your getting and then the same shot with HDR technique. There is also another photo of the 3 images and then the 4th is a HDR of the 3 differently exposed images.

Hope this helps, and good luck!

post-33011-1265288625_thumb.jpg

post-33011-1265288637_thumb.jpg

post-33011-1265288664_thumb.jpg

Also, another method would be to try a graduated ND (Neutral Density) filter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neu..._density_filter

doesn't that only work on horizontal layouts of light though? ie sky on top, land at bottom?

doesn't that only work on horizontal layouts of light though? ie sky on top, land at bottom?

Yeah your right Shan, i was getting a bit carried away with my thoughts on HDR sunset & landscapes and forgot the actual problem the OP was having! Although I think you can adjust the filter so you have have it vertically or in-between horizontal and vertical, depending on which side of the building the sun is coming from. But i've never tried it this way so i can't really comment on how well it might work.

post-33011-1265329118_thumb.jpg

ah. was going to say in theory it could be used at almost any angle. only drawback is that its a straight transition, where it may not always be a straight transition that you need to overcome.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • My thought is if you were just moving it forward and the upstream geometry remained the same, then no difference at all. But because the current one has the filter direct into the AFM inlet, you effectively have the best chance of a completely symmetric air flow profile upstream, and in, the AFM, whilst the aftermarket inlet thingo has a (small, to be sure) bend between the filter and the AFM. That would bias the flow to the outside of the bend (downstream of the bend) which might well reduce the size of the signal seen by the AFM, for the same total flow rate. Having said that: If you're proposing to make your inlet look like a hybrid of your existing one and the aftermarket one, such that there is no bend where the filter is clamped on... then I say it will be just fine. If there is going to be such a bend, then, if you can align the insertion of the AFM blade such that it is at right angles to the plane of the bend, then there is a better than even chance that the centreline velocity where the blade is will remain more or less the same, and the velocity will just be a little faster to the outside of that, and just a little slower to the inside. **This is not professional investment advice and you should consult a suitably qualified ouija board, tea leaves or the intestines of a goat for more accurate prognostication.
    • Hi Tao, Thanks for your reply.  It's been a while and I managed to get the valve stem seals replaced with the head on the car.  Unfortunately this didn't solve my issue, the car still smokes a lot after idling (to be honest during idle you can see a bit of blue smoke from the exhaust), same after deceleration. I will try disconnecting the valve cover breathers, do I leave the PCV valve in? By engine oil drain pipe, do you mean the turbo oil drain?
    • What about if you just give it direct 12v and earth?
    • Hi guys . Can someone help me  I bought an Android screen for my Nissan fuga but it won't turn on   
    • My guesstimate, with no real numbers to back it up, is it won't effect it greatly at all.its not a huge change in position, and I can't see the air flow changing from in turbulence that much based on distance, and what's in front of it. Johnny and Brad may have some more numbers to share from experience though.
×
×
  • Create New...