Question about exposure

[toddbartush]

Hi all,

I've been lurking in the critique section for months now, so I thought it was time to give it a shot.

This photo is of the entrance to Hellgate Canyon on the Rogue River, taken on a foggy day in mid-afternoon. You can see the blow-out upper-right corner, which I tried to minimize. There are a lot of foggy days here in Southern Oregon, and I find myself adjusting the exposure bias down 2/3 - 1 quite often. I think I may be overdoing it however.

The only PP I've done is auto contrast in Elements. The SOOC has a greyish foggy sort of cast over it.

My specific questions on this photo are:

1. Is it properly exposed? If not, what details do I look for to make that determination in the future?

2. Based on the EXIF data, what would you have done differently for a cleaner shot?

Composition is not great, I know, so any other input is appreciated as well. Luckily this is a place I can return to frequently.

Thanks in advance!

-Todd


Camera Canon PowerShot SX130 IS
Exposure 0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 29.1 mm
ISO Speed 80
Exposure Bias -1 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

[RichardTaylor]

Most of the image appears underexposed on my monitor.

The histogram tends to be bunched of on the left.

Try (when PPing) create new layer, blending mode Screen (75%).
This is Photoshop - I don't know the equivalent for Elements.
It makes a huge difference.

[digirebelva]

It looks underexposed, I assume so you dont more severly blow out the top of the image. If you have a GND I would use it next time you have a shot like that.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by digirebelva

It looks underexposed, I assume so you dont more severly blow out the top of the image. If you have a GND I would use it next time you have a shot like that.

Totally agree about the nd grad.. Would allow you to get a decently exposed photo without the blow out.

I think I'd be tempted to get a bit closer to the water and experiment with longer apertures to introduce a bit of movement into the water. Something like f/20 would allow you 1/12 which may have been enough to get the water movement in the photo.. Which would also leave you with a huge depth of field, so nice and low over the water looking up stream would be brilliant.

[toddbartush]

Thanks for the tips so far! When I bought my SX130 last November, I tried to convince myself I wasn't really interested in lenses and filters. Whoops.

I have thought of a couple ways to rig this camera to use filters, so I may just buy a low-end ND filter and give it a try. I encounter this type of shooting situation a lot.


-Todd

[sk66]

I don't think the top is blown out at all, I think it's clouds/fog. The exposure is actually pretty close but I do think the -1ev might be a bit too much. The biggest problem is the lighting is very flat. In a situation like that you need a VERY strong subject and very good composition.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by toddbartush

...so I may just buy a low-end ND filter and give it a try.

Don't.. Cheap ND filters from fleabay will add a colour cast to you photos and are a complete waste of money. The ones I bought are distinctly orange, you can see the colour when you hold the filter to the light, and the 3 stop filter is EXACTLY the same as the 2 stop, and equates to about 1 and a half stops in reality. Your money is far better spent on a decent 3 stop ND grad and 3 stop ND filter, I say 3 stop because I can usually compensate up to 2 stops in camera, although I think eventually a full set is a good investment.

I'm saving up for some Lee filters. Ouch!

[johnske]

Originally Posted by sk66

I don't think the top is blown out at all, I think it's clouds/fog. The exposure is actually pretty close but I do think the -1ev might be a bit too much. The biggest problem is the lighting is very flat. In a situation like that you need a VERY strong subject and very good composition.

Yes, it's fog. Open it in photoshop, select adjust curves and just bump up the RGB dark regions a bit, it then becomes very clear that it's fog (or cloud) and is also a fix for the -1ev underexposure. It actually looks very good then IMO.