Having problem taking photos in bright sunlight

[rvpals]

Hello All

I seem to have problems taking nice photos under bright sunlight (especially when there is few cloud cover), I'm guessing it has something to do with my light metering. (although I'm only using evaluative metering).

Last weekend, I was walking in New York's Central Park. It was a beautiful day, the sunlight lits up all the greens around me. The scenery is too perfect to be true. When I got home, it looks like the exposure is not right, I tried to adjust in adobe camera raw. I have try adjusting AWB and using the curves etc. It just seem like the raw photo I took is not good.

The only potential thing I could think of to remedy this problem is to dial down the exposure to -2 at the time of photo taking. Otherwise I am not sure what else I could do.

I use a Canon T1i rebel with 15-85mm lens, usually using evaluative metering, not adjusting exposure, in program mode (not adjusting shutter speed & aperture setting). No filter is used.

Can you please share some tips on how to take correctly exposed great shots in bright sunlight? Thank you.

Jason

[rvpals]

By the way, the photo I attached is my "best effort" of processing the raw photo I took that has the problem. Thanks

[IABoomer]

Yes, your camera is seeing the bright sky and exposing for that, which leaves the detail underexposed. You can use the exposure compensation, but you'd want to bump it up a stop or two. You're telling the camera, "This scene is pretty bright, and I know that you, the camera, are going to want to underexpose because of that, so please don't."

This is where if you have open sky and a clear horizon, you can use a graduated neutral density filter to tone down the brightness of the sky and get more out of the image. Otherwise, you're running into the dynamic range limits of the camera, and you'll be stuck either blowing out the sky to keep detail in the foreground, or getting a clean sky, but dark foreground.

In your post production, you mentioned trying white balance and curves. Try adding fill light. It might introduce some noise, so you might have to go in and attempt a noise reduction, but fill light is supposed to lighten up the darker shadow areas without pushing the exposure up. That might bring back some of the underexposed darker detail you're wanting.

[rvpals]

Originally Posted by IABoomer

Yes, your camera is seeing the bright sky and exposing for that, which leaves the detail underexposed. You can use the exposure compensation, but you'd want to bump it up a stop or two. You're telling the camera, "This scene is pretty bright, and I know that you, the camera, are going to want to underexpose because of that, so please don't."

This is where if you have open sky and a clear horizon, you can use a graduated neutral density filter to tone down the brightness of the sky and get more out of the image. Otherwise, you're running into the dynamic range limits of the camera, and you'll be stuck either blowing out the sky to keep detail in the foreground, or getting a clean sky, but dark foreground.

In your post production, you mentioned trying white balance and curves. Try adding fill light. It might introduce some noise, so you might have to go in and attempt a noise reduction, but fill light is supposed to lighten up the darker shadow areas without pushing the exposure up. That might bring back some of the underexposed darker detail you're wanting.

Thank you. I need to get more familiar with evaluating the lightning condition and try adjust accordingly. Sometimes I got loss in the scenery. All good advices.

[inkista]

In ACR, did you try the digital graduated filter? I'd go there before messing with curves and curve points.

You might also want to consider HDR.

[rvpals]

Originally Posted by inkista

In ACR, did you try the digital graduated filter? I'd go there before messing with curves and curve points.

You might also want to consider HDR.

inkista, thanks a lot. I didn't realize I have this tool in ACR. That's exactly what I needed.

[navcom]

Hi! My two cents worth...

Getting good exposures during the middle of the day is usually difficult. To some logic might dictate that it would be the best time as there is the most light around. Unfortunately there's a bit more involved.

The mere presence of a lot of light does not in and of itself make good exposures and photographs. The quality of light, it's location relative to the subject, and how it interacts with it's surroundings are all just as important as the presence of the light itself.

Consider a portrait studio. Would good portraits be made if it just had a huge incandescent 10,000 watt light bulb hanging from the ceiling? Probably not. But that's really the kind of light you have in the middle of the day. The sun is high (usually almost directly overhead) and it's light is harsh. All the shadows on objects are directly underneath them making everything flat and very hard to expose properly. This is why portrait photographers use many light sources and light intensities/qualities...most usually not directly overhead.

This is also why most landscape photographer opt for taking shots either very early or very late in the day. The sun is low which produces longer shadows producing depth. It's also more golden light and not so harsh. Plus, the light "gets under things" so-to-speak making it a little easier to expose...relatively anyway.

Of course sometimes it's not practical to pick the time you go. In these cases, you do what you can...but it's very hard to get good color depth and pleasing exposures in the middle of a sunny day. It's not you or your camera...it's the light.

Hope that helps a bit!

[rvpals]

Originally Posted by navcom

Hi! My two cents worth...

Getting good exposures during the middle of the day is usually difficult. To some logic might dictate that it would be the best time as there is the most light around. Unfortunately there's a bit more involved.

The mere presence of a lot of light does not in and of itself make good exposures and photographs. The quality of light, it's location relative to the subject, and how it interacts with it's surroundings are all just as important as the presence of the light itself.

Consider a portrait studio. Would good portraits be made if it just had a huge incandescent 10,000 watt light bulb hanging from the ceiling? Probably not. But that's really the kind of light you have in the middle of the day. The sun is high (usually almost directly overhead) and it's light is harsh. All the shadows on objects are directly underneath them making everything flat and very hard to expose properly. This is why portrait photographers use many light sources and light intensities/qualities...most usually not directly overhead.

This is also why most landscape photographer opt for taking shots either very early or very late in the day. The sun is low which produces longer shadows producing depth. It's also more golden light and not so harsh. Plus, the light "gets under things" so-to-speak making it a little easier to expose...relatively anyway.

Of course sometimes it's not practical to pick the time you go. In these cases, you do what you can...but it's very hard to get good color depth and pleasing exposures in the middle of a sunny day. It's not you or your camera...it's the light.

Hope that helps a bit!

I realized that now. Thanks for sharing.

Maybe putting on a ND filter at that bright light condition would help?

[navcom]

Originally Posted by rvpals

I realized that now. Thanks for sharing.

Maybe putting on a ND filter at that bright light condition would help?

An ND filter won't do anything as it doesn't change the light in any way...it just darkens the whole scene, which means all it will do is give you the same result you would have without one except with a longer shutter speed.

A graduated ND filter might help as it can help control dynamic range in a portion of the image and allow the darker part to be exposed more proper. ND grads are great for shots like sunrises/sunsets where there is a definite area to "push back". But they won't do anything for the light quality/shadows/harshness and if there isn't a defined area to separate the over and underexposed areas (i.e. a horizon line or two well-defined areas), it may be very noticeable in the image. This is where HDR would work but if not used properly, HDR techniques can make your image look un-natural or "processed".

Unfortunately, there isn't a substitute for good light.

[ellerandi]

It is all about the light, Navcon gave very nice explanation of this issue. Come back when it is better light.