Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
finnbay

Rosebud

13 posts in this topic

Birdsong,

I've been playing most of this week with bird on a stick shots, as most of you well know. My set up isn't perfect, but I'm adjusting as best I can. My background is a stand of balsam fir, which in itself would be good, but they're too close to my perch so I can't get the best buttery BG as I should. Also, there are a few open spots with the snowy lake behind that so I end up with a few hotspots. Finally, my feeder and perches are in a place where the sun sometimes lights the background and not the perch, sometimes both and sometimes the perch and not the background. So, I'm shooting with a bigger aperture than I'd like - usually about f/3.5 to increase the bokah of the background. It narrows my depth of field, but for now I'm willing to take that tradeoff. As to hotspots, they are small enough that Photoshop easily clones them out. Finally, I limit most of my shooting to when the light covers the perch but the background is shaded. With the background shaded and the subject lighted, I compensate a bit depending on how bright the light is - anywhere from -2/3 to -2. Photoshop exposure controls can fine tune from there. Use of flash could increase my shooting time, but I haven't played with that for awhile. Anyway, experimentation will allow you to find the best combo that works for you. A few from the last couple of days:

Rosebud-1.jpg

Rosebud-2.jpg

Cedar-2.jpg

Cedar-1.jpg

Cedar-3.jpg

Just one other thought. I don't know what editing software you have, but if you expose your histogram as far to the right without blowing out any whites, in Photoshop, when I decrease the exposure, not only does it bring a little more detail to my subject, but it really darkens the background as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all great! Although the 2nd one is my fav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this post, finnbay. I hope to find time to try it out in the morning. I'll also see if I can soften some of the branchy backgrounds, as Steve mentioned. I'm afraid there won't be many birds if it is as nice as they say it will be. They'll all be busy singing and mating I'm afraid. I can still work on F-stops, exposure compensation and distances. But to be clear, I am exposing my histogram as far to the right as I can in camera not post process, correct? And you are decreasing exposure with levels I assume. I use Photoshop Elements but have not been shooting RAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. Camera histogram to the right. Also, I'm using "exposure" sliders with Photoshop, as of now, CS4. I'm not sure which controls Elements has, but Levels could probably achieve a similar effect but it's probably going to take a bit more fiddling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got to work on this today. I ended up with the same problem you had--background lighted up. I came back to it later thinking I might have the right timing. X-T's blind was casting a shadow on the perch. But the BG was pretty good. Anyway, I thought I was understanding until I pulled up your thread again. When you are trying to bring your histogram slightly to the right, are you doing that with ISO and aperture? I was doing so with exposure compensation, which gave a really washed out result in-camera and adjusted it with levels. However, I read your original message and realized I had done it exactly the opposite. I had compensated a -2/3 for a couple shots, it did give me a much richer photo in-camera but also moved my histogram back to the left, I assume losing some detail in the process? So--I bring my histo to the right with ISO and aperture, compensate for the light on the branch with a negative exposure compensation, correct? Sorry, very slow learner! I have a lot of neat pictures of an empty perch with an evergreen bg. The birds were having none of it. In fact, I took down all the feeders except the one. One is too hard to remove so I threw a towel over it. Didn't stop the chickadees for a minute. They just ducked under the towel. Thanks!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting in Av, changing the the ISO or aperture, will not change the exposure, therefore not changing the histogram. Sometimes, if there is a lot of contrast, you just have to decide what's more important - the highlights or shadows. As long as nothing is touching either edge of the histogram, you won't be losing any detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously have never understood the concept of exposure. Back to the books. Maybe it will be clearer this time through. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All cameras are calibrated to treat all exposures based on an 18% gray card. It's considered a midtone. This is why, in the majority of cases, even a person with a simple P & S camera will get most of their pictures exposed properly. If you set your cam to ISO 400 and an aperture of f8, the shutter speed may be 1/250 sec. If you change your ISO to 200, the only thing that will change is your shutter speed, which will now be 1/125 sec. Or instead, you can change your aperture to 5.6 and you will also get the ss of 1/125 sec. When shooting in Av, no matter what you change, the camera will still compensate by automatically changing the shutter speed to get to the 18% average. This is why EC is so important, for us who prefer to get a more perfect exposure on every shot. Therefore, changing the EC will move the histo, but any other changes will keep the exposure constant, unless you are shooting in manual mode. I have included a shot of an 18% gray card. There are many things that are very similar to the same density, such as medium green grass and northern blue sky.

3285508588_53079b465e_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent explanation, Mike.

I'll put it another way, Birdsong. Only underexposing or overexposing move the histogram left or right, and you use exposure compensation (EC) or manual settings to do that. Underexposing moves the histogram to the left, overexposing to the right.

It's also worth remembering that "under" and "over," while they seem to imply a "wrong" exposure, sometimes are better options than letting the meter do the job on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike and Steve,

Thanks for taking this thread and running with it. Between getting back to work and a lot of catching up to do, I haven't been checking the forum much lately. Great info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underexposing moves the histogram to the left, overexposing to the right.

Also, underexposing renders the image darker and overexposing makes it brighter. This is why, you sometimes need to underexpose to keep detail in the highlights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors