# Exposure experiment in snow.



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

*Camera Exposure experiment in snow.*

FWIW I tried 3 dif exposures.... Auto, +1 exposure, and +2.

Looks like +1 or maybe slightly more would be best. Obviously +2 is too much. I hope someone can learn something from this. The only thing in the pic related to bees is the hand crank little wonder extractor in the shed door. Looks like its time to paint that shed too.




























JoeMcc


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I like the first best. Was that the one shot on auto? Better contrast....in my opinion.


----------



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

beemandan said:


> I like the first best. Was that the one shot on auto? Better contrast....in my opinion.


Yeah that was the auto shot. I noticed when taking other pictures in the snow that often times the snow almost looked grey. So i did some research on the net and several people recommend pushing the exposure up a notch to get white snow. These pics are with a cloudy sky and I bet everything would change if the sun was out. 

I also did some tests messing with the white balance which made the snow more blue and even more of a brown depending on what you select. 

Take Care!

JoeMcc


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

I agree the first photo shows the most details.


----------



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

KQ6AR said:


> I agree the first photo shows the most details.



When I looked at the photos at work on a nice monitor... the first one looks best here too.

JoeMcc


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

What kind of camera are you using? It's really hard to keep from blowing out the snow and keep everything else exposed properly.

Your best bet is to shoot way underexposed and adjust levels in Photoshop or something else.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

This looks like one of the problems with digital photography, compared to film, that can only be solved with Adobe Photoshop or something similar. I only have a 'point and shoot' which has settings for beach/snow scenes. I use this sometimes when taking close-up photos of the bees by my white hives. If I don't, the bees are sometimes too dark.

With film, both [email protected] and color, the snow would be dark and the trees light in the negative. In a darkroom, the snow would be 'burned in' [more light] and the trees 'dodged out' [less light] during the time of exposure [10+ seconds] through an enlarger on the print paper. This would bring out [show] more texture and detail. Some films [usually faster] were less contrasty, even slide film. Would like to do more of this with a digital DSLR soon.


----------



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

Bodo said:


> What kind of camera are you using? It's really hard to keep from blowing out the snow and keep everything else exposed properly.
> 
> Your best bet is to shoot way underexposed and adjust levels in Photoshop or something else.


Rebel Xti.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Can you post the images with the EXIF data intact? Did you happen to take the image as RAW? 

ALOT can be done with the RAW image and proper PP.

I have the same camera (my first DSLR) and it performs much better than I had imagined.


----------



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

Bodo said:


> Can you post the images with the EXIF data intact? Did you happen to take the image as RAW?
> 
> ALOT can be done with the RAW image and proper PP.
> 
> I have the same camera (my first DSLR) and it performs much better than I had imagined.



No... I didnt take it in RAW. I should set it for both Raw and Jpeg. Is there a disadvantage, other than size, of taking both?

JoeMcc


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

No disadvantage at all. RAW records the data from each pixel on the sensor without compression or other compensation that the jpeg conversion does.

Working with RAW does take a little work, but the final product can be amazing!


----------



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

Bodo said:


> No disadvantage at all. RAW records the data from each pixel on the sensor without compression or other compensation that the jpeg conversion does.
> 
> Working with RAW does take a little work, but the final product can be amazing!


I would REALLY love to get deeper into photography....but I am red/green color blind. It makes some corrections tough. What would you suggest?

Take aa look at this color test....

http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp

I dont really see any numbers in the right column. If I stare at the second one down at the right I can make out the number if you tell me what it is.

:scratch:

JoeMcc


----------



## marty_rk (Feb 3, 2008)

Bodo said:


> What kind of camera are you using? It's really hard to keep from blowing out the snow and keep everything else exposed properly.
> 
> Your best bet is to shoot way underexposed and adjust levels in Photoshop or something else.


Exactly what Bodo said, Photoshop is extremely powerful, in fact in the same area that he is mentioning, there is a feature called Curves, which is the one I like to use more and you are able to control at what color in the smooth curve type fashion and you can take any picture and really clean it up!!!

Good luck to you!


----------



## MapMan (May 24, 2007)

Use your manual settings, and stop down the lens, while maintaining a shutter speed which will be appropriate for your shot. In other words, keep the shutter speed at perhaps 1/200 or 1/300, and reduce the f-stop (aperture) from perhaps 5.6 to 11, 16 or lower. 

If you have an automatic camera capable of displaying histograms, you will want readings at the center, rather than clipped at the right of the graph. 

If the scene is a still scene with little movement, you can set the camera on a tripod and further reduce the shutter speed, and allow for you to stop the lens down even more. Bracket the exposures to allow for more chance at a good image (some cameras even have the ability to automatically bracket the exposures).

MM


----------



## MapMan (May 24, 2007)

JoeMcc said:


> I also did some tests messing with the white balance which made the snow more blue and even more of a brown depending on what you select.
> 
> JoeMcc


White balance only changes what is perceived as the color temperature of light either reflected _or_ absorbed by materials. In your scene the camera is trying to compensate the white balance for the cold color cast of the snow so it is either going to make the average closer to neutral (blue) or if the area is a bit darker, go to a higher sepia range you described.

MM


----------



## MapMan (May 24, 2007)

JoeMcc said:


> I would REALLY love to get deeper into photography....but I am red/green color blind. It makes some corrections tough. What would you suggest?


You have a deficiency, not a blindness. You most likely see _some_ red/green (dichromat) - just not as much as other people. Some cameras have the ability to set the display as b/w, and some folks use the b/w display as a guide if they have vision situation as you describe. Also, if the scene can allow the placement of a gray card, that will provide a good reference.

In Photoshop, you are best to have someone who is able to see the colors well set up color targets for you to apply to photographs. And, if you are really serious, see an optometrist who can set you up with an X-chrome (red) contact lens, which is worn in one eye. How do I know all this? I have a son-in-law with the same deficiency.

MM


----------



## jackalope (May 18, 2007)

Back in the days of film (esp slide) the rule for shooting in snowy conditions was to set the camera for manual, meter the snow (e.g. point the camera at a patch of snow so that it fills the viewfinder) and open up two stops. That makes sure your snow is white and everything else should fall into place.


----------

