Mixing
Either background is overexposed or the foreground is underexposed. Are there possible solutions/approaches?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I use an Olympus EM-10 with a Panasonic Lumix MFT lens. No other accessories apart from the build in flash.
I trained a situation in a restaurant to take a picture of the table inside with an outdoor background showing water and a village. I tried different options but without a satisfying solution. Either the background was overexposed or the foreground was underexposed; I could not find a balance.
Below I try to show two examples.
I tried different options of which I believe are the more interesting ones:
- I tried to used the flash as I believed maybe this would be a situation to use a fill flash. Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation. I believe the flash sync speed is 1/60 s for my camera. I also tried slow flash or different manual options (full, 1/2, ...)
- I tried different options for the light meter hoping to be able to find balanced lighting (e.g. high f stop for shallow depth of field and using partial light metering on an area/spot)
- I tried Automatic mode. I focus on the foreground/background but this overexposes/underexposes the other ground.
- I tried to use Aperture or Shutter mode with above combinations (let's say I was desperate and was curious to practise/learn intuition)
I'd be happy if someone can let me know:
- Is there a way with my equipment to solve this issue?
- What additional equipment would I need if first question is negative? Or how would you approach this ?
Background overexposed
Foreground underexposed
exposure background fill-flash
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I use an Olympus EM-10 with a Panasonic Lumix MFT lens. No other accessories apart from the build in flash.
I trained a situation in a restaurant to take a picture of the table inside with an outdoor background showing water and a village. I tried different options but without a satisfying solution. Either the background was overexposed or the foreground was underexposed; I could not find a balance.
Below I try to show two examples.
I tried different options of which I believe are the more interesting ones:
- I tried to used the flash as I believed maybe this would be a situation to use a fill flash. Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation. I believe the flash sync speed is 1/60 s for my camera. I also tried slow flash or different manual options (full, 1/2, ...)
- I tried different options for the light meter hoping to be able to find balanced lighting (e.g. high f stop for shallow depth of field and using partial light metering on an area/spot)
- I tried Automatic mode. I focus on the foreground/background but this overexposes/underexposes the other ground.
- I tried to use Aperture or Shutter mode with above combinations (let's say I was desperate and was curious to practise/learn intuition)
I'd be happy if someone can let me know:
- Is there a way with my equipment to solve this issue?
- What additional equipment would I need if first question is negative? Or how would you approach this ?
Background overexposed
Foreground underexposed
exposure background fill-flash
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
Related: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/98951/…
– Hueco
1 hour ago
2
To be clear: this is a difficult lighting situation. Sunlight outside and room light inside. The difference in brightness is huge.
– Pete Becker
1 hour ago
1
I think HDR is the best option, if you don't want to change the light or wait for better light.
– Orbit
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I use an Olympus EM-10 with a Panasonic Lumix MFT lens. No other accessories apart from the build in flash.
I trained a situation in a restaurant to take a picture of the table inside with an outdoor background showing water and a village. I tried different options but without a satisfying solution. Either the background was overexposed or the foreground was underexposed; I could not find a balance.
Below I try to show two examples.
I tried different options of which I believe are the more interesting ones:
- I tried to used the flash as I believed maybe this would be a situation to use a fill flash. Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation. I believe the flash sync speed is 1/60 s for my camera. I also tried slow flash or different manual options (full, 1/2, ...)
- I tried different options for the light meter hoping to be able to find balanced lighting (e.g. high f stop for shallow depth of field and using partial light metering on an area/spot)
- I tried Automatic mode. I focus on the foreground/background but this overexposes/underexposes the other ground.
- I tried to use Aperture or Shutter mode with above combinations (let's say I was desperate and was curious to practise/learn intuition)
I'd be happy if someone can let me know:
- Is there a way with my equipment to solve this issue?
- What additional equipment would I need if first question is negative? Or how would you approach this ?
Background overexposed
Foreground underexposed
exposure background fill-flash
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
I use an Olympus EM-10 with a Panasonic Lumix MFT lens. No other accessories apart from the build in flash.
I trained a situation in a restaurant to take a picture of the table inside with an outdoor background showing water and a village. I tried different options but without a satisfying solution. Either the background was overexposed or the foreground was underexposed; I could not find a balance.
Below I try to show two examples.
I tried different options of which I believe are the more interesting ones:
- I tried to used the flash as I believed maybe this would be a situation to use a fill flash. Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation. I believe the flash sync speed is 1/60 s for my camera. I also tried slow flash or different manual options (full, 1/2, ...)
- I tried different options for the light meter hoping to be able to find balanced lighting (e.g. high f stop for shallow depth of field and using partial light metering on an area/spot)
- I tried Automatic mode. I focus on the foreground/background but this overexposes/underexposes the other ground.
- I tried to use Aperture or Shutter mode with above combinations (let's say I was desperate and was curious to practise/learn intuition)
I'd be happy if someone can let me know:
- Is there a way with my equipment to solve this issue?
- What additional equipment would I need if first question is negative? Or how would you approach this ?
Background overexposed
Foreground underexposed
exposure background fill-flash
exposure background fill-flash
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
asked 2 hours ago
Ely
230212
230212
Related: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/98951/…
– Hueco
1 hour ago
2
To be clear: this is a difficult lighting situation. Sunlight outside and room light inside. The difference in brightness is huge.
– Pete Becker
1 hour ago
1
I think HDR is the best option, if you don't want to change the light or wait for better light.
– Orbit
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Related: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/98951/…
– Hueco
1 hour ago
2
To be clear: this is a difficult lighting situation. Sunlight outside and room light inside. The difference in brightness is huge.
– Pete Becker
1 hour ago
1
I think HDR is the best option, if you don't want to change the light or wait for better light.
– Orbit
23 mins ago
Related: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/98951/…
– Hueco
1 hour ago
Related: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/98951/…
– Hueco
1 hour ago
2
2
To be clear: this is a difficult lighting situation. Sunlight outside and room light inside. The difference in brightness is huge.
– Pete Becker
1 hour ago
To be clear: this is a difficult lighting situation. Sunlight outside and room light inside. The difference in brightness is huge.
– Pete Becker
1 hour ago
1
1
I think HDR is the best option, if you don't want to change the light or wait for better light.
– Orbit
23 mins ago
I think HDR is the best option, if you don't want to change the light or wait for better light.
– Orbit
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Given your gear, a perfectly balanced inside and outside will be impossible - the correct exposures for each are too far apart.
Since shadows can be bumped up and blown highlights are completely gone, you should err on the side of not blowing anything out.
You actually handled the situation as best you could. In looking at the first shot, nothing appears to be blown out in the outside shot. This makes it the best shot between the two. This is because you can easily bring the highlights back down in post and be left with a pleasing shot where the inside is lit and the outside is appropriately exposed.
If you try to use the second shot and to bring up the shadows in post, you'll find a greater increase in noise, though it may be workable pending your use of the photo.
To recap: If you don't have the gear to light the inside enough to match or come close to the outside exposure, then the best thing that you can do is overexpose the outside until it is almost blown out. This way, you maximize the inside exposure and provide enough wiggle room to equalize things in post. (Do make sure you're shooting RAW!)
If you were to buy some equipment, then get yourself a decent speedlight. Simply bouncing that flash off the ceiling would have (probably) been more than enough to light the inside to match the outside exposure.
Had you used a different angle, it appears that you may have also been able to place a reflector outside aimed inside to light your subject. This method won't bounce enough light to light the room, but it will give you more for the subject.
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You're on the right track with the 2nd photo. The camera can properly expose for the outside light and you need to provide extra light on the inside. Notice on the glassware the highlight that was apparently created by your flash. You will just need to increase the inside light until it and the outside are balanced. If you are just using the onboard flash, you can see that it will not provide the necessary light and that you are going to need a bigger flash.
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The difference between the outside parts of the scene and the inside parts of the scene are too great for your camera (or pretty much any camera) to properly record both.
You have two basic options:
- Add more light to the indoor parts of the scene. The best results will be with strategically placed off camera light sources that won't cause distracting reflections bounced back at the camera.
- Wait until later in the day when the outside scene is approaching twilight and the illumination levels between the outside and inside are much closer. The outside light will change very rapidly during twilight and even the difference of a minute or two can have a great effect on the outcome of the photo.
In either case, you may need to use color modifiers over your indoor light sources (whether flashes or the ambient lights in the room) to match the color of the indoor lights to the light outside.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Definitely you shall use frontal lighting. Mostly so called fill-in flash.
The second option: HDR with at least 3 shots to get high, mid and low tones.
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
1
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation
Even the near edge of the table shows no flash on it. But the flash capability is not all that weak. The flash metering automation is seeing the bright outdoors, and deciding the flash is not much needed there. The answer is that automation is simply too dumb for difficult shots. Humans have to take charge of both exposures, make them both be what you want.
Manual flash power level could make a big difference, to manually set its power at the highest manual level that gives good results. However flash intensity falls off fast with distance (close vs. far will be very different intensity). A flash capable of bounce flash could make that range be some better (if the ceiling allows), but it is still a difficult situation.
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Given your gear, a perfectly balanced inside and outside will be impossible - the correct exposures for each are too far apart.
Since shadows can be bumped up and blown highlights are completely gone, you should err on the side of not blowing anything out.
You actually handled the situation as best you could. In looking at the first shot, nothing appears to be blown out in the outside shot. This makes it the best shot between the two. This is because you can easily bring the highlights back down in post and be left with a pleasing shot where the inside is lit and the outside is appropriately exposed.
If you try to use the second shot and to bring up the shadows in post, you'll find a greater increase in noise, though it may be workable pending your use of the photo.
To recap: If you don't have the gear to light the inside enough to match or come close to the outside exposure, then the best thing that you can do is overexpose the outside until it is almost blown out. This way, you maximize the inside exposure and provide enough wiggle room to equalize things in post. (Do make sure you're shooting RAW!)
If you were to buy some equipment, then get yourself a decent speedlight. Simply bouncing that flash off the ceiling would have (probably) been more than enough to light the inside to match the outside exposure.
Had you used a different angle, it appears that you may have also been able to place a reflector outside aimed inside to light your subject. This method won't bounce enough light to light the room, but it will give you more for the subject.
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Given your gear, a perfectly balanced inside and outside will be impossible - the correct exposures for each are too far apart.
Since shadows can be bumped up and blown highlights are completely gone, you should err on the side of not blowing anything out.
You actually handled the situation as best you could. In looking at the first shot, nothing appears to be blown out in the outside shot. This makes it the best shot between the two. This is because you can easily bring the highlights back down in post and be left with a pleasing shot where the inside is lit and the outside is appropriately exposed.
If you try to use the second shot and to bring up the shadows in post, you'll find a greater increase in noise, though it may be workable pending your use of the photo.
To recap: If you don't have the gear to light the inside enough to match or come close to the outside exposure, then the best thing that you can do is overexpose the outside until it is almost blown out. This way, you maximize the inside exposure and provide enough wiggle room to equalize things in post. (Do make sure you're shooting RAW!)
If you were to buy some equipment, then get yourself a decent speedlight. Simply bouncing that flash off the ceiling would have (probably) been more than enough to light the inside to match the outside exposure.
Had you used a different angle, it appears that you may have also been able to place a reflector outside aimed inside to light your subject. This method won't bounce enough light to light the room, but it will give you more for the subject.
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Given your gear, a perfectly balanced inside and outside will be impossible - the correct exposures for each are too far apart.
Since shadows can be bumped up and blown highlights are completely gone, you should err on the side of not blowing anything out.
You actually handled the situation as best you could. In looking at the first shot, nothing appears to be blown out in the outside shot. This makes it the best shot between the two. This is because you can easily bring the highlights back down in post and be left with a pleasing shot where the inside is lit and the outside is appropriately exposed.
If you try to use the second shot and to bring up the shadows in post, you'll find a greater increase in noise, though it may be workable pending your use of the photo.
To recap: If you don't have the gear to light the inside enough to match or come close to the outside exposure, then the best thing that you can do is overexpose the outside until it is almost blown out. This way, you maximize the inside exposure and provide enough wiggle room to equalize things in post. (Do make sure you're shooting RAW!)
If you were to buy some equipment, then get yourself a decent speedlight. Simply bouncing that flash off the ceiling would have (probably) been more than enough to light the inside to match the outside exposure.
Had you used a different angle, it appears that you may have also been able to place a reflector outside aimed inside to light your subject. This method won't bounce enough light to light the room, but it will give you more for the subject.
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
Given your gear, a perfectly balanced inside and outside will be impossible - the correct exposures for each are too far apart.
Since shadows can be bumped up and blown highlights are completely gone, you should err on the side of not blowing anything out.
You actually handled the situation as best you could. In looking at the first shot, nothing appears to be blown out in the outside shot. This makes it the best shot between the two. This is because you can easily bring the highlights back down in post and be left with a pleasing shot where the inside is lit and the outside is appropriately exposed.
If you try to use the second shot and to bring up the shadows in post, you'll find a greater increase in noise, though it may be workable pending your use of the photo.
To recap: If you don't have the gear to light the inside enough to match or come close to the outside exposure, then the best thing that you can do is overexpose the outside until it is almost blown out. This way, you maximize the inside exposure and provide enough wiggle room to equalize things in post. (Do make sure you're shooting RAW!)
If you were to buy some equipment, then get yourself a decent speedlight. Simply bouncing that flash off the ceiling would have (probably) been more than enough to light the inside to match the outside exposure.
Had you used a different angle, it appears that you may have also been able to place a reflector outside aimed inside to light your subject. This method won't bounce enough light to light the room, but it will give you more for the subject.
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
answered 1 hour ago
Hueco
9,24432344
9,24432344
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You're on the right track with the 2nd photo. The camera can properly expose for the outside light and you need to provide extra light on the inside. Notice on the glassware the highlight that was apparently created by your flash. You will just need to increase the inside light until it and the outside are balanced. If you are just using the onboard flash, you can see that it will not provide the necessary light and that you are going to need a bigger flash.
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You're on the right track with the 2nd photo. The camera can properly expose for the outside light and you need to provide extra light on the inside. Notice on the glassware the highlight that was apparently created by your flash. You will just need to increase the inside light until it and the outside are balanced. If you are just using the onboard flash, you can see that it will not provide the necessary light and that you are going to need a bigger flash.
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You're on the right track with the 2nd photo. The camera can properly expose for the outside light and you need to provide extra light on the inside. Notice on the glassware the highlight that was apparently created by your flash. You will just need to increase the inside light until it and the outside are balanced. If you are just using the onboard flash, you can see that it will not provide the necessary light and that you are going to need a bigger flash.
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
You're on the right track with the 2nd photo. The camera can properly expose for the outside light and you need to provide extra light on the inside. Notice on the glassware the highlight that was apparently created by your flash. You will just need to increase the inside light until it and the outside are balanced. If you are just using the onboard flash, you can see that it will not provide the necessary light and that you are going to need a bigger flash.
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
answered 2 hours ago
user76732
1811
1811
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
I am happy to read that answer. I really had the same thought, though I have to admit I did not explore the possibility with the restaurant/waiters if one could have more light...
– Ely
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The difference between the outside parts of the scene and the inside parts of the scene are too great for your camera (or pretty much any camera) to properly record both.
You have two basic options:
- Add more light to the indoor parts of the scene. The best results will be with strategically placed off camera light sources that won't cause distracting reflections bounced back at the camera.
- Wait until later in the day when the outside scene is approaching twilight and the illumination levels between the outside and inside are much closer. The outside light will change very rapidly during twilight and even the difference of a minute or two can have a great effect on the outcome of the photo.
In either case, you may need to use color modifiers over your indoor light sources (whether flashes or the ambient lights in the room) to match the color of the indoor lights to the light outside.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The difference between the outside parts of the scene and the inside parts of the scene are too great for your camera (or pretty much any camera) to properly record both.
You have two basic options:
- Add more light to the indoor parts of the scene. The best results will be with strategically placed off camera light sources that won't cause distracting reflections bounced back at the camera.
- Wait until later in the day when the outside scene is approaching twilight and the illumination levels between the outside and inside are much closer. The outside light will change very rapidly during twilight and even the difference of a minute or two can have a great effect on the outcome of the photo.
In either case, you may need to use color modifiers over your indoor light sources (whether flashes or the ambient lights in the room) to match the color of the indoor lights to the light outside.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The difference between the outside parts of the scene and the inside parts of the scene are too great for your camera (or pretty much any camera) to properly record both.
You have two basic options:
- Add more light to the indoor parts of the scene. The best results will be with strategically placed off camera light sources that won't cause distracting reflections bounced back at the camera.
- Wait until later in the day when the outside scene is approaching twilight and the illumination levels between the outside and inside are much closer. The outside light will change very rapidly during twilight and even the difference of a minute or two can have a great effect on the outcome of the photo.
In either case, you may need to use color modifiers over your indoor light sources (whether flashes or the ambient lights in the room) to match the color of the indoor lights to the light outside.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
The difference between the outside parts of the scene and the inside parts of the scene are too great for your camera (or pretty much any camera) to properly record both.
You have two basic options:
- Add more light to the indoor parts of the scene. The best results will be with strategically placed off camera light sources that won't cause distracting reflections bounced back at the camera.
- Wait until later in the day when the outside scene is approaching twilight and the illumination levels between the outside and inside are much closer. The outside light will change very rapidly during twilight and even the difference of a minute or two can have a great effect on the outcome of the photo.
In either case, you may need to use color modifiers over your indoor light sources (whether flashes or the ambient lights in the room) to match the color of the indoor lights to the light outside.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
123k7139346
123k7139346
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
I really appreciate your answer. The second point is particularly interesting to me; I did not have that thought. Thank you
– Ely
39 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Definitely you shall use frontal lighting. Mostly so called fill-in flash.
The second option: HDR with at least 3 shots to get high, mid and low tones.
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
1
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Definitely you shall use frontal lighting. Mostly so called fill-in flash.
The second option: HDR with at least 3 shots to get high, mid and low tones.
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
1
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Definitely you shall use frontal lighting. Mostly so called fill-in flash.
The second option: HDR with at least 3 shots to get high, mid and low tones.
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
Definitely you shall use frontal lighting. Mostly so called fill-in flash.
The second option: HDR with at least 3 shots to get high, mid and low tones.
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
answered 2 hours ago
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
344212
344212
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
1
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
1
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
I tried that in the second photo. I believe my flash was probably too weak for that situation.
– Ely
1 hour ago
1
1
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
It seems like. I see lighting from reflecting material at children cart, but it is definitely too weak.
– Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation
Even the near edge of the table shows no flash on it. But the flash capability is not all that weak. The flash metering automation is seeing the bright outdoors, and deciding the flash is not much needed there. The answer is that automation is simply too dumb for difficult shots. Humans have to take charge of both exposures, make them both be what you want.
Manual flash power level could make a big difference, to manually set its power at the highest manual level that gives good results. However flash intensity falls off fast with distance (close vs. far will be very different intensity). A flash capable of bounce flash could make that range be some better (if the ceiling allows), but it is still a difficult situation.
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation
Even the near edge of the table shows no flash on it. But the flash capability is not all that weak. The flash metering automation is seeing the bright outdoors, and deciding the flash is not much needed there. The answer is that automation is simply too dumb for difficult shots. Humans have to take charge of both exposures, make them both be what you want.
Manual flash power level could make a big difference, to manually set its power at the highest manual level that gives good results. However flash intensity falls off fast with distance (close vs. far will be very different intensity). A flash capable of bounce flash could make that range be some better (if the ceiling allows), but it is still a difficult situation.
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation
Even the near edge of the table shows no flash on it. But the flash capability is not all that weak. The flash metering automation is seeing the bright outdoors, and deciding the flash is not much needed there. The answer is that automation is simply too dumb for difficult shots. Humans have to take charge of both exposures, make them both be what you want.
Manual flash power level could make a big difference, to manually set its power at the highest manual level that gives good results. However flash intensity falls off fast with distance (close vs. far will be very different intensity). A flash capable of bounce flash could make that range be some better (if the ceiling allows), but it is still a difficult situation.
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
Either the flash was too weak or my assumption is not accurate for the situation
Even the near edge of the table shows no flash on it. But the flash capability is not all that weak. The flash metering automation is seeing the bright outdoors, and deciding the flash is not much needed there. The answer is that automation is simply too dumb for difficult shots. Humans have to take charge of both exposures, make them both be what you want.
Manual flash power level could make a big difference, to manually set its power at the highest manual level that gives good results. However flash intensity falls off fast with distance (close vs. far will be very different intensity). A flash capable of bounce flash could make that range be some better (if the ceiling allows), but it is still a difficult situation.
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
edited 31 mins ago
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
answered 56 mins ago
WayneF
9,1061923
9,1061923
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102284%2feither-background-is-overexposed-or-the-foreground-is-underexposed-are-there-po%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Related: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/98951/…
– Hueco
1 hour ago
2
To be clear: this is a difficult lighting situation. Sunlight outside and room light inside. The difference in brightness is huge.
– Pete Becker
1 hour ago
1
I think HDR is the best option, if you don't want to change the light or wait for better light.
– Orbit
23 mins ago