# photos blown out using natural light in doors



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Hi,

Shot this yesterday using natural light on a table near a window that has white sheer curtains.

Any tips on improving the lighting would be appreciated..






Thanks,

Michael


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2016)

Lose the celery. I _hate _celery 


Oh, wait..... Never mind.  _Lighting  _help.......

Perhaps a reflector on the camera side of the plate to fill in the shadows. It can be something simple like a large piece of white craft paper from the dollar store.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

;-)

Does the image look blown out to you?

I have a couple of reflectors but if the image is blown out am not sure that I want to add more light.

I don't like raw celery but it has a milder taste in sauces. Good in bolognese sauce and gives a slight crunch.

Michael


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2016)

You can always stop the lens down, lower the ISO or use an ND filter.


----------



## fmw (Aug 16, 2016)

Yes, use a reflector to fill the shadows and reduce the exposure.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 16, 2016)

1.  Meter the highlights;

2.  determine your desired dynamic range (somewhere around1.5 stops is usually good); and

3.  add sufficient fill light to achieve this.

or....

Just add more diffusion to the window.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

480sparky said:


> You can always stop the lens down, lower the ISO or use an ND filter.



ISO is set at 100


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

fmw said:


> Yes, use a reflector to fill the shadows and reduce the exposure.



I just played with a white and gold reflector.

The white has very limited effect the gold has a much greater one.

I don't know why.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

tirediron said:


> 1.  Meter the highlights;
> 
> 2.  determine your desired dynamic range (somewhere around1.5 stops is usually good); and
> 
> ...



Thanks.

Will have to buy a meter.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_1_7...light+meter&ie=UTF8&qid=1471358335&sr=8-7-acs - any suggestions?

BTW - I took a photo at every available f stop - when I got to f22 the camera started removing noise.

Michael

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Frank Doorhof: Why I Use a Light Meter (and You Should, Too)

His recommendation?

Over $500 on Amazon


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> .....BTW - I took a photo at every available f stop - when I got to f22 the camera started removing noise.



This doesn't make sense. Stopping down should require an increase in ISO and thus create more noise.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, use a reflector to fill the shadows and reduce the exposure.
> ...



The gold will reflect more light than the white will. You will also get a gold color cast with the gold reflector (and the silver side will give a bit of a color cast too)


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Frank Doorhof: Why I Use a Light Meter (and You Should, Too)
> 
> His recommendation?
> 
> Over $500 on Amazon



You don't have a light meter problem you have a lighting problem. A light meter would not fix or help this problem in any way. Variations in camera settings will not help this problem. Bottom line: you shot the plate backlit such that the primary subject is in shadow but you're trying to process the shot with the primary subject well-lit. All of the trouble you're having with this photo derives from the single root cause that the dominant light source is behind the subject.

You can have a backlight in the photo if you want, but you can't fail to light the chicken in the front. Look at the chicken on the plate and see that it's casting a shadow toward you. It's a photo of the chicken. The chicken fills the bottom half of the frame. The bottom half of the frame is in shadow.

Joe


----------



## Designer (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Does the image look blown out to you?
> 
> I have a couple of reflectors but if the image is blown out am not sure that I want to add more light.


What does the histogram tell you?  If the histogram indicates blown pixels, then yes.

No, do not add more light.  There is enough light already on the tops, so if anything, there may be too much light.  When you stop down, that is when you need to add light (such as a reflector or low power flash) on the near side to light the near side ONLY a bit more.  Be careful how you position the reflector so as to not overexpose the tops again.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

480sparky said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > .....BTW - I took a photo at every available f stop - when I got to f22 the camera started removing noise.
> ...



ISO remained the same.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Designer said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Does the image look blown out to you?
> ...



Thanks very much and will try again ..


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Just took this photo on my phone and in a way it's so demoralizing.






None of the over exposure etc.

Same lighting exactly as yesterday and just a simple snapshot.

I want the best photos than I can personally shoot for my cookbook.

Michael


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > redbourn said:
> ...



Then the only other thing that could have changed was the shutter speed.  Either way, you should not have increased noise.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Just took this photo on my phone and in a way it's so demoralizing.
> 
> View attachment 126127
> 
> None of the over exposure etc.



Highlights are blown out. In fact you have more totally blown highlights in the food in this photo than in the chicken.



redbourn said:


> Same lighting exactly as yesterday and just a simple snapshot.



It is not the same lighting as yesterday. The backlight is not as severe.

Joe



redbourn said:


> I want the best photos than I can personally shoot for my cookbook.
> 
> Michael


----------



## Designer (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Just took this photo on my phone and in a way it's so demoralizing.
> 
> Same lighting exactly as yesterday and just a simple snapshot.


From a completely different angle.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

480sparky said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Well the shutter speed changed when I got to f22 so the the camera then said "too much noise; going to reduce it!".


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 16, 2016)

480sparky said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


he was probably in one of the auto modes ...


----------



## tirediron (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> ...You don't have a light meter problem you have a lighting problem. A light meter would not fix or help this problem in any way.


I`m going to respectfully disagree with you on this Joe.  Using a spot meter to determine exposure for the highlights would allow the OP to calculate proper exposure for the overall scene.  Granted, using strobed light only would make this whole process much easier, but if one wants to use ambient in a challenging lighting scenario like this, I would suggest a meter is essential.

OP:  You don`t need a $500+ Sekonic (`though it`s an excellent meter).  For this particular scenario, I would recommend the Minolta Spot F (not that one in particular, just a link as an example).


----------



## fmw (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, use a reflector to fill the shadows and reduce the exposure.
> ...



The gold is metallic and will reflect more light.  Limited effect is fine.  You aren't trying to light subject, you are just filling in some shadows.   What you are trying to do is to reduce the dynamic range of the subject.  Some fill light should allow you to reduce the exposure value without losing all the shadows.  Your eyes do a better job of dealing with high dynamic range than your sensor is.  There are also some things you can do in post process to reduce dynamic range and, of course, there is always the use of multiple exposures at different exposure values which are combined with HDR software.   Getting dynamic range under control is your goal.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 16, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ...You don't have a light meter problem you have a lighting problem. A light meter would not fix or help this problem in any way.
> ...



The problem is that the meter doesn't resolve the lighting problem -- the lighting problem remains regardless of the exposure. The diffuse highlights are clipped and the red channel is nuked in the version presented, but the main subject is too dark. You could use a meter to calculate a reduced exposure and the main subject that is already too dark in the shadow will get darker in the shadow. That just makes the photo worse overall.

*I'll bet the diffuse highlights are not clipped in the raw original* -- there's actually very little highlight clipping in that photo. The clipping he's getting now is from processing as he struggles to lighten up the subject because the subject is in shadows due to the backlight.

A meter could help uncover the root problem, but so can eyes.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > redbourn said:
> ...



If everything was taken at ISO 100, the noise will be the same.  I suspect you really didn't shoot them all at ISO 100.  ISO is the ONLY thing you can change that will affect noise.  Aperture doesn't.  Shutter speeds don't.  ONLY ISO.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> ISO is set at 100




still an aperture and shutter you can adjust...


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Thanks for the reply.

Dropbox - dijon style chicken.NEF

Is the original or very close to it.

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Just took this photo on my phone and in a way it's so demoralizing.
> ...



Shot on my phone.

Same place on the table and table same place next to the window and same time of day and weather.

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > redbourn said:
> ...



Camera was set for aperture and I used a dozen f stops all with the same result.

Photo taken on my phone today did not have the same problem . very frustrating.

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Frank Doorhof: Why I Use a Light Meter (and You Should, Too)
> ...



Am very interested in your response and thanks for posting.

The chicken needs to be at the front since it's the feature.

Photos is table and window (at night) ..

I can have my back to the window and shoot in the opposite direction but then I will cast a shadow.

Ideas please?

Michael


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



And here's a histogram of that raw file:



 

Not a single pixel in the shot is clipped. This is a full detail raw file with all highlights fully intact.

You blew the highlights in the version you processed in LR because your subject (chicken) was too dark in the shadows and you tried to compensate for that in processing. The correct place to make that compensation was lighting the chicken in the first place.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Shot on my phone.
> 
> Same place on the table and table same place next to the window and same time of day and weather.



Very different angle (Designer noted) for the phone shot. Highlights in the phone shot are badly clipped.

Joe



redbourn said:


> Michael


----------



## tirediron (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> The chicken needs to be at the front since it's the feature.
> 
> Photos is table and window (at night) ..
> 
> ...


You've tried a million different things since you first posted here, but as far as I can tell you don't seem to be actually working on learning the photographic process, you're just throwing s**t at the wall to see what sticks, and it doesn't matter if you throw overhand, underhand, or side-arm, it's all going to splatter messily.

You need to get some proper equipment; three-four inexpensive speedlights & triggers, so white & black cardstock to make reflectors & flags, and then get some prop food and spend a week or two with that and a copy of Light, Science, Magic! and actually learn how to do this properly.  LEARN how to control highlights, LEARN what affect each parameter will have on your shot, etc, etc.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Camera was set for aperture and I used a dozen f stops all with the same result.


sounds like you dont know how to operate your camera.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2016)

Braineack said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Camera was set for aperture and I used a dozen f stops all with the same result.
> ...



More to the point, not knowing which settings to use for this particular subject.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Thanks for making the effort to help me.

I have a softbox.

So should I have used it on the chicken?

If nothing is blown out then is there a way to fix the photo in PS or LR ?

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Braineack said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Camera was set for aperture and I used a dozen f stops all with the same result.
> ...



Ysarex said there is nothing blown out in the nef photo and took the trouble to show images.

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



If not softbox then a reflector or two ?


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 16, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > redbourn said:
> ...



Yep, and it needs to be lit from the front since it's the feature. And this is the root of your problem.

Joe


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Natural light from the window and using a light box would cause problems.

So I will try tomorrow using one or two reflectors.

I mentioned in an earlier response that the white reflector had much  less effect that a gold one.

So I will try both.

01:29 here so time to close my eyes.

Thanks for all the help.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Thank you so much!


----------



## redbourn (Aug 17, 2016)

Didn't solve the problem but was interesting.

Instead of lightning the chicken I darkened the exposure of the carrots in LR






Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



I took on board as much as I could from all the posts yesterday and shot this photo with my back to the window.

The photo may be an improvement but it it's hard to make the meat look good because it's been marinated and is covered in a sauce.


A Minute Sweet And Sour Steak
Serves 4
Prep time    5 min
Wait time   30 min
Cook time  10 min
Total time     

 45 minutes including wait time

A minute steak is a thin slice of high quality steak such as rib eye or porterhouse.
So please don't confuse it with a cube steak, which is a tough cheap cut, better suited to stews.

Ingredients
4 thin rib eye or porterhouse steak cut into strips against the grain, about 2 lb. (900g).
2 large thinly sliced onions
3-4  cloves of crushed garlic
2/3 cup red wine or stock
1/2 cup soy sauce
4 tbsp Dijon mustard
4 tsp of Muscovado sugar or 5 tsp or regular brown sugar
Olive oil
Salt and pepper to taste

Mix the wine, garlic, soy sauce, mustard and sugar in a big bowl, add the strips of steak and allow to marinade for 30 minutes.
Fry the onion over med-high for 4-5 minutes until it's golden brown, and set aside.
Remove the steak strips from the marinade with a slotted spoon and fry them in the onion pan over med-high heat for about a minute on each side.
The amount of time will depend on how well cooked you like your steaks.
Add the marinade and simmer until the marinade thickens and sticks to the meat.
Add the onions and season with salt and pepper to taste.

----

I don't know where the blue hue came from. Plate was on a light green table cloth but barely any was visible in the the photo.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...





Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Briefly, how did you make such a big improvement to the photo?

I have PS and LR

It's so hard cook, be hungry, and have to shoot the photos before eating. And then having to recook and reshoot the food if the photos don't look good enough.  Thank you!


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 17, 2016)

redbourn said:


> It's so hard cook, be hungry, and have to shoot the photos before eating. And then having to recook and reshoot the food if the photos don't look good enough.  Thank you!


That's why you should just work on your photography knowledge; to just improve that with fake food and stuff before being on the clock with a certain amount of time to get the shot.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > It's so hard cook, be hungry, and have to shoot the photos before eating. And then having to recook and reshoot the food if the photos don't look good enough.  Thank you!
> ...



Which fake food do you think I could have used in the photo; meat, rice and beans?

My idea was to write a kind of painting by numbers type cookbook that would help people that believe they can't cook.

Making money from the book wasn't the goal.

I was a top film sound editor for many years but it has nothing in common with being a DP

Kind of got dragged into the photography thing and would like to enjoy it.

But food photography seems so so hard. Like being thrown in at the deep end - or that's how it feels.

Michael


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 17, 2016)

redbourn said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > redbourn said:
> ...



I started in LR for the basic raw conversion. I then used Photoshop and I resorted to what must be described as *extra-ordinary* processing techniques. I used Photoshop blending modes in conjunction with luminosity masks (raw file access was necessary). These methods are appropriate for landscape and field photographers who must accept the lighting as given. And I must stress this: If I were in class and this topic came up I would get very animated. (I've been know to climb up on the desk.) I would pound my fists and yell at my students; "If I ever catch you using processing methods like this on a studio photo I will bite your head off! I will fail you faster for this sin than for using a phone camera! YOU WILL NEVER!!! use a post processing method to repair what you got wrong lighting the shot and dream of passing my class. NEVER!! As long as I breath you get the light right in the studio or I burn your _______!!"

I still get excited after 36 years.

Joe


----------



## redbourn (Aug 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> redbourn said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Thank you so so much!


----------



## TCampbell (Aug 18, 2016)

BTW, when I use "natural" light (a bit of a misnomer because I even use reflectors to manipulate that light) I have a giant black tablecloth that I purchased specifically to bring on food photographer shoots.  I hang this up over windows, etc. and  I will use this to block out light source that create light or reflections that I don't want.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 19, 2016)

TCampbell said:


> BTW, when I use "natural" light (a bit of a misnomer because I even use reflectors to manipulate that light) I have a giant black tablecloth that I purchased specifically to bring on food photographer shoots.  I hang this up over windows, etc. and  I will use this to block out light source that create light or reflections that I don't want.


Thanks.

The black backdrop is interesting!


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 19, 2016)

The pictures just look to me like the needs some Curves Adjustment and maybe a little boost in clarity.


----------



## redbourn (Aug 20, 2016)

HughGuessWho said:


> The pictures just look to me like the needs some Curves Adjustment and maybe a little boost in clarity.



Will give it a try, thanks. Camera, LR and PS is a big learning curve!

Michael


----------



## redbourn (Aug 20, 2016)

There was talk of using a light meter and I saw a free one today, and the reviews seem very good.

Will play with it and it will give me some practice using the camera on the manual setting.

Michael

LightMeter Free - Android Apps on Google Play


----------



## Streets (Sep 10, 2016)

redbourn said:


> ;-)
> 
> Does the image look blown out to you?
> 
> ...


I also do not like celery, but the rubber bands they come with are great for zoom creep.  You can add some shadow or contrast in post-processing.  That will help.  If your computer handles Apps, there is a free one called "Photoshop Express" that handles highlights very well.


----------

