Taking pictures in the snow
- Thread starter impaul
- Start date
8utters
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,449
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah make sure you do a custom white balance (take a photo of a clear patch of snow and set it as custom white balance) or the snow will look blue.
For snowy places try and get into some trees, I always find trees + snow makes lovely photos. Perhaps try and get the sun shining through some tree branches covered with snow?
For snowy places try and get into some trees, I always find trees + snow makes lovely photos. Perhaps try and get the sun shining through some tree branches covered with snow?
Craikeybaby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,590
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Check the histogram, depending on the conditions you may need to overexpose by up to two stops to stop the snow looking grey...
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Shoot raw, instead of jpeg, to help with highlight recovery if you do blow the highlights a little. It will also mean you can sort out WB back home. If you want to get WB correct in camera then try a daylight or flash preset, or around 6,000 Kelvin manual setting (for sunny weather), or shoot a custom white balance.
If your lighting conditions are constant (e.g. clear blue skies all day), shoot with manual exposure, using the "Sunny 16" Rule" as a guideline, and modify aperture and shutter speed (and ISO if you need to) to maintain the exposure. e.g. For sunny conditions and 100 ISO you can shoot at....
f/16 and 1/100 (good for landscapes)
f/11 and 1/200 (good for landscapes)
f/8 and 1/400 (good for landscapes and general shots)
f/5.6 and 1/800 (good for sports/action and general shots)
f/4 and 1/1600 (good for sports/action)
By using manual exposure your metering won't be thrown off just because you have more or less sky/snow/forest/rock/skier(s) in the frame. Chimp the histogram to make sure you got it right and then you're all set to take a bunch of photos without worrying about exposure until the lighting changes.
Here are a couple of examples taken with a manual exposure setting based on the sunny 16 rule as a starting point, then widening the aperture and speeding the shutter to compensate and making final adjustment after a quick chimp of the histogram from a test shot....
I took over 200 shots of jumping skiers/boarders and didn't have to change the exposure at all or even give it a thought during half an hour of shooting. Once it was set correctly it was good for the next hour at least.
If your lighting conditions are constant (e.g. clear blue skies all day), shoot with manual exposure, using the "Sunny 16" Rule" as a guideline, and modify aperture and shutter speed (and ISO if you need to) to maintain the exposure. e.g. For sunny conditions and 100 ISO you can shoot at....
f/16 and 1/100 (good for landscapes)
f/11 and 1/200 (good for landscapes)
f/8 and 1/400 (good for landscapes and general shots)
f/5.6 and 1/800 (good for sports/action and general shots)
f/4 and 1/1600 (good for sports/action)
By using manual exposure your metering won't be thrown off just because you have more or less sky/snow/forest/rock/skier(s) in the frame. Chimp the histogram to make sure you got it right and then you're all set to take a bunch of photos without worrying about exposure until the lighting changes.
Here are a couple of examples taken with a manual exposure setting based on the sunny 16 rule as a starting point, then widening the aperture and speeding the shutter to compensate and making final adjustment after a quick chimp of the histogram from a test shot....
I took over 200 shots of jumping skiers/boarders and didn't have to change the exposure at all or even give it a thought during half an hour of shooting. Once it was set correctly it was good for the next hour at least.
Craikeybaby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,590
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was the first one your test shot? It looks over exposed on this monitor, the second one looks pretty much spot on.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
It was not a test shot. The exposure was about as perfect as could be, deliberately exposing to the right for a raw capture. Remember that squashing a 12MB (14 bit) raw file into a sucky little 57KB (8 bit) jpeg is going to cause some loss of fine detail and tonal subtlety.
Here is the histogram in Lightroom with no adjustments of any kind. There are probably a couple of dozen blown pixels in the snow, which could be recovered if I wanted to, but their impact on the photo is inconsequential. I switched on the highlight clipping indicator just so you can see a few tiny red blobs (the blown bits) scattered around the snow.
Here is the original image, processed as before, and the same image, processed in exactly the same way, but with the exposure knocked down by 1 stop in DPP. You will see the details are there in the snow.
Here is the histogram in Lightroom with no adjustments of any kind. There are probably a couple of dozen blown pixels in the snow, which could be recovered if I wanted to, but their impact on the photo is inconsequential. I switched on the highlight clipping indicator just so you can see a few tiny red blobs (the blown bits) scattered around the snow.
Here is the original image, processed as before, and the same image, processed in exactly the same way, but with the exposure knocked down by 1 stop in DPP. You will see the details are there in the snow.
Craikeybaby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,590
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree, the snow is spot on there, but the rest of the image looks washed out, especially the sky, rocks and other photog.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
The histogram does not lie. The exposure was correct. Artistic choices, like upping contrast and saturation are exactly that - artistic. The beauty of shooting raw is that you can make those artistic tweaks to suit personal taste, without losing quality from your final result.
Maybe your monitor is not calibrated. Mine is. Maybe your monitor does not have a high contrast ratio. Mine does. I can assure you my photos look terrific when displayed on my 40" 1080p TV. The contrast and richness of colour blows away my laptop screen, but the laptop is calibrated and is still pretty good. I like my photos to look natural, and do perform the minimum of tweaking - none if possible. My original version was unedited and looks just right on my TV, which is where I display my photos. Perhaps you will prefer this version more....
It might look "nice", but I do not think it is very realistic. On my TV I am quite sure it would look very "overcooked".
Here are three more, all taken with the same exposure setting and processed with no edits. Note how deep and rich the blacks are, but the rocks are still a fairly mid-grey tone. It is not that the original example was washed out, simply that through most of the picture there was little extreme contrast. The histogram confirms that. I hope these three indicate that the original captured image was just fine....
Anyway, there's no point debating our different artistic viewpoints and equipment capabilities here. That won't help the OP with his challenge of shooting in the snow. So long as he gets a good capture in the first place (to a raw file preferably) he can then tweak the finer artistic elements back home. Getting the data captured in the camera, correctly, is what counts first of all.
Maybe your monitor is not calibrated. Mine is. Maybe your monitor does not have a high contrast ratio. Mine does. I can assure you my photos look terrific when displayed on my 40" 1080p TV. The contrast and richness of colour blows away my laptop screen, but the laptop is calibrated and is still pretty good. I like my photos to look natural, and do perform the minimum of tweaking - none if possible. My original version was unedited and looks just right on my TV, which is where I display my photos. Perhaps you will prefer this version more....
It might look "nice", but I do not think it is very realistic. On my TV I am quite sure it would look very "overcooked".
Here are three more, all taken with the same exposure setting and processed with no edits. Note how deep and rich the blacks are, but the rocks are still a fairly mid-grey tone. It is not that the original example was washed out, simply that through most of the picture there was little extreme contrast. The histogram confirms that. I hope these three indicate that the original captured image was just fine....
Anyway, there's no point debating our different artistic viewpoints and equipment capabilities here. That won't help the OP with his challenge of shooting in the snow. So long as he gets a good capture in the first place (to a raw file preferably) he can then tweak the finer artistic elements back home. Getting the data captured in the camera, correctly, is what counts first of all.
Craikeybaby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,590
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree with you, shooting raw and tweaking it after is the way to go...
[edit]Just seen your other three, the riders/skiers do look spot on, so those rocks must be really light, especially in comparison to the ones on your second photo, where were they taken?
[edit]Just seen your other three, the riders/skiers do look spot on, so those rocks must be really light, especially in comparison to the ones on your second photo, where were they taken?
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Alpe d'Huez. There is a snow park with jumps, half pipes and a sort of slalom/semi-luge run just above the bottom of the DMC telecabine. Actually, there are two snow parks. I was stationed at one jump in the "junior" park.
This looks like a video (not my video!) of the jump I was stationed at - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO96XuL7hnY - In fact it is dated the week I was there. I'm pretty sure I recognise some of the jumpers from my own photos - I was photographing strangers, just for the practice.
onefivenine
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 178
- Edit My Images
- No
If you're intending on capturing some landscapes, I'd recommend taking some grad ND's with you. Some good results can be had from shooting into the sun with a mountain in the way...
Cool shot.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest, especially if you shoot raw, I'd put WB right at the back of the list, as it's the one thing that can be completely altered after the shot is taken with no negative impact. If you shoot jpeg it would be good to get it right in the first place but not the worst thing in the world if you don't. It's not like you'll have an odd combination of different colour temperatures to deal with, like using flash in a tungsten lit room. It's all going to fall somewhere between daylight and cloudy settings (the blueish end of the WB spectrum). If you want to set a custom WB then certainly go ahead. It is quick and easy to do, so you may just as well, but don't sweat it if you forget.
If you get lighting, composition, exposure, focus, DOF or shutter speed wrong, those will all cost you something in image quality to correct, if they can be corrected at all. That's where I'd focus (Boom! Boom!) my attention. That's also why I like shooting with manual exposure. Once it's set right that one less thing to be concerned about when shooting. Having that sorted out lets me concentrate on my composition, timing and focus.