Why do all my photos clip to the right?

I

insomniac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
172
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

A lot of my images tend to clip to the right. This happens a lot actually, I'd say 60% of the time with day shots, and probably 99% of the time when I am shooting on hazy days.

Is it just bad technique or bad exposure settings? Here is a classic example:



DSC_0263 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr

The settings are 1 sec, f/25, ISO 200, exposure bias -1.3. Is it just too long an exposure for day time? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:


Exposure 1
Aperture f/25.0
Focal Length 28 mm
Focal Length 28.3 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias -4/3 EV
 
That's some pretty crazy settings for daytime! F/25??!!

I guess you did it on purpose to get the moving car, but yes, generally 1 second is far too long for most daytime shots and the clipping will be from the big area of sky that's been blown.

On this occasion it doesn't ruin the shot, so I wouldn't worry about it, but to get the sort of shot you are aiming for there, trying when its a bit darker will probably yield better results.
 
Fair enough. Here's a more balanced (if you pardon the pun) example.


DSC_0312 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr

I was shooting on a bright, cloudless day. The settings here are 1/160s, f/7.1, ISO 200, bias 0. Again, it's completely blown to the right.
 
Cameras simply cannot record everything in a shot like your first one, so if the exposure is correct for the main subject (the road/cars here - which it is) then don't worry about the bits that blow as they are largely irrelevant

Your slow exposure here hasn't made one jot of difference to the sky blowing out, so don't worry about that

Always aim to get your exposure correct on the bit that matters most and if other areas blow, or block up, then you have to decide how (if its possible) to correct that - in your opening shot your only option is to shoot on a less contrasty day when the exposure difference between sky and cars/road is less (without going down the exposure blending/HDR route that is)

Dave
 
insomniac said:
Fair enough. Here's a more balanced (if you pardon the pun) example.


DSC_0312 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr

I was shooting on a bright, cloudless day. The settings here are 1/160s, f/7.1, ISO 200, bias 0. Again, it's completely blown to the right.
Click to expand...

You've just picked another contrasty image where the exposure range is outside of what your (any) camera can capture - if you'd zoomed into the flower more you'd have cropped out some of the brightest bits and not blown your image at all; shooting on a cloudy day would have reduced the contrast and mostly likely all of the image would be within the dynamic range your camera can capture

Simples :)

Dave
 
Hi Dave,

Thanks for your input. Here's one more example. This was taken on a pretty hazy day, and it was approaching dusk so the sun wasn't high in the sky.

Exactly the same situation - it's blown completely to the right. Is it also simply too much contrast?


DSC_0287 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr

Settings are 1/30s, f/13, ISO 200, 0 bias.

Another point, I almost always use matrix metering. Would spot metering help somewhat in this case?

Thanks for the help.
 
insomniac said:
Hi Dave,

Thanks for your input. Here's one more example. This was taken on a pretty hazy day, and it was approaching dusk so the sun wasn't high in the sky.

Exactly the same situation - it's blown completely to the right. Is it also simply too much contrast?


DSC_0287 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr

Settings are 1/30s, f/13, ISO 200, 0 bias.

Another point, I almost always use matrix metering. Would spot metering help somewhat in this case?

Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...



Yep - same problem, the exposure range from the brightest to darkest is just too great (though if you had such as Lightroom you'd be amazed at what you can pull back)

The metering mode doesn't matter other than to ensure the main subject is metered correctly, I rarely use spot metering as matrix is usually good enough. This shot is again exposed well enough where it needs to be so you're doing it right, just tackling tricky subjects

You just need to develop your mind's eye to 'see' more like what your camera can actually record, but for many larger subjects if you do want to capture the subject and a lovely sky you just have to come back on a day when its lit better. Lots of peeps will argue for graduated filters in such circumstances, but they create a whole new set of problems most of the time and they are an expensive waste of time in my book


Dave
 
Hi, I don't shoot Nikon but a question "Why do you shoot at ISO 200 in the day time with what looks like plenty of light"?
If the camera goes down to 100 ISO give that a try.
I may be wrong but the settings show 1/30s with ISO 200 if you shoot at 100 ISO you would get 1/60th so less light.
Russ
 
Hey Russell,

Great question, and your opening statement contains the answer. On the D90 the base ISO is 200. Though for some odd reason, the base ISO on the preceding and succeeding models - the D80 and D7000 - is 100.

No idea why though, or what the significance is.
 
russellsnr said:
I may be wrong but the settings show 1/30s with ISO 200 if you shoot at 100 ISO you would get 1/60th so less light.
Russ
Click to expand...

You are wrong Russ - you have the shutter speeds the wrong way around, 1/30 at 200 ISO = 1/15 at 100 ISO not 1/60, that said...

It doesn't matter what ISO you use so long as the combination of ISO, Shutter speed and Aperture gives the correct exposure

Using ISO 100 and 1/30th sec instead of ISO 200 and 1/60th sec makes no difference at all to the chances of part of an image blowing (or blocking up) as the exposure is the same

Dave
 
Your greatest friend may be the ability to dial in exposure compensation ... I tend to walk around with mine set to a -0.5 stop default, and adjust from there up or down per shot only if necessary ...

The other option is manual, of course ...
 
droj said:
Your greatest friend may be the ability to dial in exposure compensation ... I tend to walk around with mine set to a -0.5 stop default, and adjust from there up or down per shot only if necessary ...

The other option is manual, of course ...
Click to expand...

Soz if I look like I keep saying the same thing - but I am - manual, auto, exp comp etc. won't make the slightest bit of difference if the subject is correctly exposed and the rest is so far under/over exposed as to blow/block up then there's nothing you can do about it, the contrast is too high

Dave
 
Hi Dave,

The last two (promise!). These are roughly shot from the same spot, so the angle of the sun is not particularly different.


1 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr
1/1000s, f/6.3, ISO 200, 0 EV


2 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr
1/400s, f/10, ISO 200, 0 EV

The first one is completely clipped, though the second one has a much better looking histogram. (I realize I'm shooting by histogram a bit, but really trying to understand the nuances of correct exposure).

Thanks a lot for your input, really appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Time of day springs to mind. In the middle of a bright, sunny day the dynamic range between foreground and sky is very high.
 
People use filters to enable them to do longer exposures like your first image without everything being over exposed. There are also graduated filters that help stop the sky being overexposed.

If you shoot in RAW you can often pull back some detail from the highlights using software like Lightroom.
 
insomniac said:
Hi Dave,

The last two (promise!). These are roughly shot from the same spot, so the angle of the sun is not particularly different.


1 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr
1/1000s, f/6.3, ISO 200, 0 EV


2 by EggmanOrWalrus, on Flickr
1/400s, f/10, ISO 200, 0 EV

The first one is completely clipped, though the second one has a much better looking histogram. (I realize I'm shooting by histogram a bit, but really trying to understand the nuances of correct exposure).

Thanks a lot for your input, really appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Your first image has a wider dynamic range partly due to that tree on the left being so dark, there's nothing like it in the second image and hence its dynamic range is less



Alastair said:
Time of day springs to mind. In the middle of a bright, sunny day the dynamic range between foreground and sky is very high.
Click to expand...

True :thumbs: and hence often too high to record everything so you make your choice of what should be exposed correctly and accept that the unimportant bits can blow/block

Bebop said:
People use filters to enable them to do longer exposures like your first image without everything being over exposed. There are also graduated filters that help stop the sky being overexposed.

If you shoot in RAW you can often pull back some detail from the highlights using software like Lightroom.
Click to expand...

Filters (by which I take it you mean Neutral Density filters that affect the whole image) for longer exposures still won't make ANY difference to the dynamic range, in the water shot the water would blur, anything else that moved would blur, but the overall exposure and areas of blown would be EXACTLY the same

Grad filters for skies are often a waste of time/money as they affect everything, so in the mill shot the sky make be visible but the buildings/trees would be too underexposed; as they are the subject this would be wrong

Lightroom is great for highlight recovery

droj said:
Despite that you can still choose how to balance the exposure according to your preferences IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand this comment - in a high dynamic range subject you usually have three options...

1 - expose for the highlights and the mid tones usually take care of themselves, the darker tones block up hugely

2 - expose for the mid tones and accept some, maybe lots, of the highlights and blacks will blow and or block up

3 - expose for the darkest tones and while the mid tones may be fine all of the highlights will blow

The only thing it depends on is what the subject is - in the mill above, exposing for 1 would totally underexpose the subject matter, 2 would underexpose the subject a bit but Lightroom may be able to recover some sky/black details, and somewhere between 2-3 is what the OP did, which is correct for this shot, but means the highlights (sky) has completely blown

Of course if you took all 3 exposures you could decide later which best suits what you want, or even blend them in a HDR program and hey presto, problem solved :)

Dave
 
Our eyes can see a much greater range from dark to bright than a camera can capture in one shot. You, or your camera, needs to choose which bit you want to keep.
Looking at all your examples the exposure looks pretty good. If you exposed down (darker) to get the sky looking ok everything else in shot would be much darker. In the river example, I expect you would loose almost all detail in the river and the wheel.
This can be overcome with:
Graduated filters to darken the sky but leave the ground, but really need straight, clear horizons to line up with.
Flash/other light to make your subject as bright as the sky for a even exposure.
Merging 2, or more, images with the correct exposure for each part of the image.

You're not doing anything wrong, changing settings won't help improve the range of brightness' your camera can capture.
Shooting in raw with low iso will give you the most flexibility in editing.
 
Andy_S said:
Shooting in raw with low iso will give you the most flexibility in editing.
Click to expand...

This is the only bit I haven't already said :lol:

But its an important one to add in too :thumbs: so yes - raw ALWAYS - and the lowest ISO you can get away with too while making sure the shutter speed & aperture re DoF does whatever you need it to :)

Dave
 
Thanks all to everyone who participated on this thread, and special thanks to Dave, it's been very educating.
 
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "clipped".

Do you mean the histograms or blinkies show clipping?

If so the answer is simple - dial in some underexposure until the histogram looks good or the blinkies stop blinking - the rest is down to PP.

.
 
petersmart said:
If so the answer is simple - dial in some underexposure until the histogram looks good or the blinkies stop blinking - the rest is down to PP.

.
Click to expand...

NO its not and by a long way NOT - that is just soooooooo wrong

And as the OP is happy - I'm 'out' of this thread now :)

Dave
 
I think you expecting yiur camera to be like your eyes. People including myself have to use ND filters in such conditions due to the difference from dark to light. Shoot raw obviously and if you dnt have photoshop have a play in view nx see what you can bring back. Otherwise bias to the shadows and see if you can recover from the darker areas
 
This looks like it's been pretty well covered, but I'm just going to quickly chip in with some mega-basics which I don't think anyone mentioned.

Your first shot, it looks like you were shooting on an over-cast day. So the sky has blownout to white - but this is because the sky was white. So your histogram will show a massive skew to the right.
Likewise your snowy mountain scenes - all that white snow will show up on the histogram as over to the right.

The advice on this thread; negative compensation, composing without the bright bits in etc. are all used to get around the fact there's a LOT of white in these 2 images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top