Avoiding blown highlights in digital night photogprahy

[thereabouts]

I am after tips and techniques that might help me to capture highlight details with digital cameras at night. (I don't want a film versus digital argument).

I do a lot of night photography. Generally urban stuff. Because of the high ISO capabilities of digital cameras, I generally prefer using them over film when doing night photography (I only do hand-held, no tripods).

I am finding that, even when I spot meter for highlights, that I can rarely preserve any detail in streetlights, car headlamps and so on when I am using digital.

However, when I use film, even with the basic metering that my OM-1n uses, or even with point and click, cameras, I can generally preserve details in the highlights.

When I check my photos with in Photoshop, the film highlights usually have plenty of graduation and information in the highlights, whereas whole areas of the digital images have a reading of 000 RGB. This is detail which is not recoverable in post-processing.

I use a Sony A7, which I'd have thought would be good enough for this.

Thanks for any tips and techniques.

 

[x-ray]

You don't say what digital camera and film you're using.

All digital cameras are not created equal. The nikon D800/810 have 14.5-15 stops dynamic range where as the M9 that I had was doing well to get 8-9 stops. If you're shootin JPGs you're at the mercy of the design engineer and his or her idea as to what an average image should look like. In some cameras you can manipulate the curves but not all. If you're shooting raw you have a great deal of controll depending on your conversion software and your skill. IMO raw along with Lughtroom or Capture 1 are the only way to go. Either will do a superb job but each will give different results.

If you're shooting B&W film you can have up to 14-16 stops of contrast that can be captured. Pyro is a developer many of us have used to obtain such a broad range. Other developers may or may not retain open highlights.

Color transparency film has between 5 and 8 stops of contrast that they can capture. It's very limited but color negative can reach 14 or even more stops of contrast that can be captured.

The trick is to shoot like you're shooting color transparency film and expose for detail in your highlights. Shooting raw you might be able to pull up information in shadow areas with the adjustment brush and with curves and levels. Lightroom is particularly well suited for that. What you see in your histogram may only represent what's actually in the file depending on the presets in your camera. Your camera in most cases does not output a true linear file. The info is often there but the presets are suggesting something else. It hard to explain but nothing is actually defined in a raw file, only suggested as to what it should be. The file is actually linear but the presets are making it compress in shadows and highlights. Presets are telling the conversion software to apply curves to insulate the curves of film.

Using your adjustment brush you can often lift shadows from what appears to have no info in the histogram. LR and my D800 work very well this way. In the software you might find a linear setting too.

Give it a try with raw and exposing for highlights and lifting shadows in the converter with curves, levels and the adjustment brush.

 

[YYV_146]

Digital is not linear in response as film is. Dark areas can easily be recovered with modern digital sensors, while bright areas clip beyond a certain point. There is essentially no "highlight dynamic range" difference for digital cameras - the distance from neutral grey to white is largely the same across digital bodies.

The Sony A7 is essentially an ISO-invariant camera. This means that pulling up from base iso in post-processing is essentially equivalent to raising the ISO in camera. If you're worried about highlight control, perhaps you could try shooting at a fixed 100 or 200 ISO, then brightening the image accordingly in post.

 

[thereabouts]

You don't say what digital camera and film you're using.

Hi

Thanks for the detailed response.

I did actually say that I was using a Sony A7, but I 'hid it' at the end of my post 🙂

This sensor is supposed to be pretty close to some of the high end digital SLRs. Close enough not be be an issue, I'd have thought.

I should also say that I am a professional graphic designer and have been using Photoshop for many years, and so yes, lifting shadow detail is rarely an issue (I always shoot RAW). This is why I often spot focus on the highlights.

But I have still found it extremely hard to capture highlight detail in high contrast digital photos – which is what night photography generally is - even when metering for highlights.

 

[thereabouts]

There is essentially no "highlight dynamic range" difference for digital cameras - the distance from neutral grey to white is largely the same across digital bodies.

Are you basically saying that there is little difference between high-end and mid-range digital cameras with regards to highlights?

The Sony A7 is essentially an ISO-invariant camera. This means that pulling up from base iso in post-processing is essentially equivalent to raising the ISO in camera. If you're worried about highlight control, perhaps you could try shooting at a fixed 100 or 200 ISO, then brightening the image accordingly in post.

That might be an option. I generally underexpose anyway, as a method of controlling highlights, but not as much as that.

Seeing as my expertise is probably stronger in post-processing, rather than in image capture, it might be worth a shot.

Thanks.

 

[thereabouts]

Sorry, I didn't mention what film I use.

I never use slide film and almost always black and white. My preferences are for Delta 3200 or Eastman XX in my OM1n and Ilford XP2 for point and shoot cameras.

Portra 400 (or Gold 100/200 until it runs out) for colour film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Highlights in the night? ...
Anyway, it doesn't matter you still have to have correct exposure, film, digital, day, night...

I recommend to select ISO which keeps exposure meter slightly to the right from the middle or to have correct exposure on histogram, whatever measure method is preferable.

If it is 6400 instead of 1600, don't be afraid. It is digital camera after all not one with the film.

 

[YYV_146]

Are you basically saying that there is little difference between high-end and mid-range digital cameras with regards to highlights?



That might be an option. I generally underexpose anyway, as a method of controlling highlights, but not as much as that.

Seeing as my expertise is probably stronger in post-processing, rather than in image capture, it might be worth a shot.

Thanks.

Yes. Because the 255 color value is a fixed level. Exceed that level and the corresponding part of the image becomes white and is not recoverable. How much information can be recovered from the shadows is, on the other hand, dependent on the sensor

 

[x-ray]

Neither film or digital are linear.

Sorry I missed the A7 reference.

I'm a commercial photographer for 47 years and do a lot of dusk and tlight architectural photography. You're right the A7 has a good sensor and should be able to handle highlights well but there could be some processing / clipping going on even though you're shooting raw.

I don't use photoshop anymore for conversions but when I did it seemed there was an option in the raw converter for linear. Look around for that. If you look in the curves section of the raw converter you'll see photoshop applies a curve. I don't know if this is part of the Sony presets or something Adobe came up with but it does apply a contrast curve. If you're trying to get everything out of your file this isn't helping.

 

[x-ray]

Yes. Because the 255 color value is a fixed level. Exceed that level and the corresponding part of the image becomes white and is not recoverable. How much information can be recovered from the shadows is, on the other hand, dependent on the sensor

This is why I said expose for the highlights as you would transparency film.

Two makers can use the same sensor but both will give different looking images. It's all dependant on how the processing is setup in the camera. Even raw under goes some level of processing.

 

[YYV_146]

This is why I said expose for the highlights as you would transparency film.

Two makers can use the same sensor but both will give different looking images. It's all dependant on how the processing is setup in the camera. Even raw under goes some level of processing.

My experience with transparency film is limited, but as modern digital goes, slightly to the left is practically the same as ISO100. I used either -1.3EV or simply shoot at a fixed ISO200 and shutter speed at night. With the A7S, I get the same results as setting the in-camera ISO up to around 12,800.

 

[thereabouts]

OK, as an example, the following images were taken respectively on film and then digital. (Yes, I know, different perspectives and also taken on different nights).

The first on Ilford Delta 3200 and the second with a Ricoh GR digital.

Now, these have been post-processed by me and JPEGed and uploaded to Flickr, so lots of detail has been lost or altered, but the highlights in the film image (taken with a Olympus Stylus Epic) all originally had a few points of RGB data in them originally - ranging from 220-244. From a CMYK print perspective, that allowed for some aspects of the highlights to be above 5% and so reproducible in ink.

The second, digital, image had RGB readings that went straight into 255 (or 0% ink coverage in CMYK), as soon as it hit the highlights. No gradation at all.

OK, the Ricoh doesn't have the same sensor as the Sony A7. But I tend to have the same kind of results from my A7.

I'm not in the market for a Nikon D800 for the foreseeable future, so perhaps I will have to make do.

 

[thereabouts]

Neither film or digital are linear.

I don't use photoshop anymore for conversions but when I did it seemed there was an option in the raw converter for linear. Look around for that. If you look in the curves section of the raw converter you'll see photoshop applies a curve. I don't know if this is part of the Sony presets or something Adobe came up with but it does apply a contrast curve. If you're trying to get everything out of your file this isn't helping.

Ah OK, thanks, I'll check that out. I tend to disable every setting that I can find in the RAW converter, but I'm porobably missing that. I do have Lightroom (which I use mainly for cataloguing), and have tried DXO, but I find them a bit too 'intrusive'.

 

[craygc]

Almost all modern Sony sensors these days are ISO-less. Basically meaning you can shoot at base ISO and push in post with more or less the exact same result as using a higher ISO at the time you shot the image. To check this you can look at the particular sensor measurements for your camera on DxO. If you have a linear relationship whereby you lose 1 stop of dynamic range for every 1 stop increase in ISO (which is what the Sony sensors display), your camera is, for all intent and purpose, ISO-less.

Pick a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, then select an ISO 3~4 stops below what you would normal require for night shots and go shoot. I do this all the time with my A7II but need to have the viewfinder set to "not show effects". Even for daytime shooting I will tend to have around -2EV permanently dialed in to address any highlight issues later. Oh, and you must be shooting in raw.

 

[charjohncarter]

I couldn't read all the above. Just turn on the histogram info for each shot and be sure it isn't overloaded to the right. In fact, shoot RAW and underexpose (by histogram) by one stop (in other words don't get anything piling up to the right.

 

[Oscuro]

I couldn't read all the above. Just turn on the histogram info for each shot and be sure it isn't overloaded to the right. In fact, shoot RAW and underexpose (by histogram) by one stop (in other words don't get anything piling up to the right.

+1 x 100

Seriously. It's not that complicated. Adjust your exposure (using the method above and tweak until you have the requisite amount of detail visible in your highlights. (Sometimes a complete underexposure of light is not desirable - you need some "glow". Your taste will dictate.) Then in post pull up the shadows.

or,

Shoot three frames one over (for shadows) one under (for the lights) one as metered (for the "middle") and mask and overlay in PS.

I prefer the first option.

O

 

[thereabouts]

Almost all modern Sony sensors these days are ISO-less. Basically meaning you can shoot at base ISO and push in post with more or less the exact same result as using a higher ISO at the time you shot the image. To check this you can look at the particular sensor measurements for your camera on DxO. If you have a linear relationship whereby you lose 1 stop of dynamic range for every 1 stop increase in ISO (which is what the Sony sensors display), your camera is, for all intent and purpose, ISO-less.

Pick a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, then select an ISO 3~4 stops below what you would normal require for night shots and go shoot. I do this all the time with my A7II but need to have the viewfinder set to "not show effects". Even for daytime shooting I will tend to have around -2EV permanently dialed in to address any highlight issues later. Oh, and you must be shooting in raw.

Thanks Craig, that's interesting.

 

[thereabouts]

I couldn't read all the above. Just turn on the histogram info for each shot and be sure it isn't overloaded to the right. In fact, shoot RAW and underexpose (by histogram) by one stop (in other words don't get anything piling up to the right.

When you say overloaded to the right, do you mean that the histogram is not blowing highlights to the right of the graph? Because that is not what is the issue here.

My apologies if I've misunderstood.

 

[thereabouts]

Pick a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, then select an ISO 3~4 stops below what you would normal require for night shots and go shoot. I do this all the time with my A7II but need to have the viewfinder set to "not show effects". Even for daytime shooting I will tend to have around -2EV permanently dialed in to address any highlight issues later. Oh, and you must be shooting in raw.

I've just been playing with this approach a bit and I think that this might yet turn out to be the best single photography advice I've had for a long time. Thanks.

In the couple of test shots I've done, I've certainly been able to get far better results 'upping the ISO' in post-processing, than using Sony's in-camera ISO settings.

Below, top image is shot manually with Sony A7 at 100ISO and adjusted in Photoshop. Second image is shot with Sony A7 at built in 6400ISO, with aperture priority. I appreciate this isn't a 'scientific' test, but it gets me the effects I want, whilst preserving detail. In a sense, it's a bit more like pushing film in traditional photography.

A few issues with regards to colour noise (I get some slight circular 'rainbow' patterns, as opposed to the default Sony noisy colour noise). But I've yet to test this 'in the field', so we shall see.

Thanks

 

[rscheffler]

The lower the ISO you can use, the broader the available dynamic range will be. But you still want to be as close to clipping highlights as possible in order to get as much light from the shadows. Ideally you will want to use base ISO because it will have the broadest dynamic range, but you will be throwing some of that away if you can't optimize the exposure to use the maximum range. Sometimes this will not be practical in the field because you're shooting hand held and it may drop the shutter speed value too low.

From my understanding the highlight clipping warning in most cameras, when shooting RAW, is based on a Jpeg image embedded in the RAW file. Typically there is some buffer room between highlight clipping of that embedded Jpeg and of the actual RAW file. The Jpeg clips sooner. This is a reason why you typically have a range of recoverable highlights when processing the RAW files. One solution is to set the in-camera 'look' or picture style to something as flat as possible. If there is a lower contrast, lower saturation option, set it. If it allows you to tweak the settings, set it to the lowest possible contrast and saturation values. Your in-camera images may look pretty bad as a result, but it should give you a better approximation of the available dynamic range and maybe edge you closer to the actual RAW highlight clipping point. You will also need to make some tests to determine how much hotter you can shoot a scene beyond in-camera highlight clipping warnings, and still produce the images you want with information in the specular highlights.

A few years ago there was a fair amount of discussion about a technique to optimize in-camera images so that the embedded Jpeg preview in RAW files would have similar highlight clipping to that of the RAW file. It's called UniWB and is a bit on the technical side. Here's a link. I only skimmed it and not sure if it's the best description out there. Be sure to find a couple other discussions to ensure you get the full details.

You may also want to look into some other solutions if you're still not quite getting what you want. One might be exposure blending using at least two images. I realize you're shooting hand held, but if you can exposure bracket the scene quickly, it might still work. A lot of HDR software will do image alignment during blends, which helps when hand held. If you're finding you can usually squeeze in the desired dynamic range at low ISOs but are running into low shutter speed problems, it might be worthwhile saving for the a7II because of its in-body image stabilization (IBIS). It might buy you another 2-3 stops of useable shutter speed range. Lastly, it is likely worthwhile testing a few different RAW converters because each will handle highlight recovery, noise reduction, etc., a bit differently. As an example, I have seen some Adobe vs. Capture One comparisons in which the Adobe software conversion had more difficulty with aliasing effects in images than C1. While this point may not concern you, you may discover other differences relevant to your requirements.