Handling overexposed skies with rangefinders?

[Nick]

Just back from a quick trip to Tokyo, and noticed that several of my shots in a park on a bright sunny day, using Ektar 100, the sky was overexposed.

On my DSLR, I can use my circular polariser as well as seeing the resulting shot. On my rangefinder, I tend to meter for the subject I'm focusing on, and in the lighting conditions I was experiencing, this resulted in the sky ending up nearly white.

To me this feels like an exposure and metering question. What's the best way to approach it with a manual rangefinder where options like graduated filters and polarisers aren't an option?

 

[Crazy Fedya]

You have to decide what is more important in your photo, and then meter for what you want to have properly exposed. I think reading a bit about Zone system will help you in this situation. I am not a Zonie, but i found that reading about it helped me with metering.

 

[hausen]

The only way I combat it is meter for the sky and use LR4 shadow-slider to get detail back from the shadows. I always use an external light meter on bright days so I can pick the brightest and darkest areas of the scene and then choose a value that will leave detail in the sky. Silver Efex II and Color Efex are great also for getting some detail back in over exposed skies.
The other option for me is to not shoot at all unless it is sunrise or sunset.

 

[Nick]

The only way I combat it is meter for the sky and use LR4 shadow-slider to get detail back from the shadows. I always use an external light meter on bright days so I can pick the brightest and darkest areas of the scene and then choose a value that will leave detail in the sky. Silver Efex II and Color Efex are great also for getting some detail back in over exposed skies.
The other option for me is to not shoot at all unless it is sunrise or sunset.

That's a good suggestion. I have been mainly shooting in Hong Kong recently, with it's haze and cloudy days resulting in pretty diffused lighting - far less highlights to factor in. A bright sunny day in a park really threw me.

 

[daveywaugh]

I don't believe using RFers has to mean you can't use a polariser. There are expensive solutions that have a connection to a small VF version, or a lot of people just use markings on the filter to match your setting 'through your eyes'. Am I making sense? ;-) You just eyeball the setting and know that a marker needs to be at say 2 Oclock.

Alternatively there's Grad ND filters.

In B&W obviously there is more choice ;-)

 

[hausen]

Is a real problem here in NZ because we have Ozone layer issues and no pollution and sun can be really bright so even with my M9 and M6 I use external light meter.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

The only way I combat it is meter for the sky and use LR4 shadow-slider to get detail back from the shadows. I always use an external light meter on bright days so I can pick the brightest and darkest areas of the scene and then choose a value that will leave detail in the sky. Silver Efex II and Color Efex are great also for getting some detail back in over exposed skies.
The other option for me is to not shoot at all unless it is sunrise or sunset.

I don't think so, I mean this is one way, there are more available.

First, you could follow Adams' Zone System. It is not difficult but you'd better read it somewhere, the idea is that you can increase contrast by extending development time and you can reduce contrast by reducing the development time. In Adam's book there is a section called "Expansion and Contraction" which gives a complete explanation.

In b/w of course one can use the classic orange or red filters to get rid of most of the radiations coming from sky. These of course have a rather drammatic effect on all the picture but this is the landscape photographer's classical way to have a deep sky.

Also, one could just use a fill-in flash (or two or as many as needed). Of course a digital camera makes this easier and a DSLR make it confortable but in the old days people did the same with any camera and there is no reason why one could not do this with a rangefinder today. Here the idea is that you expose the sky as you please (probably one or two stops less than your "ideal" exposure) then you use artificial light to place you subject(s) in the exposure they need. Rangefinder cameras (oh, well at least Leicas) are not ideal for this because they have low sinchro time but it can be done, maybe you will need a comparatively powerful flash coupled with a neutral density filter but it is possible and it can be done also if you shot colour film.

GLF

 

[Keith]

Is a real problem here in NZ because we have Ozone layer issues and no pollution and sun can be really bright so even with my M9 and M6 I use external light meter.

This extreme light can be challenging for sure!

I was shooting in mid afternoon full sun recently and decided to disregard what the meter in my OM-1 was telling me and trust my own judgement based on sunny sixteen. I was amazed at the consistency of the results when I developed the film. Provided the light is constant this method is near fool proof. Occasionally I was checking what the meter was telling me out of curiosity and if I'd followed the meter's advice I would have had less consistency in my exposures IMO.

 

[Richard G]

Sunny 16 or a hand held meter for me too. Also depends on the film of course. Underexposing Fuji Superia 200 by one whole stop works nicely to get sky detail. And over-exposing by a stop tends not wash out the skies much either. Black and white is trickier in my experience. Slides are in fact easier as you are already primed not to let anything be over-exposed.

 

[kanzlr]

with SLRs I use gradual ND filters...one of the reasons I stopped using rangefinders for travel photography. ND filters and polarizers. The only type of filter RFs excel with are color filters for BW photography.

 

[Sparrow]

This extreme light can be challenging for sure!

I was shooting in mid afternoon full sun recently and decided to disregard what the meter in my OM-1 was telling me and trust my own judgement based on sunny sixteen. I was amazed at the consistency of the results when I developed the film. Provided the light is constant this method is near fool proof. Occasionally I was checking what the meter was telling me out of curiosity and if I'd followed the meter's advice I would have had less consistency in my exposures IMO.

This is the best way, with a roll film camera I only ever measure the general brightness.

 

[pvdhaar]

Have you considered fill flash? It does go somewhat against the style of RF photography, but if you don't care about convention, it can really help to bridge the exposure differences in backlit portrait situations.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think so, I mean this is one way, there are more available.

First, you could follow Adams' Zone System. It is not difficult but you'd better read it somewhere, the idea is that you can increase contrast by extending development time and you can reduce contrast by reducing the development time. In Adam's book there is a section called "Expansion and Contraction" which gives a complete explanation.

(1) Not (readily) in colour -- read the OP's question

(2) The Zone System is a somewhat wordy restatement of basic sensitometry. Hurter and Driffield laid out the basics in 1890. I admire AA's photography but not his writing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Just back from a quick trip to Tokyo, and noticed that several of my shots in a park on a bright sunny day, using Ektar 100, the sky was overexposed.

On my DSLR, I can use my circular polariser as well as seeing the resulting shot. On my rangefinder, I tend to meter for the subject I'm focusing on, and in the lighting conditions I was experiencing, this resulted in the sky ending up nearly white.

To me this feels like an exposure and metering question. What's the best way to approach it with a manual rangefinder where options like graduated filters and polarisers aren't an option?

(1) The latitude of any negative film for overexposure is greater than its latitude for underexposure. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html

(2) As others have noted, polarizers are an option. I have one (though I seldom use it).

(3) In wet printing, burn in the sky. If you're scanning, Lightroom (and other programs too, for all I know) should allow you to use a negative (density reducing) grad filter on the foreground in the positive image or on the sky in the negative image. Can't help as much on this because I use Lightroom only with camera original digital images.

(4) Ektar may not be the ideal film for long brightness ranges, because of colour shifts with exposure. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[rbelyell]

i'm not sure why one couldnt use a 'marked' circular polarizer or some graduated filter on a RF? grad blue or grey for color and red for b&w. to me, that is the easiest, cheapest and most effective solution. plus, as stated above, sunny 16 over a meter every time. i have a couple of rf folders that i only use with 120 slide film. i dont own a meter, and sunny 16 has almost never let me down.
tony

 

[V-12]

If the sky is coming out white due to over-exposure I'm not sure why you guys are suggesting a polarising filter as a cure? It affects the exposure of the entire image so you are back to square one, the sky will still be over-exposed as soon as you apply the necessary exposure compensation. But you can use them on rangefinder cameras without too much bother.

I think this is a simple exposure question or a simple post processing question. For exposure knowing where to read from will help, green grass or the palm of your hand for instance both give an average reflective reading of the light. If its post processing, and the lab aren't making a good print or doing a good CD scan, I think the answer is to takes things in hand and either buy a scanner and/or some software such as Lightroom. Seeing the negative would be useful to sort out which.

 

[rbelyell]

If the sky is coming out white due to over-exposure I'm not sure why you guys are suggesting a polarising filter as a cure? It affects the exposure of the entire image so you are back to square one, the sky will still be over-exposed as soon as you apply the necessary exposure compensation. But you can use them on rangefinder cameras without too much bother.

yes, thats true. guess i was paying more attention to reply posts than OT. however, one can still use graduated filters...

 

[Bob Michaels]

There are a number of posts here from people like Keith, Richard G, and Sparrow that suggest you consider the information provided by your light meter as no more than one of the inputs and use your brain to determine exposure. Many today seem to believe their meters will tell them the proper exposure. Only your brain can do that. Often the meter reading will get you close enough using negative film but it cannot be consistently relied upon with narrow latitude film.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm not a a fan of filters in general, so this is second hand info.

I met a guy in Austria a few years ago and we got chatting because we both had Leicas with us. I'd noticed him holding something in front of his lens and it turned out to be a glass graduated filter which he'd fitted in a cardboard mount. He admitted that it didn't do much for sharpness but he used this as a last resort when he couldn't get a balance he liked. The cardboard mount was marked with the filter density points, so he could move it up or down to match his needs. It seemed crude but he was adamant that it did the job when all else failed.

Could be worth considering as it seems like a cheap first try.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

If the contrast between sky and land or water and land is extreme, I tend to take a reading off the palm of my hand (caucasian skin is approximately the same tone as a mid grey card) and that tends to work for me. Otherwise, I'll use an ND / ND grad (or two) and / or take an incident reading with my Minolta AutoMeter IVf.

The other thing is that sometimes a stark white sky can be an interesting look in itself. "Correct exposure" is, after all, a very subjective concept.