Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 28, 2009, 6:56 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default Puzzling Pictures.... 20 seconds apart

While on vacation a couple of weeks ago I took two pictures of the same area of beach and clouds. I was using my circular polarizing filter on both pictures. The EXIF info is almost identical for both photos. The aperture is slightly different between the two. I don't think I rotated the filter but I must have, it's the only explanation I can think of for how different the photos came out. Please, if you have any thoughts I would love to here them.

Thanks,
Steve
I have added the EXIF info for each picture. Both taken with a Nikon D80 w/ Nikon 18-200mm VR lens.

Photo 1fdsh

Last edited by smac; Feb 1, 2014 at 12:03 AM.
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 28, 2009, 6:58 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

Photo #2 just 20 seconds later. This photo is obviously more like the actual scene. The colors are pretty much as I remember them.

BTW, I like both photos quite alot I just can't figure out why they are so different.


bvcvbn

Last edited by smac; Mar 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM.
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2009, 2:07 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Rotating a polarizer would not reproduce the first shot. The second one looks like you probably have maximum polarization filtration anyway. Since you stripped the EXIF before posting it is hard to tell, but I would say the first shot is just metered for more light than is actually there.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2009, 2:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

These are gorgeous scenes for a member of the 'cloud lovers society' such as myself
Ah, who was the fellow member whose mother had called them the bricks of the sky?? I freally ind gazing the sky with a pair of polarized sunglasses quite pleasing...which often induce me to shoot using a CP filter such as yours! Actually, a little change in the angle and rotation can lead to enhanced effects with the CP. As for the first image, one can almost see the eternity, the space, beyond the clouds! Below is just another interpratation of mine out of my appreciation. Hope you don't mind : )
Attached Images
 
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2009, 2:53 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

Bahadir,
I too find fascination with the beauty of cloud formations and their infinite patterns. Thank you for offering your interpretation. Your version almost seems to be 3-dimensional. I like it very much.

Steve

Now that I have posted the EXiF info for each picture I noticed that the exposure and shutter speed for the darker picture might offer a clue. The shutter was slightly faster and the aperture was 2 stops down. The lighter picture had a slower shutter speed and the aperture more open. Maybe....... this is the reason????

Last edited by smac; Jun 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM.
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 4:26 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

I suggest the difference in exposure given by the metering system is because the strongly polarized light from the sky, and possibly the sea as well, seen as dark through the the polarizing filter, forms a greater proportion of the image in the second shot than in the first. The beach was a brighter and, perhaps, less polarizing reflector, and turned down the exposure in the first shot.

Why had you chosen -0.67EV, anyway? Was it in live view?

So the second got more exposure.

If I'd been there (I wish!), with my cheapo camera, I'd have twiddled it to look right in in my live view EVF first, and bracketed it as well. Good job you did the same.

Fantastic clouds! There's an angel, or eagle, or Turin Shroud or something in the second image, if you're that way inclined.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 12:35 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

Alan, your observation about more sand in the first pictures may be the clue. I hadn't considered that element.
As for the -0.67EV, I have found that the D80 tends to overexpose shots on a rather consistent basis and as a result the -2/3 compensation seems to work for retaining the details in scenes with a lot of white. Since this picture was about clouds and sand it seemed to be in order.

I, also, noticed the angel and eagle formation. The Shroud of Turin, I must admit, did not come to mind.
Thanks for taking the time to consider the problem and for your feed back.

Cheers, Steve

Last edited by smac; Jun 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM.
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 12:54 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Matrix (a.k.a., multi-segment) metering can be somewhat unpredictable. With most modern dSLR models, your focus point is usually given more weight for proper exposure when in matrix metering, even though the camera takes the entire scene into consideration.

So, if your focus is on a lighter portion of the image, you may get a darker exposure. Or, if it's on a darker portion of the image, you may get a brighter exposure.

In your examples, the second image was exposed a bit brighter (wider aperture, slower shutter speed). My guess is that the slight reframing probably caused the metering differences if lighting was roughly the same between them (as it can change rapidly, especially with moving cloud cover).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 3:28 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

JimC, Thank you very much for the reply. That make perfect sense to me.
No doubt the subtle re-frame of the second picture more than likely caused the changes in exposure and shutter speed.

Thanks again for helping me to make sense of it all.

All the best,

Steve
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 PM.