White airplanes - semi-belly shots - best exposure?

[Joe Copalman]

Hey guys.  I took the following shot today at Willie, and need some input on how I could have better shot it. 


The problem (corrected somewhat through editing, but still noticeable) is that the white fuselage of the aircraft is blown out while the shadowed underside is a bit darker than I had actually seen it.  I know that it's a rough set up to begin with in terms of lighting, but is there an ideal set of settings that would even out the contrast between highs and darks?

Here's the dope on the photo:
-Shot in Large JPEG (the XTi buffers way too slowly for me reliably shoot RAW for more than a handful of generously-spaced two shot bursts, which is just beaucoup unsat for moving subjects, so "recovery" is not an option).
-ISO 100
-Shutter Speed - 1/320 (shot in TV/Shutter Priority/Whatever you know it as)
-Aperture - f/8
-Metering - Center-weighted average
-White balance - Auto

In post, I used shadows/highlights sparingly (1%) to bring the highlights down, levels to darken the midtones (I think I moved the middle slider to .90), brightness/contrast to lower the contrast a bit, then a minor saturation bump and color cast removal to minimize the rust tones on the underside.  Then the standard resize/USM treatment. 

Please let me know if I'm barking up the right tree, or if there is something different you'd suggest for me to try in the future.  RAW is unfortunately not an option until I upgrade my gear, so please constrain your responses to JPEG-only suggestions/solutions.  Thanks!

[Jay Beckman]

I see panel lines clearly all over the upper surfaces so nothing looks "blown" to me...  It's ok for areas to be "featureless" white if there are no features to see.

I think you pretty much nailed it.  Your one simple alternative is to shoot in manual exposure mode because the light hitting a white aircraft is the same as that hitting a dark grey Harrier and the exposure is identical.  The one big hurdle is Dynamic Range but you've got a white over white aircraft here so there's no worry about crushing a dark underside trying to hold back a white top.

What was the question again?   

[Joe Copalman]

Jes' me, Miss Daisy, bein' all persnickety and somesuch.

Thanks Jay.

[Jay Beckman]

You've got enough light on the underside that you could drop the overall exposure by 1/2 stop or so just to see if it makes the white areas more satisfactory.

[Joe Copalman]

I'll give it a try.

[CJPalmer]

Does your camera give you the "blinkies" for overexposed shots? If it does, you can use that to make sure that you don't blow out the highlights (not counting the reflections from the sun). I tend to use the overall average metering and dial in the exposure compensation to get me close to what I want. This doesn't always work though.

[Jay Beckman]

Just an FYI thing:  Blinkies in JPEG mean totally blown areas.  Blinkies in RAW mean the JPEG is blown but you still might have some headroom in RAW.

The image on your LCD and the Histogram it generates are from the embedded JPEG and aren't from the RAW data.

(Just thought maybe some might not know this.)

[Joe Copalman]

Essplains why I've only seen the blinkies in RAW before.

I use exposure value tweaks quite a bit, especially to minimize dust spots when going for full-disc prop blur shots or trying to coax a little more shutter speed out of my camera without going full-bore on the aperture. 

[Jay Beckman]

There is an added benefit to shooting slightly hot and pulling in post:  Reduced Noise...

As with any electronic signal, if you raise gain, you raise noise.  Salvaging badly underexposed images will bring a boatload of noise along with the increase in exposure.

There is a school of thought that suggests all digital photography should be done at least 1/2 stop over optimal so that you reduce the exposure slightly for everything. I tend to bias about 1/3 of a stop over.

In most places, you'll see it expressed as ETTR (Expose To The Right) meaning bias your exposure toward the right-hand side of the Histogram.  If anyone ever shot a lot of slide film, you may remember being told to Expose For The Highlights and digital (IMO) is very similar.  If you look at blown out areas on a transparency you'll see that there's no information present, it's truly blown.  There's nothing there so when it got projected, it came out as pure white.  In digital, it's 255, 255, 255 and can't go any higher!

Just passing along some photography trivia that maybe folks can assimilate.  Experimentation is so much easier with digital.  Try something and if it works, great!  If it doesn't, blow it out and start over.  1s and 0s are cheap!   

[John B.]

Nice thread.  It has kept me thinking all through the commute to work.

I don't see that much wrong with your photo, Joe.  Knowing how intense the light is here (and coupling that with the reflection from the ground) I am not sure you could have captured more as a JPEG.  I see detail on the fuselage, so I wouldn't call it "blown out" either and the fact is that gloss white paint is bright even to the naked eye.

I think Jay was able to say technically (and quite well I would add) what most of us have to decide quickly when we see a white airplane approaching on a sunny cloudless day:  How bright do I want to shoot it?  I usually assume I am going to take a hit somewhere:  Noisy blue sky if I intentionally underexpose or risk an actual "blowout" if I shoot bright.  All I can say is my Photoshop skills leave me more fearful of blowout--if I blowout a T-43 shot the only fix I have is hitting the Delete key and sending it to the Recycle Bin.  I see shadow beneath the wings as much less of a problem.

Anyhow, nice thread, Joe.  Thanks for your technical explanation above, Jay.  It matches really well with what I see and think about when I am out and about.

[bilwor]

Thank you Joe & Jay for this thread. I have been having the same worries and problems and so far haven''t found the perfect solution. I agree with the others Joe I don't think the white is blown out to the point where you lose any detail. Thanks Jay for the info. Gives me something to work on tomorrow at TIA.

bill word

[Jay Beckman]

More info on "Expose To The Right" and why it's worth considering:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Also, a good explanation of how to best read a Histogram: LINK

[John B.]

Why thank you.  Definitely worth a read--and have to give it a try.

[Ned Harris]

Thanks Jay. I've been looking for a write-up on ETTR.