Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Help with Fill Light

MikeG
Posted 01/05/2012 - 21:44 Link
Hi,

Hoping someone can give me some advice about the amount of fill light I'm using when tweaking my photos with Lightrooom. I'm shooting using a Pentax-Kr usually in P or Av mode centre-weighted metering in Natural RAW DNG format.

It seems like I'm having to apply fill light to every other photo I'm taking. Is it normal to add fill light so often?
I don't think it's just a case of the photos being underexposed as the highlights are often close to being burnt-out. Just seems like the level of contrast is very high.
I have been shooting in very bright locations recently, but it just seems that I'm having to tweak many photos this way.

Below is a fairly extreme example where I added a massive +68 fill light to bring out the detail in the dark areas. Is +68 an extreme amount? I'm thinking I shouldn't need to be adding this much.

Another unusual thing I've noticed is that the photo as viewed in Lightroom does appear darker than when I view it using Windows built-in Photo Viewer, maybe this is causing me to overdo the fill in.
Also the photos actually look a lot brighter when viewed on my full size TV screen.

The below example is using a Tamron lens but I have the same issue when using a Pentax 18-55mm AL lens.

Original photo: Pentax-Kr + Tamron 18-250mm lens. 18mm 1/80 f3.5 ISO 100 no flash
Comment Image


after adding a massive +68 Fill Light using Lightroom
Comment Image


I'd appreciate your comments about how much editing is common for your average photo.

TIA Mike
johnriley
Posted 01/05/2012 - 22:33 Link
I'm not sure why you are adding fill light at all as the top image looks more realistic.

My general image manipulation consists of a simple levels-crop-sharpen routine that takes seconds for each image. I do this in Photoshop CS5.

Anything more than that is because I'm making an image out of several images, or something more complex. That takes however long it takes.
Best regards, John
redbusa99
Posted 02/05/2012 - 01:06 Link
+1 on the appearance of the first one
odd lens or 2

Flickr
amoringello
Posted 02/05/2012 - 04:55 Link
I go somewhere in between, but I might selectively fill in the dark areas such as the dials and heavy shadows... if you feel the detail there is really necessary. But in general agree, the second one starts looking flat.

Adding fill in areas lit by high contrast lighting is normal. I add fill to many of my images... and 50-75% is not unusual unless I have enough flash power to do the fill light for me.
Of course, shadow is necessary to create a sense of depth and shape, so you don't want to go overboard and remove too much contrast.

Regardless, I think the KR raw files have a lot of depth in them. Don't worry about adding "too much" fill light unless you are also seeing noise and/or loosing important detail. There is no "too much" if the final image still looks good.


As far as viewing differences, lots of things. Just a start,
1. Are you exporting as sRGB? (I would assume you're using that as it is the default) If not, that might help.

2. Are you viewing with a viewer that properly handles color managed files? I would think most should now, but, for example, I'm still not sure MSIE dose so yet. I had a single image a few years back that displayed three different ways on three applications all running on the same machine (and same monitor). So getting consistent results is not as easy as it should be.

3. Any given display may show your image brighter or darker... even if it is calibrated and profiled.
Calibration is not perfect, and results may vary greatly on the type of display.
TVs are usually set to be much brighter and bluer than they really should be. It makes them more marketable. You often need to turn them down and adjust the color. See if there is a Movie mode or something similar. That might make things a little less bright and also a little more in line with your computer display.
Edited by amoringello: 02/05/2012 - 04:56
gartmore
Posted 02/05/2012 - 10:03 Link
I think the basic problem is that you are taking a reflected light reading from a relatively light coloured subject causing the camera to underexpose
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
MikeG
Posted 02/05/2012 - 20:35 Link
Thanks for all your comments, I did find them helpful.

It's comforting to know it's normal to add some fill light and that there's a lot of play with a RAW file.
To answer Amoringello's question, yes I'm exporting using sRGB.

It could be that the first picture is just underexposed due to it being largely light blue scene in this instance; although I have the same issue with plenty of other scenarios. As I said, it may be that I've been shooting recently in very bright conditions.
BTW: Is there a camera setting which would better handle high contrast subjects?

When I look at the photos here on the webpage, the first one does actually look a lot brighter than when I viewed it in Lightroom. Does anyone else see images in Lightroom darker than the exported photo?

I also agree that the second photo looks a little flat due to too little contrast, although I tried to reproduce the brightness of the scene at the time I took the shot.

Overall I guess I've been over-egging the pudding and should try to restrain myself a bit more.

Thanks again for all your help,
Mike

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.