Baumy From Australia, joined Aug 2009, 14 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1567 times:
I took a photo of a Cessna 150 the other week, but due to the bright light outside, either the cockpit is under exposed and the outside is visible, or the cockpit is right and the outside is just white. Any advice? What settings do other people use?
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2151 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
Do a photo merge. Take the bright cockpit and merge it with the visible outside, erase the overexposed outside and the underexposed cockpit. You can do it in photoshop.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1553 times:
There are two ways to do this. Expose for the outside and use a flash to illuminate the inside. It's best to use an external flash and angle the source to bounce the light off the top of the cockpit to avoid getting bright flash reflections on the instrument panel.
Or like John said, take multiple exposures, one exposed for the outside and another exposed for the inside and using layer masking, combine the two. The easiest way is to set up an auto bracket in burst mode and fire off three quick shots (-1,0,+1 EV for example) to minimize movement between shots so they match up correctly when layering in photoshop.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8936 posts, RR: 65 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Photographing cockpits and instrument panels can be pretty challenging. All too often, the light coming through the windows is overpowering, and the top half of the image becomes blown-out, like this:
I was sure this shot was going to be rejected by the screeners, but perhaps because they understand the challenges in shooting cockpits, they accepted it into the database. The shot has always bothered me, though, since everything above and to the side of the glareshield is invisible. I would have greatly preferred to frame the panel with a blue sky background.
So, for a subsequent photo shoot, I decided to try a different technique.
This time, rather than expose the shot for the panel, I exposed it for the sky and scenery beyond. I did this by setting my camera to 'Auto', aiming it through the front windscreen just above the panel, depressing the shutter release halfway, and making a note of the suggested shutter and aperture settings.
Then, switching to 'Manual', I duplicated those suggested settings.
At this point, if I were to snap a shot of the panel, the sky/scenery beyond would look great, but the panel itself would be far too dark. So I activated the flash to illuminate the panel.
Here, we see the Waco RPT cockpit using my old technique:
...and here, we see the same view using the new technique:
...and here's the one I ended up submitting to Anet:
A big improvement over the original, to be sure. And I was using only the basic, built-in flash on the D90. A nice ring flash would make an even bigger difference.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 1): Do a photo merge. Take the bright cockpit and merge it with the visible outside, erase the overexposed outside and the underexposed cockpit. You can do it in photoshop.
Or you can do it the photographic, and much easier way. Simply meter for the outside then use a flash to illuminate the inside. A bounce flash off the roof of the cockpit will give the best results. The technique you describe is not permitted on this site and could lead to a warning or ban as it's effectively an HDR image. The use of photographic technique is easier are far more satisfying than trying to mimic everying in software.
If you don't have a flash, you can either take a photo out of the window or of the cockpit, but not both unless you have the sun behind you or enough cloud so the ambient lighting roughly matches the exposure you need for the cockpit. Investing in a swivel head exteral flash is the best way though as it'll build on your photographic skill and you'll be able to shoot pretty much anything you want then. For example;
The batteries in my flash ran out for this shot so I only concentrated on the instrument panel and not anything outside or I would have had the same problem as you describe;
The following are taken using the correct techniques mentioned above using a fill flash bounced from the roof of the cockpit. As you'll see, it's a much more satisfying result and far easier than having to merge photos or make up for short comings in software;
picester From Luxembourg, joined Feb 2007, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
There is a simple way to know whether to use a flash or not.
Use the "spot metering" and measure the light through the windows, then measure the light from the intruments panel. If the difference of light is greater than 2.5 f-stops, use a flash.
But we must, if possible, use indirect lighting from the flash to avoid undesirables reflections on the quadrants.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1995 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 1): Do a photo merge. Take the bright cockpit and merge it with the visible outside, erase the overexposed outside and the underexposed cockpit. You can do it in photoshop.
Bad advice for 2 different reasons:
1. Getting the photo right in-camera has and always will be the method delivering the best results. So learn to use your equipment correctly and proceed accordingly. The other guys here gave you very good tips on how to do it.
2. Photo merging is not accepted for uploads to A.net. If you're caught, the photo will be rejected and you'll probably face an upload ban.
Using a flash is the way to go to get good daylight cockpit shots. In addition to what has already been said, shooting at an angle avoids bad reflections.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3): This time, rather than expose the shot for the panel, I exposed it for the sky and scenery beyond. I did this by setting my camera to 'Auto', aiming it through the front windscreen just above the panel, depressing the shutter release halfway, and making a note of the suggested shutter and aperture settings.
Then, switching to 'Manual', I duplicated those suggested settings.
At this point, if I were to snap a shot of the panel, the sky/scenery beyond would look great, but the panel itself would be far too dark. So I activated the flash to illuminate the panel.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2909 posts, RR: 63 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
I was going to quote exactly the same section as Kas has done above, and also say this is exactly what I have done on my rare opportunities for such photos:
By sorting out the aperture and shutter speed settings for the outside and dialing them in the manual setting you have some confidence that part of the photo will look okay. Then a decent flash should fire with the appropriate power to get the correct exposure for the inside view. I would agree that if you have the ability to swivel/bounce that light, you can also avoid the worst of any reflections for a 'straight on' view, and the angled view also mentioned (as in my helicopter example above) ensures no nasty reflections.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1419 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 4): The technique you describe is not permitted on this site and could lead to a warning or ban as it's effectively an HDR image.
I think what he describes is more a composite, not HDR.
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 4): The use of photographic technique is easier are far more satisfying than trying to mimic everying in software.
That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the only way to truly capture cockpits during the day the way the eye sees it is to composite two shots, one for the outside and another for the inside under natural light. That's worth the effort in photoshop, for me.
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 6): 2. Photo merging is not accepted for uploads to A.net. If you're caught, the photo will be rejected and you'll probably face an upload ban.
Perhaps this is for a another thread, but I'm curious why it is unacceptable to take two shots taken a fraction of a second apart (as in a bracket) and selectively apply portions of the two shots to create one realistic and appealing image. I mean, how is it different than taking one shot, duplicating a layer, changing brightness and contrast on one of the layers and selectively masking portions back into the shot? That's a common practice and is perfectly acceptable advice in the forum.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1995 posts, RR: 54 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9): Perhaps this is for a another thread, but I'm curious why it is unacceptable to take two shots taken a fraction of a second apart (as in a bracket) and selectively apply portions of the two shots to create one realistic and appealing image.
Ryan,
simply put because Airliners.net always has been and still is a database above all and not a photography site which all that this includes. Hence we want pictures that are as unaltered as possible. We know there will always have to be a compromise but we need to draw the line somewhere and we decided not to let composite shots in.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6497 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9):
I think what he describes is more a composite, not HDR.
Not to get off-topic, but I thought what he described is exactly what HDR is - two exposures merged to capture the full dynamic range.
Can you explain the difference? Thanks!
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11): Not to get off-topic, but I thought what he described is exactly what HDR is - two exposures merged to capture the full dynamic range.
Can you explain the difference? Thanks!
HDR simply means High Dynamic Range so yes, composites can essentially be HDRs. However HDR in the sense that most people think of it invloves running multiple images through special software designed to take the data values and merge it all together build a new image. So basically, all portions of the image are reconstructed and altered from the original set of images.
A composite like I describe in replies 2 and 9 is just taking two photos of the same scene exposed differently, puting one on top of the other in photoshop and masking in only select portions. So for a cockpit, you'd take the exposure for the cockpit (the one that is blown out in the windows) and layer it on top of the darker exposure that is exposed for the view out the windows. Then you mask in or erase the windows so the correctly exposed outside shows through. If done carefully and correctly, it looks very natural.
I think this is valid discussion considering the OP asked for help with daytime cockpit shots and compositing is just as good a method as any, in my opinion. While it isn't acceptable for the database, it's still a technique that can be used for ones personal collection.
[Edited 2012-01-26 10:34:11]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1609 posts, RR: 23 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
I use a similar method as stated above. I meter the sky directly in front by either getting closer to the windscreen or zooming in to it, depending on which lens I have on.
This is done in Av mode, set around f8 - f11. The aperture depends on what I want and really how big the flightdeck is and where I'm standing.
With (f11) set I meter the sky as described and make a mental note of the shutter speed.
I recompose but this time I set the shot up in full M (manual) mode, with the shutter speed I've just noted and the aperture I used to get it.
With the Speedlite (flash) on, and angled away from the panels, I take a test shot and review. At this point I'm nearly never happy with the flash output (it's a science in its own right!), so I adjust the output, or I adjust the angle of tilt.
Another review and by this time it's looking like something I could use.
It should be noted I nearly always use the omni bounce on the flash to disperse the light more evenly.
I hope this helps and you manage to get some decent shots!
Spence.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9): I think what he describes is more a composite, not HDR.
Whether you call it a composite image or HDR (essentially the same in my view), it's still photo manipulation and not something that is accepted on a.net. I know you can argue minor changes to contrast and colour balance is photo manipulation, but you aren't changing the original photo. With composite / HDR, you are ending up with a photo nothing like the original frame and using more than one image to give you the final result.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9): That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the only way to truly capture cockpits during the day the way the eye sees it is to composite two shots, one for the outside and another for the inside under natural light. That's worth the effort in photoshop, for me.
While I respect your opinion, what did photographers do before digital sensors and Photoshop? The art of photography is in the taking of the photo, not what you can do with the data afterwards. It takes maybe 5 seconds to set the camera up for the technique described above and take the photo. I would imagine it takes several minutes to merge photos and create what you're wanting to achieve. I'd much prefer to spend more time shooting frames than editing them in Photoshop.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6497 posts, RR: 29 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 12): A composite like I describe in replies 2 and 9 is just taking two photos of the same scene exposed differently, puting one on top of the other in photoshop and masking in only select portions. So for a cockpit, you'd take the exposure for the cockpit (the one that is blown out in the windows) and layer it on top of the darker exposure that is exposed for the view out the windows. Then you mask in or erase the windows so the correctly exposed outside shows through. If done carefully and correctly, it looks very natural.
I have to admit, in my view, they're the exact same thing. Either way, parts are masked, others aren't, and some parts may be partially masked (a.k.a. be partially transparent). I assume that would all be what the software figures out.
When I'm doing HDR, I do it half by hand and half automatic. Bring the two images (or more, but I've mostly done two so far) into the same PS file as layers. Create a layer mask on the darker layer, and copy and paste the bright layer into the layer mask. Use gaussian blur with radius ~40 on the mask to give the result a more realistic and contrasty look. Then, it's a matter of adjusting the two layers using levels, brightness/contrast, and color balance as necessary to achieve the desired look (I'll also adjust levels and brighness/contrast on the layer mask sometimes).
Altogether, I like the combination of automation and manual work that this method provides. I've tried using PS's "Merge to HDR" function, and I can't really get that to look the way I want (though I may just not quite know how....and also, I'm using PS3 for this - haven't tried in PS5).
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 12): I think this is valid discussion considering the OP asked for help with daytime cockpit shots and compositing is just as good a method as any, in my opinion. While it isn't acceptable for the database, it's still a technique that can be used for ones personal collection.
Absolutely. Especially for those of us who haven't yet added a Speedlite to our equipment collection.
And I use it quite often for landscapes.
EDIT because it took me a half hour to finish my post:
While I respect your opinion, what did photographers do before digital sensors and Photoshop? The art of photography is in the taking of the photo, not what you can do with the data afterwards. It takes maybe 5 seconds to set the camera up for the technique described above and take the photo. I would imagine it takes several minutes to merge photos and create what you're wanting to achieve. I'd much prefer to spend more time shooting frames than editing them in Photoshop.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you there. If you want, we can separate Digital Photography from Film Photography. For digital, my belief is that post-processing CAN be part-and-parcel of the process. It doesn't HAVE to be, but if the tools are there, why not use them? Especially if you take the shots with your post-processing plan already in mind.
Note that I'm not saying that either way is the correct way; they're just different flavors of ice cream.
I was reading some photography magazine recently, and there was a brief article talking about how a photographer shot the interior of a car. If I had seen the photo in a brochure or something, I'd probably think, "hey, that's a nice photo". Well, turns out it was 14 separate exposures merged.
[Edited 2012-01-26 11:49:41]
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1373 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 14): The art of photography is in the taking of the photo, not what you can do with the data afterwards.
I think generally speaking, that's becoming an outdated definition. The art, in this digital age, has become more about combining what you do before and after that produces the final product. The final resulting image should be what matters, right?
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 14): I know you can argue minor changes to contrast and colour balance is photo manipulation, but you aren't changing the original photo.
But what about using layers to "manipulate" and mask only portions of a single photo to alter the final result? Isn't that common practice? Or am I wrong?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 15): I have to admit, in my view, they're the exact same thing. Either way, parts are masked, others aren't, and some parts may be partially masked (a.k.a. be partially transparent). I assume that would all be what the software figures out.
But HDR tonemapping software isn't just cutting and pasting bright and dark areas. It's actually re-drawing the entire image based on data. That's very different, in my opinion.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6497 posts, RR: 29 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 17):
But HDR tonemapping software isn't just cutting and pasting bright and dark areas. It's actually re-drawing the entire image based on data. That's very different, in my opinion.
Fair enough. I haven't read up on HDR tonemapping, so I don't know the actual technical process.
I have to imagine it does something similar, though - for each pixel, take the data from each exposure, modify as necessary, and blend somehow to get the resulting pixel. I can't imagine it's bringing in data that's not already contained in said pixels....but perhaps my imagination needs expanding.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1362 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18): I have to imagine it does something similar, though - for each pixel, take the data from each exposure, modify as necessary, and blend somehow to get the resulting pixel. I can't imagine it's bringing in data that's not already contained in said pixels....but perhaps my imagination needs expanding.
That's my point! HDR software redraws every pixel based on some calculation from the combination of multiple images. My point is, with regard to a cockpit and compositing, the interior is all from one single shot. The pixels are all left alone and by masking in the view out the windows I have not changed or altered anything in the interior.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9): That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the only way to truly capture cockpits during the day the way the eye sees it is to composite two shots, one for the outside and another for the inside under natural light.
If that works for you, go for it. Personally, I think the results using flash and doing it the old fashioned way is not only easier, it's the photographic way of doing it. Whatever works for you though.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16): The final resulting image should be what matters, right?
Absolutely, that's the main aspect but the art of photography for me is in the planning and execution of a shot. Not sitting in front of a computer processing and combining photos to give you the desired effect. If you can get things right in-camera, it negates the processing although that obviously has it's place in modern photography. It's just not for everyone. Getting back to te original question, learning how to do things photographically and in one shot for me is the better option rather than having to think about how you can do things in post-processing and needing to take several shots and exposures. You may only get one chance.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16): But what about using layers to "manipulate" and mask only portions of a single photo to alter the final result? Isn't that common practice? Or am I wrong?
Of course it is, but it's only minor changes to photos, not combining or manipulating things to the extent that the originality of the frame is lost. There are standards to meet on this site that cannot be achieved without minor tweaks to a photo, eg contrast, levelling, colour balance, dust spot removal, sharpening etc. But the originality of the photo is maintained. When you start to combine several exposures, all that it lost and is why it's not permitted here. We're talking aviation photography here. Techniques and methods used in other aspects is different. For landscapes for example, I'd rather use graduated filters than mess about with HDR to get the results I desire. But everyone is different.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2009, 14 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2151 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Feb 2007, 22 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
