[Swapnil]

Hello Pentaxians,

So recently I got my K-r and took some 650 snaps in varying light condition. I mostly shot JPEGs straight from the camera.

What I have noticed is that in bright daylight conditions, bright areas like sky is overexposed. I applied negative EV ranging from -1/3 to -1 but it was still not that useful. This negative compensation made my subject look dark.

I usually shoot in Av mode (wide aperture to get bokeh ).
Also, i havent got any filters yet , suggest me an economical one.

Please pour your suggestions to handle this kind of situation.

Thanks!

[Verglace]

Got a few.
-Use a flash (I'm serious)
-Use a different metering mode.
-In Lightroom (Develop->Basic) lower exposure and increase fill light (only works if you shoot in raw IIRC)... should be an equivalent one with the software you use

[Swapnil]

Thanks Verglace!

I used multi segment metering mode assuming that all the bright part will be considered while setting the exposure.
Shall I link AE with AF?

[djb21au]

You are correct that the bright part will be considered when the camera sets the exposure, but if your subject is backlit (shaded), the camera will place more emphasis on getting the exposure of that subject right.

Correct exposure is always a balancing act in photography, no matter what camera you use or even whether you are using digital or film. Sensors (and film) are limited by the range of light that they can record at one time. Using a flash will brighten your subject and reduce the dark/light difference between subject and sky, increasing the chance of a good overall exposure.

You can try linking AE with AF, but that will only achieve a well exposed sky if you are focusing on the sky. Chances are it may make your subject too dark.

Keep trying with still wider EV adjustments until you achieve the effect you want, but remember that there are limits, regardless of the camera. And if you really want to achieve a wide dynamic range, explore the world of HDR (High Dynamic Range - google it). The K-r has a setting to do this in-camera which you may like to try.

[amoringello]

What you are seeing is expected behavior. You can read a lot about dynamic range and how to handle the limited amount that a camera can handle.
Basically, you cannot hope to have current camera technology to expose both shadows and bright sunlit areas. Its why HDR software is sold.

Don't get upset about it, you're not doing anything wrong.
Just learn the camera's limitations and learn how to handle it in post production if your needs require full range from dark to bright.

Obviously neutral density (ND) filters might be able to be implemented to keep the entire scene within the range of your camera's capabilities... and thus eliminate the need for post processing in some cases.

FYI, shooting in RAW can help, but I'd probably suggest staying with JPEG until you feel the urge to play with RAW. Its not hard, but I think working in JPEG for a while will give you the appreciation of RAW when/if you eventually decide to use it. (or you can properly decide to NOT use it, ever :-) )

[Swapnil]

Thanks amoringello
Thanks djb21au

I got panic when I saw Red shadow blinking over sky i.e.overexposed area and when I reduced EV I saw yellow light blinking on underexposed area.
Was not sure what should I sacrifice.

I think in such scenario as recommended, I should be using flash to compensate the darker area.

Also, I would like to know if filters are any important. I didnt get lens hood with kit lenses so I have ordered two from ebay. Not sure if I should buy a UV or ND filter.

It would be great if someone recommends any economical filter for all purpose use

[amoringello]

Also, i havent got any filters yet , suggest me an economical one.

You're not going to like the answer, but do not go for "economical" if that means "cheap".
*anything* you put in front of your lens is going to degrade the image.
A good filter will do so as well, but with the least visible effect.

I would also not suggest going right out and buying a $300 filter!!
They are better than the $10, but not *that* much.

My first suggestion would be a polarizer. It will help cut the light as well as reduce reflections and boost saturation and contrast -- as a result of reducing the reflections on many materials such as leaves, etc...)

Linear polarizers are cheaper and work just as well as circular. There is a HUGE MYTH about linear polarizers affecting metering and/or focus, but I have yet to see any proof of that (and I have tested both).
Sadly, linear have fallen behind in tech due to scare tactics causing people to avoid them, so you may be stuck with circular to get one with good coating to eliminate flare.

Buy one big enough to fit your largest lens, and buy step-down rings to fit your other lenses. (a $10 ring is a lot cheaper than another polarizer, and a lot easier to carry and care for.) Polarizers tend to be a bit expensive, and I don't see the need to have more than one.

If you're doing lots of landscapes, you might want an ND-grad filter (neutral density graduated).
It will be dark on one end and gradually become clear at the other.
This will allow you, for example, to darken down the skies while allowing the ground to remain unaffected.
i.e. It helps balance out both to be within the limits of what your camera can handle.


FYI
I would not spend more than $75-100 on a polarizer (and a lot less for a ND).
I think the biggest mistake I feel I have ever made was being tricked into buying a $250 circular polarizer. It rarely gives any different results than the $50 filter I had used for many years!!)


The debatable portion of this is that you should spend the most money you can afford on your lens, and on filters.
If you had unlimited funds, buy the best gear you can find.

Sadly, the world isn't perfect so you'll need to balance your income with your perceived need for perfection and your skill level.

For my first five years I could not see how poor my $50 lens and $5 filter was... I loved what I took photos of and I had a blast.
Now I look back at those and chuckle at the low quality. I'm not sure if a $1400 lens would have been wasted on me at the time. Maybe I would have improved faster? Or maybe when I dropped that first lens, I would have given up photography because I could never have afforded to replace it.


Anyway, I rambled enough. Hopefully it helped a little bit...
No simple answer.
Any answer (i.e. opinion) can often be debated for days.

[amoringello]

It would be great if someone recommends any economical filter for all purpose use

Sorry I rambled on so long, you had to post a second request before I was done.

[Swapnil]

Sorry I rambled on so long, you had to post a second request before I was done.

No Problem amoringello!

Btw, very well said. We do live in world of constraints. My love was K-5 and I ended up marrying K-r
As of now, I am saving some bucks to get a fast prime lens (which is a different story)

From economical, I didnt mean cheap. There were some filters from Hoya and Vivitar which I thought could protect my lens surface from scratches, dust and unwanted items. Was not sure about the quality though and effect on the image, so thought of asking the community.

Also, Is Hoya filters same as the Hoya corporation that owns pentax?

[amoringello]

I believe its the same Hoya. Their filters range from fair to very good.
I lived with $30 hoya circ polarizer for years. I still have them and will be taking it on vacation with a single 18-135 lens. (I normally use the DA* 16-50 and 50-135, but thats too much for the light traveling I'm doing this time).

Another point of much argument is whether you should put a protective UV or Skylight filter on your len to protect the front element.

You'll hear stories of how a lens was dropped and the filter saved the front element, then the next story will tell how the filter splintered and the shards scratched the front element worse than if it hit the ground directly.
And you've probably seen the website where the lens hit the ground and the front element is shattered int the star design al the way through the glass.... yet it still take great photos at wider apertures.

So if you have a $1000 lens, do you want to degrade the images with a filter, just in case? Might as well buy a cheaper "throw away" lens.

My suggestion is to get a lens hood. It will help to keep the front element protected more then a filter would.

Exception: if you're in dusty and windy conditions or perhaps on the sea where salty water will spray onto the lens, then you may want to protect the front element from constant debris.

[1r0nh31d3]

FYI, shooting in RAW can help, but I'd probably suggest staying with JPEG until you feel the urge to play with RAW. Its not hard, but I think working in JPEG for a while will give you the appreciation of RAW when/if you eventually decide to use it. (or you can properly decide to NOT use it, ever :-) )

I used to shoot in JPEG for a long time (probably longer than I should have) when I finally switched to shooting in RAW I was blown away by what I could with my files. The range of flexibility you have with a raw file is huge compared to jpeg. I shot in jpeg for as long as did because I didn't know any better. If you have the software to do post work, and the space for your files, shoot in RAW.

[Swapnil]

So if you have a $1000 lens, do you want to degrade the images with a filter, just in case? Might as well buy a cheaper "throw away" lens.

I have got Kit lens i.e. DAL 18-55mm and DAL 50-200mm, not sure if they are cheap

If its the same Hoya corporation as of Hoya Optics then its a good thing.

As of now i have ordered my lens hood, so i will wait for it to arrive and will see if I still need a filter. I hope Hoya Protector filter wont be a bad option if I want to go for it.