Why does this happen.

[whippet]

As I have stated previously, I only ever use my camera on automatic.

I took some photos today. Hardly any sun, as it looked like rain.

I got three shots of this tree.
I could clearly see the background, which was a road and a petrol filling station - and cars driving along.

I just cannot understand why the images have come out like this.

[Peterj]

Your eyes are much better than most cameras are when viewing scenes such as this. I suspect had you framed this is such a fashion that only a small portion of this tree was on the extreme left your camera would have rendered the tree almost totally black and there'd be nicely exposed detail on the right.

A camera's internal light meter adjusts exposure based on averaging the scene to 18% gray; in this case the subject covered 75% and was rather dark so it raised the exposure producing the tree trunk nicely exposed which completely overexposed the background. Check your manual to discover if exposure compensation is available in the automatic mode, or if there's an HDR setting (high dynamic range).

[whippet]

Thanks for your reply, Pete.
I was stood directly under the tree, which you may have guessed, is huge.
I did think at the time, that the photo may come out too dark.

Now I just have to remember where the manual is.
(Just joking).

[pontiac1940]

Jul 13, 2020 16:20:58 GMT Peterj said:

Your eyes are much better than most cameras are when viewing scenes such as this.

Hi whippet
Yes, these scenes are deceiving because as Pete said our eyes have a much much large range than a sensor. Your eyes can see bright objects and details in shadows all at one time. Camera sensors have less dynamic range  than our eyes. The newer digital cameras are better with wider ranges. 
We talked about shooting raw a couple of weeks ago. A scene like your's a perfect example where shooting raw would help. 
One way around this in your specific case would be to expose for the brights and the use a fill flash to light the tree. Or use a tripod and take two or three exposures and "exposure merge" in PSE. 
Clive
 

[pontiac1940]

Follow up ... side note 
In such a scene you are better to underexpose so the brights are less bright. When whites are blown out there is zero detail..white is white. But when darks are dark (unless they are pure black) you can always mine details out of dark regions in PSE. You can open jpgs in Adobe Camera Raw (inside PSE) and you have more power to make harsh adjustments.  

There is hardly any detail in the blown out areas of your photo.

[pontiac1940]

Third comment ... 
The top version is out of the camera (as shot) and the backlighted fawn is underexposed. The sun was almost directly in front of the camera. The fawn moved before I could make exposure adjustments, but had the fawn been properly exposed the background would have been too bright. This will never (ever) be a good photo, but you can see how it was improved a bit in PSE using ACR.  

[whippet]

Jul 13, 2020 19:50:52 GMT whippet said:

Now I just have to remember where the manual is.
(Just joking).

I very belatedly remembered that I don't have a 'real' manual. I had to download it.
I have just found it.

Clive, by 'newer' digital cameras, do you mean months, rather than years old?
 I have had my FujiFilm for about three years.
I don't use it much, as it is heavy to handle when I am out with three dogs.

I hope to look at the manual tomorrow, Pete.

[whippet]

Jul 13, 2020 16:20:58 GMT Peterj said:

Check your manual to discover if exposure compensation is available in the automatic mode, or if there's an HDR setting (high dynamic range).

I found the information re. exposure compensation, Pete, but it won't work in automatic  mode.

I have gone through almost 200 pages of manual, and can't find HDR mentioned anywhere.

Guess what else I hate as well as computers. 

[bnk1953]

Are you using the Auto mode or the SR Auto mode? You also might want to try Program mode? HDR can be found on page 24 of the manual (at least the one I found online).

[BuckSkin]

Jul 13, 2020 21:11:16 GMT pontiac1940 said:

This will never (ever) be a good photo

Maybe so to the photo snobs; but, if that were the only shot I managed to get of that little guy, I would be proud to show it off.

I am always seeing all sorts of wildlife on our place, including several deer, but always when the camera is in the house and I have my hands full of buckets or tools and am on a mission; I can slip out there with a camera and sit until doomsday and not even see a bird.

[BuckSkin]

Jul 13, 2020 15:31:35 GMT whippet said:

I have to comment on the tree.

The more I look at it, the more I believe someone many years ago "trained" it to grow like it is; way back before television and FaceBook, people used to amuse themselves by doing such things.

I can just not fathom any natural reason for such a contorted growth pattern.

[whippet]

Sorry for the delay in answering, BuckSkin. I have been almost three weeks without an internet connection.

Wherever you stand, you get a good, and very different, aspect.

I had never heard of that before, re. the training.
Similar to growing Bonsai, only on the natural height of a tree. 

[BuckSkin]

Oct 30, 2020 20:03:23 GMT whippet said:

I had never heard of that before, re. the training.
Similar to growing Bonsai, only on the natural height of a tree. 

With several of the fast-growing species, such as many strains of Maple, the River Maple or Swamp Maple being one of the fastest, you can see results within a few years.

I have seen perfect square knots tied, both on two limbs of a single tree, and with the limbs of two separate trees, either of the same or different species.

I have seen the main trunk bent over and weighted, allowed to grow straight up from the bend, and then bent over in another direction and weighted again, and so forth and so on.

I have even seen three trees grown in a braided fashion.

Since the beginning of time, bored humans have done similar things with other less fortunate humans to amuse themselves.

Nobody has time to do such things anymore as the results of your efforts take too long.

[Chris]

Jul 13, 2020 15:31:35 GMT whippet said:

As I have stated previously, I only ever use my camera on automatic.

I took some photos today. Hardly any sun, as it looked like rain.

I got three shots of this tree.
I could clearly see the background, which was a road and a petrol filling station - and cars driving along.

I just cannot understand why the images have come out like this.

Basically, the camera is exposing for the shadow under the tree or is estimating an average exposure, hence the blown highlights. As has been mentioned, taking several shots and dialling in exposure compensation will help.

You might want to check if your camera has the option to shoot raw + jpg. You might have this option if you shoot in P (Program) mode. If its available, "P" mode is similar to auto mode but gives you some more user options. Using the raw file, it would be easier to pull back the highlights if they are not too far blown.

The picture below shows a comparison of the same picture taken as raw + jpg with a Canon 350D. The top picture was taken in raw format normal exposure and the lower picture as jpg. Afterwards they were both darkened minus 4 brightness in ACR to saturate the sky. The jpg needed to be darkened more for comparison purposes. You can see that the raw file shows more detail in the sky. 






Kind regards

Chris

[BuckSkin]

Oct 31, 2020 15:54:52 GMT Chris said:

That is a very good description and example of the difference between RAW and jpeg.

The separate ridges of varying colors in the sky of the corrected jpeg, is that what is called "banding" ?

I see that myself occasionally, even in RAW conversions, when the sky has been manipulated a bit too much.

If you stretch things a bit too far, the Magenta will always start showing as well.