How to take a great Xmas Tree Photo

Pupator

Okay gang - I'm ready to learn. One of the most difficult subjects I've ever found is the Christmas tree.

What I want is: Visible lights and branches (the branches not blown out by the lights, the lights with very small star flares, and the background really dark.

I've got the tripod set up and ready to go but so far haven't had much success. I'm guessing this is going to be a "merge" project, but a Christmas tree seems to be a difficult thing for me to select (even with the magic want) so I end up with a "halo" around the tree.



What I don't like about this is:
1) The lights are too blurry
2) The branches are poorly defined
3) The halo around the tree
4) The surroundings aren't dark enough

But other than that I love it!

Teach me - guide me.....

pathfinder

Pupator,

The contrast range of the tree branches and bright incandescent light bulbs is going to be too great to capture everything in one exposure.

You may need to consider several images at different exposures shot from a tripod at the same fstop ( different shutter speeds to vary exposure ) and then blended either via RAW or HDR in Photoshop.

Most of us ( me anyway:D ) underexpose to grab the colors of the lights and let the shadows go dark, but if you want to see deeply into the shadows, you will need to blend exposures in some manner.

Pupator

pathfinder wrote:

Pupator,

The contrast range of the tree branches and bright incandescent light bulbs is going to be too great to capture everything in one exposure.

You may need to consider several images at different exposures shot from a tripod at the same fstop ( different shutter speeds to vary exposure ) and then blended either via RAW or HDR in Photoshop.

That's what I meant by "merge" project - sorry, I should have been more clear! Same f-stop you say? Should I try many images myself (in manual mode that way), or use the feature of my camera that will take 3 images with a predefined exposure difference?

If so, what difference? 1/3, 2/3....?

pathfinder

The advantage of changing shutter speed rather than aperture is to not change the depth of field between frames.

Try five frames 1 stop apart or so, and Merge in HDR.

If you try to blend in Photoshop in Layers, I think masking the blends of the layers may be rather challenging, that is why I suggested HDR where the software will do the blending for you.

Pupator

pathfinder wrote:

The advantage of changing shutter speed rather than aperture is to not change the depth of field between frames.

Ahh, makes sense!

Try five frames 1 stop apart or so, and Merge in HDR.

Okay.

If you try to blend in Photoshop in Layers, I think masking the blends of the layers may be rather challenging, that is why I suggested HDR where the software will do the blending for you.

Paint Shop Pro X2 has a (new) built-in HDR merge feature. I'll test it out.

LiquidAir

Heh. I'll tell you how to get want you want, but you may balk...

We'll go at your issues one at a time:

1) Lights too blurry.

The lights can be blurry for 3 possible reasons: out of focus, camera shake, or overexposure. From the web resolution shot, I can't tell which is the issue. That said, I'll assume you got the focus right and if you didn't, well, you know what to do. As for camera shake, the first step is the tripod which it sounds like you have taken care of. Mirror Lock Up and the delay timer are the other two bits of that equation. Finally, lets talk about exposure because I think that is really what you are after.

To get the look you want from your lights, put your camera in manual mode and ignore the meter--it is useless for this excersize. Set the aperture to f/11 and adjust the shutter speed chimping between shots until you get well defined stars with accurate color in the center when zoomed in to 100% on the LCD. I'd start at 1/15s at ISO 100, but that's just an off the top of the head guess.

2) Branches poorly defined.

It sounds like you want your branches to have color rather than just a silhouette against the background. Here you face a universal problem of photography: you cannot simultaneously expose for both your light source and what it illuminates. You have two possible answers here: either you need to use an additional out of frame light source or you need to use a high dynamic range exposure blending technique. For the best possible result, you'll probably want to use both.

Here is how I'd do it if I was serious: get a couple dimmable halogen bulbs and a couple large white reflectors. V-flats made of 4'x8' foamcore are traditional in studio situations, but hanging a couple white bed sheets will work in a pinch. Put a reflector right and left of the camera and bounce the halogens off them to light the tree. Now lets say you decided that 1/15s at f/11 was the proper exposure for the lights. Turn off the lights adjust the power on the halogens to get an exposure of 1/2s at f/11. Turn the lights back on and take a three stop bracket 1/2s, 1/4s, 1/8s, 1/15s and blend these exposures with Photoshop merge to HDR. It takes quite a bit of practice to get a natural looking result and I find that I usually need a few passes with USM after my initial conversion to 16 bits before I get the contrast where I want it.

3) & 4) Halo and surroundings.

You need more separation between your tree and the background. If you have a black muslin to hang behind it, you might be able to get away with as little as 4 feet, but with a white background you need a lot more. However, the easiest trick is to haul the tree into the back yard and shoot at night.

Pupator

Here we go

Heh. I'll tell you how to get want you want, but you may balk...

Likely so, heh. Tree-mendously helpful post though! (Har, har)

1) Lights too blurry.

The lights can be blurry for 3 possible reasons: out of focus, camera shake, or overexposure.

It's overexposure. Even in the previous HDR merge I had tried I couldn't quite get the exposure on the lights right.

I'd start at 1/15s at ISO 100, but that's just an off the top of the head guess.

Okay, more on this later.

2) Branches poorly defined.

It sounds like you want your branches to have color rather than just a silhouette against the background.

Silhouette would be okay. Black blob is not.

3) & 4) Halo and surroundings.

You need more separation between your tree and the background. If you have a black muslin to hang behind it, you might be able to get away with as little as 4 feet, but with a white background you need a lot more. However, the easiest trick is to haul the tree into the back yard and shoot at night.

Can't do it - this tree is immobile. We'll have to live with the halo then.

This gallery is filled with my tree images. All taken at f11, ISO 100, and various shutter speeds. Now comes the merging part.

Pupator

Here's the PSPX2 HDR merged tree. I didn't entirely go with their recommended settings because those blew the thing out.



I don't like the "black tips" of the branches. And I don't like that the angel is blown out. I don't like that the background is well lit. I"m guessing those are three problems I can't really fix though? Or can I fix the background and the angel by using layers?

pathfinder

Even your lowest exposure frame has the lights in the angel's skirt blown out ....

You might be able to Select > Color Range to selct the ends of the branches and the blend them with a brush in Screen mode or soft light mode to lighten them up

Pupator

pathfinder wrote:

Even your lowest exposure frame has the lights in the angel's skirt blown out ....

I've got some shorter exposures. I'll put them in the gallery now...

LiquidAir

Pupator wrote:

I don't like the "black tips" of the branches. And I don't like that the angel is blown out. I don't like that the background is well lit. I"m guessing those are three problems I can't really fix though? Or can I fix the background and the angel by using layers?

The black tips you can take care of by using another light for the tree. The problem you are seeing there is the light fall of from the tree lights. By the time you get to the tips of the branches there just isn't enough light to register for the HDR. By using a low power external light for the tree, you can fill those shadows and give the HDR some color to work with.

As for the angel being blown out, that is just an issue of enough bracketing and getting the settings right on the HDR processing.

As for the background, you'll need to create a mask to darken it. I'd start by inverting the red channel from one of your brightest exposures (say the 13s exposure) to use as a mask for a curves layer. You are going to have a lot of work to do with a paint brush to get something that looks reasonable, but it is probably possible.

Pupator

LiquidAir wrote:

The black tips you can take care of by using another light for the tree. The problem you are seeing there is the light fall of from the tree lights. By the time you get to the tips of the branches there just isn't enough light to register for the HDR. By using a low power external light for the tree, you can fill those shadows and give the HDR some color to work with.

As for the angel being blown out, that is just an issue of enough bracketing and getting the settings right on the HDR processing.

As for the background, you'll need to create a mask to darken it. I'd start by inverting the red channel from one of your brightest exposures (say the 13s exposure) to use as a mask for a curves layer. You are going to have a lot of work to do with a paint brush to get something that looks reasonable, but it is probably possible.

Okay, I think I can do both of those. I moved the tripod though (doh!) so I'll start over again tomorrow with the external light and see how we do.

Thanks to both of you for all your help and good advice. I'll get this yet!

CAFields

Alternative method?
I've been reading this thread with great interest. I don't have a solution but have an idea that I thought I'd throw into the discussion to see if it might work.

What if the lights on the tree were turned off and a satisfactorily exposed shot were made of the tree. Don't move the camera, tripod or anything, then turn the tree lights on. Make a satisfactory shot with the tree lights on which would be exposed for the lights, not the tree. Probably several exposures using various shutter speeds would be needed to achieve the one "keeper" with the desired star effect and proper exposure of the lights only.

In Photoshop (or PSP) copy the best "tree with lights on" shot as a separate layer onto the "tree with lights off" shot and then adjust opacity to suit. Or turn the "tree with lights on" shot into a layer mask and paint the lights and angel in individually?

One of these days when I get some free time I might try this on our tree, unless someone here will save me the time by telling me it just flat out won't work!

Thanks for the interesting thread.

pathfinder

That sounds like a great idea to me

Kind of like combining two exposures on the same piece of film in the pre digital days.