White Sand

This post was prompted by marriad's picture of Jawfish.

I have a number of similar shots with quite a lot of white sand in the background. I have often found that the sand seems to be poorly focussed compared to the main subject often detracting from the photo (as in the example below). Does anyone know whether this is because of the nature of the material i.e lots of reflective surfaces or is it due a limitation of shooting JPEGs when there is so much detail in the picture?

Any tips would be appreciated as I'm off to the Red Sea later this month and would like to take some similar shots.

The attached photo was taken using a Olympus 4040 and PT-010 with the internal strobe.

Thanks,

Richard

Usually the problem is upside, we want that no sand will be in the frame or at list he will not in focus so the subject will be separated from the background.

Another problem can be seen especially in the linked shots, is that the white sand became red, that is usually because of the using the auto level options in the imagining software.

The sand in the jawfish shots exhibits uneven strobe illumination. There is no easy way to color-correct that since there is a color shift front-to-back. Even perfectly lit shots can suffer this problem since the distance can vary so much. Although pink sand is distracting, so is green and yellow sand. The sand in the example posted here is somewhat green/cyan although it also has a mild color shift lowerright-to-upperleft. I don't think it looks out of focus, though. Perhaps that's a function of the web version. I can see JPEG having a problem with it at higher compression settings but I haven't noticed it.

The advantage of correcting to the middle of the range is that the majority of the sand will look right, not just the foreground. You may not like the effect but the photographer may prefer it to the alternative. The best solution is to avoid the situation, but it can be hard in the heat of the moment.

I agree that people shouldn't be using auto-level functions. It's too easy to learn how to do it better and auto-levels doesn't try to get it right.

Adobe Camera Raw (or equivalent) is perfect for this.

Assuming you have a well lit shot, you can do a lot with a raw file to get the sand to look right. What is right?

The sand shouldn't be yellow, green, or red. Reef sand is usually white or white/black - ocassionally pink.

I buy and use a lot of reef sand in reef aquaria.

In Camera Raw - set the white balance to "Custom." Then use the eyedropper to select an area that looks "neutral gray," and sample there. Does the sand and the rest of the shot look well balanced now? If not, then select a different area.

That is what I did for all my RAW files on my last trip and it worked well. This is basically what the camera does when it does "Auto White Balance" for making JPEG's - but the camera rarely gets it right. Take control.

Cheers

James

I shoot a lot of macro in the hardpan/sand area just off the coral. If possible, like for shooting jawfish out of their burrows, I lie belly-down on the bottom and try to shoot the camera horizontally with the strobe off to the side. This will minimize, but not eliminate the sand and its often uneven reflection. This isn't always possible of course, but in many cases it is effective.

For sand backgrounds, the burn tool and blur tool can be effective in reducing hot spots and making the subject stand out.

Although this is taking the discussion in a slightly new direction, I find that shooting in available light (using filters to correct colour) gives very pleasing sand colour with a smooth colourshift with distance away from the camera.

The advantage of this technique is that "correct" colour penetrates further from the camera.

Using the example below:

Compare the difference in light path length for the for sand in the front of the frame (A - say 15cm from camera) compared with the the sand at the same distance away at the ray (B - say 60 cm away).

Flash coloured: light path from flash to subject to camera.

A - 40cm

B - 130cm

Filter coloured: light path from surface to subject to camera. Water depth 4m.

A - 415cm

B - 460cm

So the difference in light path between points B and A are:

flash coloured point B has a 3.25 times longer light path than point A

filter coloured point B only has a 1.10 times longer light path than point A

Since light path determines colours the filter gives much better "correct" colour penetration away from the camera.

And the deeper you go, the better colour penetration into the image (because the light path is longer and thus the relative increase caused by the camera to subject distance is less).

Very interesting about the use of filters!

Alex - What kind of filters do you use, and do you put the filter on the camera lens or over the port?

If the sand is poorly focused can you simply increase your DOF?

Using your internal flash only will create a flatter renditition of any small particles. Strobe/s directed from above or to the sides will create shadow depth that enhances sandy stuff...

The enclosed image was shot at 1:3 with an MMII, the sand in this shot is gorgeous and highly detailed.

I appreciate that it's more difficult with a subject standing away from the sand aways with out an increase DOF capability, but this makes the main subject appear sharper.

Using your internal flash only will create a flatter renditition of any small particles. Strobe/s directed from above or to the sides will create shadow depth that enhances sandy stuff...

I think this could well be the case. I had a quick play with Photoshop Elements removing the cyan cast and selectively sharpening the sand to mimic extra shadowing and it produced an image more to my taste.

Unfortunately I won't be adding a strobe to my set up anytime soon but I'll try and bear the other suggestions in mind next time I see a similar subject.

Thanks for the help,

Richard