| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2003 02:42:01 PM · #26 |
| These are all super ideas. But the one thing I've found that is most helpful in photographing sunset is simply this: wait. Wait until the light is just right, and take lots of pictures in between times just in case! |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 02:43:18 PM · #27 |
BTW, let me just clarify it a bit more:
In any situation, the exposure you get, whether for sunset, etc. is your choice. In my sunset photo above, i seriously doubt i'll ever be able to SEE a sunset like that, as the sky isn't usually THAT saturated. It's probably more like 1 stop over the current exposure, but i set the exposure so that the colors ARE more saturated and the image is created that way. If i don't, shooting into the sun without underexposing would mean the sun itself is washed out and would be a major disturbance in the scene no matter where you place it. Thus, i expose FOR the sun and let everythign else take the second place. If the sun isn't in the photo and i am not directly aiming at it, then it's a different scene altogether.
It's like the current challenge, low key -- if you want to create a low key image, most likely, you will have to underexpose on purpose OR use some creative lighting but still expose for the small highlighted areas.
Consider this photo... (taken in my trip last week), if i were to use the evaluative/matrix metering, it would grossly overexpose for the sky and expose properly for the deer. So what i did was to use partial metering on the cloud, add 1 2/3 stops over and compose the scene. Granted, this is done at NOON, so it's really too contrasty to capture both together well without some post-photo manipuation. I have made several exposures at this location with that technique (different composition) and here is one of them:
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 14:43:47. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 02:44:57 PM · #28 |
You mean the clipping? That's unavoidable :) even in film..... unless she means that bit of cloud near the sun (above, which glows brightly).
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think the original question was asking how to avoid the nasty banding your shot shows around the sun.
My comment about 'correct' exposure is just that you want as much of the dynamic range of your shot centered around the area you care about. If you want a high key final image, then it doesn't make sense to under expose and try to adjust later, because you end up with nasty banding because you've stretched and tweaked the tonal ranges so much.
I unfortunatly expect we'll see a great deal of that in the black on black challenge, where more prudent control of exposure would have produced a much improved final result. |
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 14:46:09. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 02:49:00 PM · #29 |
If you're thinking what Journey is refering to in my photo as "banding" because it was adjusted too much,it's actually a one shot exposure. The banding is due to the sun's brightness on the CCD sensor and clipping the color near it, It's a matter sacrifice, i can underexpose more, and causing the orange to be dark and with better looking spot around the sun, or i can leave it as it is.
Banding is really referred to noises introduced from Bayes interpolation. And typically occurs in shadow areas.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think the original question was asking how to avoid the nasty banding your shot shows around the sun.
My comment about 'correct' exposure is just that you want as much of the dynamic range of your shot centered around the area you care about. If you want a high key final image, then it doesn't make sense to under expose and try to adjust later, because you end up with nasty banding because you've stretched and tweaked the tonal ranges so much.
I unfortunatly expect we'll see a great deal of that in the black on black challenge, where more prudent control of exposure would have produced a much improved final result. |
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 14:53:05. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 03:03:32 PM · #30 |
An example of FILM "banding" or rather, color clipping around the sun:
Link
it's not just digital that will have the effect, it affects all mediums. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 03:12:59 PM · #31 |
sunrise with atypical colors - very overcast day. i took this while driving :P.
adding a human element to a sunset (this was one of my postcard possibles)
another postcard alternate- as gordon said , water reflections can be great.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 03:29:01 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by paganini:
If you're thinking what Journey is refering to in my photo as "banding" because it was adjusted too much,it's actually a one shot exposure. The banding is due to the sun's brightness on the CCD sensor and clipping the color near it, It's a matter sacrifice, i can underexpose more, and causing the orange to be dark and with better looking spot around the sun, or i can leave it as it is.
Banding is really referred to noises introduced from Bayes interpolation. And typically occurs in shadow areas.
|
The banding is just that you've made the decision to have the majority of the dynamic range of the exposure not in the highlights around the sun.
It isn't the noise, its the lack of dyanmic range in the final result.
It's amazing how other people can cope. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 03:34:44 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
If you're thinking what Journey is refering to in my photo as "banding" because it was adjusted too much,it's actually a one shot exposure. The banding is due to the sun's brightness on the CCD sensor and clipping the color near it, It's a matter sacrifice, i can underexpose more, and causing the orange to be dark and with better looking spot around the sun, or i can leave it as it is.
Banding is really referred to noises introduced from Bayes interpolation. And typically occurs in shadow areas.
|
The banding is just that you've made the decision to have the majority of the dynamic range of the exposure not in the highlights around the sun.
It isn't the noise, its the lack of dyanmic range in the final result.
It's amazing how other people can cope. |
I'm betting that's dodged and burned, honestly. :->
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 03:47:52 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by eloise:
I'm betting that's dodged and burned, honestly. :-> |
But that's only good for creating horrible digital art, surely ? |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 04:04:21 PM · #35 |
That Calvi Sunset image is extremely, fantastically beautiful.
I know that the banding results from lack of dynamic range but what can you do about? Let's take a simple, not uncommon, example (sorry i haven't had time to read all these very lengthy posts yet): a deep blue sky that makes up 1/3 or more of an image. How can you avoid banding?
In my Dawn at Puget Sound image there was a lot of noise, cleaned it up in Neat Image and ended up with a super slick image (the water was indeed that still, NOT neatimage effect). I was so pleased until i saw it on the web as the banding was horrible and destroyed everything. So, i redid it in neatimage, tweaked and tweaked the noise profile, reduced the noise-reduction until there was hardly any banding left when i put it on the web. So, i then concluded that there is indeed a relationship with noise (also with compression!). Other images i just despeckled and there's still some noise, but no banding (Gordon, your looking for bats has some noise too in the sky but it doesn't bother me, certainly not as much as banding does).
I call it banding, maybe that's not the right term. What IS it called? You can clearly see it in the two images i mentioned earlier (inspzil and paganini's skies) and i feel that detracts from the image.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:19:02 PM · #36 |
Excuse me, Gordon, where in my photo did you see this "banding"? I don't see it. If you're talking about that little band on TOP of the sun, that's not banding, it's a cloud in the distance. The photo is exposed for the the dynamic range of the sun and was not post adjusted.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
If you're thinking what Journey is refering to in my photo as "banding" because it was adjusted too much,it's actually a one shot exposure. The banding is due to the sun's brightness on the CCD sensor and clipping the color near it, It's a matter sacrifice, i can underexpose more, and causing the orange to be dark and with better looking spot around the sun, or i can leave it as it is.
Banding is really referred to noises introduced from Bayes interpolation. And typically occurs in shadow areas.
|
The banding is just that you've made the decision to have the majority of the dynamic range of the exposure not in the highlights around the sun.
It isn't the noise, its the lack of dyanmic range in the final result.
It's amazing how other people can cope. |
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 17:19:38. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:21:13 PM · #37 |
Your example also shows color clipping in the sun itself. It's not a problem with dynamic range -- it's partly an issue with the lens itself (lens flare which causes the color to clip). The only difference is that he decides to UNDEREXPOSE by a lot (i.e. not just taking the mesaurement off the sun and use it, but actual underexpose), which makes the color around it RED instead of orange.
In my film example above, it shows it (what you calle dbanding)clearly. And it's not by some unknown photographer either. It's a choice -- you can either expose for the sun and darkening everything, or you can expose for other areas.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
If you're thinking what Journey is refering to in my photo as "banding" because it was adjusted too much,it's actually a one shot exposure. The banding is due to the sun's brightness on the CCD sensor and clipping the color near it, It's a matter sacrifice, i can underexpose more, and causing the orange to be dark and with better looking spot around the sun, or i can leave it as it is.
Banding is really referred to noises introduced from Bayes interpolation. And typically occurs in shadow areas.
|
The banding is just that you've made the decision to have the majority of the dynamic range of the exposure not in the highlights around the sun.
It isn't the noise, its the lack of dyanmic range in the final result.
It's amazing how other people can cope. |
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 17:23:52. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:24:13 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Excuse me, Gordon, where in my photo did you see this "banding"? I don't see it. If you're talking about that little band on TOP of the sun, that's not banding, it's a cloud in the distance. The photo is exposed for the the dynamic range of the sun and was not post adjusted.
|
No not the small cloud above the sun, the strong V that runs from a point under the sun diagonally up each side. Looking at in photoshop, it is an area that is oversaturated - the HSB values are S at 100% so you've just reached the top of the dynamic range so things smooth out into bands, rather than having discrete levels.
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 17:30:37. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:26:04 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Journey:
(Gordon, your looking for bats has some noise too in the sky but it doesn't bother me, certainly not as much as banding does).
|
Yup lots of noise - shot it at ISO 400 on a G2, about 30 minutes after sunset. I've done a bit of work to reduce the noise and blur it out, but there is still some there. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:31:20 PM · #40 |
I doubt that's banding, because you can clearly see the other colors around the sun (and the colors are NOT clipped there). I think the "V" might be due to the lens property. There is no lens flare though. There is certainly enough dynamic range in that area (the hazy area shows up fine).
On another sunset of mine with another lens, it doesn't show up (but that lens has lens flare issues)...... weird....
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
Excuse me, Gordon, where in my photo did you see this "banding"? I don't see it. If you're talking about that little band on TOP of the sun, that's not banding, it's a cloud in the distance. The photo is exposed for the the dynamic range of the sun and was not post adjusted.
|
No not the small cloud above the sun, the nasty V that runs from a point under the sun diagonally up each side |
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 17:33:41. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:32:26 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Journey:
I call it banding, maybe that's not the right term. What IS it called? You can clearly see it in the two images i mentioned earlier (inspzil and paganini's skies) and i feel that detracts from the image. |
What you are describing may well be JPEG compression artefacts, which tend to appear in large uniform areas of colour - it starts to get a bit blocky and loses the more subtle colour differences in these regions. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:35:14 PM · #42 |
Like your third one (but you should include the third chick on the right that was cut off :))
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 17:35:36. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:39:56 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I doubt that's banding, because you can clearly see the other colors around the sun (and the colors are NOT clipped there). I think the "V" might be due to the lens property. There is no lens flare though. There is certainly enough dynamic range in that area (the hazy area shows up fine). |
heh - replied too fast - I'd changed the comment. Its over saturated in that region, so you are getting clipping/ banding. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:41:43 PM · #44 |
Hmmmm. I wonder why it would be that way, as most color clippings are done around the sun. Are you looking at the sun? The Sun itself will be at 100%. I don't think the V area that you're talking about is.
Originally posted by Gordon:
No not the small cloud above the sun, the strong V that runs from a point under the sun diagonally up each side. Looking at in photoshop, it is an area that is oversaturated - the HSB values are S at 100% so you've just reached the top of the dynamic range so things smooth out into bands, rather than having discrete levels. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:46:59 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Hmmmm. I wonder why it would be that way, as most color clippings are done around the sun. Are you looking at the sun? The Sun itself will be at 100%. I don't think the V area that you're talking about is.
|
No, the sun will be at 0% saturation, same as all the black regions.
The sun is 100% bright, but the reddish V just under the sun is at or around 100% saturation and hence will clip and produce bands as are visible there - everything is squeezed up against the upper limits producing these regions of the same colour in areas that would actually have shaded tones. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:50:46 PM · #46 |
Hmnm. The colors are not clipped (i.e. it might be at high saturation but the dynamic range is still within the range). Also, why would it make a "V" range if it's simply over saturation AROUND the sun (i.e. it should be just around the sun, not making it into a V pattern).
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
Hmmmm. I wonder why it would be that way, as most color clippings are done around the sun. Are you looking at the sun? The Sun itself will be at 100%. I don't think the V area that you're talking about is.
|
No, the sun will be at 0% saturation, same as all the black regions.
The sun is 100% bright, but the reddish V just under the sun is at or around 100% saturation and hence will clip and produce bands as are visible there - everything is squeezed up against the upper limits producing these regions of the same colour in areas that would actually have shaded tones. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:52:43 PM · #47 |
| Yes, what i mistakenly called banding is the blocky effects from jpeg compression artifacts. So, what can you do about that? You have to come down to something like 150 kb and then the trouble starts. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:53:23 PM · #48 |
Oh, THAT??? nothing you can do.... if you have a complex scene, shortening it to 150kb could create it.
Originally posted by Journey:
Yes, what i mistakenly called banding is the blocky effects from jpeg compression artifacts. So, what can you do about that? You have to come down to something like 150 kb and then the trouble starts. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:57:04 PM · #49 |
Gordon:
check this out...
also vshaped
Just searching through sunset photos and found it and others that has the sun with the area V shaped. Perhaps it's a lens issue. In fact, it occurs in many other photographs i have seen out there, especially in HAZY sunsets.
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 17:58:29. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:26:49 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Gordon:
check this out...
also vshaped
Just searching through sunset photos and found it and others that has the sun with the area V shaped. Perhaps it's a lens issue. In fact, it occurs in many other photographs i have seen out there, especially in HAZY sunsets. |
Could be an atmospheric effect then too. Interesting. Though in that region, the brightness is at or around 100% and so is the saturation - giving nowhere to go so I could believe that it is maxing out the available colour range. |
|
