| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2004 10:42:23 AM · #1 |
Here are some shots with IMO hard light, I am going back to this sopt this weekend and likely to be similar conditions, any tips suggestions how I could of gotten the sky not to be sooo blah....
 1/80, 5.6 100
 1/50, 4.0, 100
this is an extrodinary place and I would really like to get some decent shots next time...how can I get the sky less overexposed without darkening the landscape into blackness, the sky is very bright over cast, and often raining.
thx.. |
|
|
|
02/17/2004 11:02:59 AM · #2 |
It is like you said, a hard light/ high contrast scene.
As it stands, you probably have got as good an exposure as you can get from this scene. The highlight and shadow ranges are close to beyond what your camera can do in a single, unmodified frame.
Solutions:
Change the light (go at a different time of day/ different weather)
Modify the scene 1 (compose with just the light or just the dark areas)
Modify the scene 2 (Use a graduated neutral density filter to reduce the contrast range by darkening the sky - difficult with the island poking 'up' into the scene)
Digitally expand the contrast 1 (take two frames, on a tripod if you can. Bracket it one stop up and one stop down from an 'average' exposure' the one stop down will capture the sky and highlights well, but lose the shadow detail, the one stop up will capture the shadow detail. Then combine the two in photoshop or similar - put them in two layers, registered on top of each other [where the tripod can help] then mask out the bits you don't want and combine them
Digitally expand the contrast 2 (shoot in RAW mode, convert for highlights, convert for shadows, then combine as above) |
|
|
|
02/17/2004 11:06:37 AM · #3 |
Your best bet is to increase the dynamic range of your camera by layering multiple exposures. With your camera securely mounted on a tripod, accurately expose one shot for the sky (resulting in no detail in the foreground elements), then immediately expose another shot accurately for the foreground (resulting in a blown out sky). You can then combine the two shots via layering, or use tools designed to assist with that task.
Scroll down to the bottom of Fred Miranda's Dynamic Range Increase plug-in info page for some examples. |
|
|
|
02/17/2004 11:11:20 AM · #4 |
hhmm, good suggestions thx guys, i did try the forst two things suggested, is the graduated nuetral density different than a polarizer?
The photoshop could be a possibility...need to learn more of it tho to do it...but thx very much for idea, I will try to move up and down exposure ranges more this trip and see what turns out and with any luck the weather will be better : ) thx again (for link too) does anyone know the link to ansel adams zone teachings that may help too? |
|
|
|
02/17/2004 11:13:55 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
is the graduated nuetral density different than a polarizer?
|
They are quite different
|
|
|
|
02/17/2004 01:20:16 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
is the graduated nuetral density different than a polarizer?
|
a polariser affect all the glare/polarised reflections in your image and filters those away, no matter where in the image.
A neutral density filter affects the amount of light coming through, without affecting the colors. It does so over the total image.
A GRADUATED neutral density does the same, but at different amounts, depending on the point in the image. The filtering is not equally distributed, one part of the filter is lighter then the other. Usually you use it with the dark part on top and the light part below, with the transition around the horizon.
Different filters exists, with different strengths and transitions.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2004 02:06:46 PM · #7 |
By far the easiest thing is to take a single shot in RAW mode (as Gordon suggested) so you don't have to worry about aligning the images in photoshop later. However, you should probably take the time to increase the exposure until you're just short of clipping (i.e. expose to the right). Some will argue that you have plenty of play in processing the single frame for different exposures, but I think 1.5 stops is the reasonable limit.
You can see this luminous landscape article for three different ways of compositing your images (including Fred Miranda's DRI action that EddyG mentioned). You'll probably be satisfied with the results from The Layer Mask method.
Below is an example using a single RAW frame exposed twice (@0 and @+1.5 stops) and combined with The Layer Mask technique. The foreground is still a little dark, but I wanted to avoid introduced noise from overexposure. As you can see from the original histogram, I actually clipped the sky a little bit (snapshot).
I've used The Layer Mask technique with more than two images, but it can be a little trickier. I also prefer a larger gaussian blur (100 or more).
Edit: I'm adding another version where I've combined the 0 exp.comp. with a (plus)2.5 exp.comp. version. You can't really see the noise at this resolution, but it should show up on a print. This extreme combination (without any extra manual tweaks) looks a little unrealistic, especially at the horizon and where the center tree meets the background.
Message edited by author 2004-02-17 14:46:51. |
|
|
|
02/17/2004 02:45:09 PM · #8 |
I agree with the above. Expose as close right as you can without going to the edge.
Without using the histogram I have a huge tendancy to expose way left.
Nothing worse than a pure white sky. In your case I would go 2 stops up for a faster exposure which would give you a nice balance with some sky detail and some land detail. Then dodge and burn as required.
Of course if you had an ND or poloriser makes life easier. don;t use/have a ND but a poloriser works wonders too. |
|
|
|
02/17/2004 03:04:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Of course if you had an ND or poloriser makes life easier. don;t use/have a ND but a poloriser works wonders too. |
In purely exposure terms, a polariser works like a variable ND, between 1 and 2 stops, depending on angle - but what you really need for something like this is a graduated ND. There are some round, screw mount GNDs that really are not very useful - its rare to want the horizon dead center in the frame.
The cokin P system seems pretty okay, with a rectangular ND that can be moved up or down depending where you want it in the frame.
I think the rule is soft edged NDs for WA lenses and hard edged NDs for telephoto but I could be way off and have it backwards. Also you can get NDs between 1 and 3 stops which depends very much on the light for what you would need. The RAW/ digital combination approach is very appealing from the perspective of 1/ working with uneven horizon lines and 2/ a whole lot cheaper and less hassle
|
|
|
|
02/17/2004 05:17:06 PM · #10 |
| thanks so much for the help!! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 04:25:11 PM EDT.
