Sky

[cjm]

Any advice on how you would take a photo like this to improve the detail in the sky? Any other comments or advice on the rest of the photo would also be great.




f/4.5, 1/13", 33.0mm, ISO 800

[DavidCane]

With these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_den...

[GetCarter]

Or expose for the sky and bring back the detail in the foreground using curves in PP.

[GetCarter]

Or digital blend - or use HDR exposure bracketing.

You have to remember cameras are very stupid. If you put something dark in the middle of the frame, and leave the camera on auto, they'll expose for that and destroy everything else. If that building had been painted white, your sky would be blue.

[cjm]

So there isn't a huge amount I can do in camera and its more the limitation of the range it can work across? I was thinking that but wanted to check I hadn't missed a way to improve things, part from trying to use a graduated ND filter. The sky was also pretty grey which didn't really help much.

Edited by cjm on Wednesday 6th February 13:31

[davidd]

I had the same problem recently so I stole a sky from somewhere else...



The good thing about a big light sky is that it is quite easy to remove!

[cjm]

Yeah, I'm trying to make sure I get the basics right in the camera before I start fixing things in post.

[K12beano]

Slightly strange reply?!?...

cjm said:

So there isn't a huge amount I can do in camera ....

The suggestions given above!

[cjm]

I was meaning that apart from using a filter all the suggestions are done once the image is out of the camera and in post processing rather than an in camera solution.

Edited by cjm on Thursday 7th February 08:29

[ecsrobin]

Exposure bracketing (HDR) is done in camera and could help. Although the stitching together is done in PP

[Simpo Two]

cjm said:

I was meaning that apart from using a filter all the suggestions are done once the image is out of the camera and in post processing rather than an in camera solution.

There is no in-camera solution that will allow you to expose extreme dark and light areas correctly at once, no. Nikon have a thing called Active D-Lighting which hammers them out a little but it can't do magic. Other makers probably have similar things.

You can either expose for the sky and let the building go dark, or expose for the building and let the sky go white. To get the best of both you have to take both, then stick them together in PS or similar.

[markmullen]

Simpo Two said:

There is no in-camera solution that will allow you to expose extreme dark and light areas correctly at once, no.

Not in one frame but my 5D3 can do in camera HDR.

[cjm]

Simpo Two said:

cjm said:

I was meaning that apart from using a filter all the suggestions are done once the image is out of the camera and in post processing rather than an in camera solution.

There is no in-camera solution that will allow you to expose extreme dark and light areas correctly at once, no. Nikon have a thing called Active D-Lighting which hammers them out a little but it can't do magic. Other makers probably have similar things.

You can either expose for the sky and let the building go dark, or expose for the building and let the sky go white. To get the best of both you have to take both, then stick them together in PS or similar.

Thanks, thats what I thought, just double checking that its my lack of processing skills that are the issue with an image like that rather than my camera skills.

I did notice a few compact camera reviews mention in camera HDR but I didn't think any current dslr could.

[tenohfive]

GetCarter said:

Or expose for the sky and bring back the detail in the foreground using curves in PP.

I find this works pretty well for me. I've always found it easier to bring back foreground detail than recovering a blown sky.

[Simpo Two]

markmullen said:

Not in one frame but my 5D3 can do in camera HDR.

From a tripod or does it auto align? What about moving subjects?

[markmullen]

Simpo Two said:

From a tripod or does it auto align? What about moving subjects?

It auto aligns. With moving subjects it depends on the shutter speed as to how well it works, with fast shutter speeds it does a good job, with slower stuff with more movement you can get a bit of ghosting. It saves the results as jpeg, and the individual frames however you want (raw or jpeg) so if you don't like the resulting jpeg you can go back to the raw files on your computer and have another run at them with your usual software.

[The Jolly Todger]

cjm said:

I did notice a few compact camera reviews mention in camera HDR but I didn't think any current dslr could.

My Nikon D5100 does in-camera HDR although in this case I think you might be better off shooting RAW and exposing for the sky as you will have more control on the finished product.

Another technique you could use to arguably improve the picture would be to use an ND filter and tripod to enable a longer exposure time and flatten the surface of the lake a bit.

[The Jolly Todger]

Does anyone think a polariser would have helped much here?

[markmullen]

The Jolly Todger said:

Does anyone think a polariser would have helped much here?

Not really, the sky is blown, it is the difference in the brightness of the sky against the darkness of the building and trees which is the issue. A polariser might have cut down reflections on the surface of the water but it wouldn't have controlled the difference.

[K12beano]

The Jolly Todger said:

Does anyone think a polariser would have helped much here?

On blue sky, maybe, possibly, 25% chance. On clouds, no.