Exposure Question
Discussion
Evening all. Was out on Loch Lomond this evening and was trying to take a landscape but due to shooting into the sun, it wasn't working. I suspect I know the answer to this, but rather than guess, I wanted to put it to the experts...
So, what is the correct way to take this picture?
This was the original:
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
All underxposed and dark.
So I tried metering on the land and locking it in. As expected, the sky was overexposed with blown highlights all over the shop.
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So I took one last one in the same way as the first, but attempted a bit of processing in iPhoto to see if I could improve things. It just looks un-natural to me, though I concede I know nothing about image processing!
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So how *should* I do it?
I guess the answer is probably not to shoot into the sun (but I wanted that effect)? Or is the answer lots of processing? Or is it an ND filter?? Or is the answer simply "You can't"?
New to all this (epecially the processing part!) so any advice appreciated.
Thanks.
PS - Ignore the ISO noise. I dozily left it set at 2500 after trying nighttime snaps and appreciate that that ruins things far more than the lighting. Argument for leaving ISO on Auto unless you have a specific requirement???
So, what is the correct way to take this picture?
This was the original:
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
All underxposed and dark.
So I tried metering on the land and locking it in. As expected, the sky was overexposed with blown highlights all over the shop.
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So I took one last one in the same way as the first, but attempted a bit of processing in iPhoto to see if I could improve things. It just looks un-natural to me, though I concede I know nothing about image processing!
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So how *should* I do it?
I guess the answer is probably not to shoot into the sun (but I wanted that effect)? Or is the answer lots of processing? Or is it an ND filter?? Or is the answer simply "You can't"?
New to all this (epecially the processing part!) so any advice appreciated.
Thanks.
PS - Ignore the ISO noise. I dozily left it set at 2500 after trying nighttime snaps and appreciate that that ruins things far more than the lighting. Argument for leaving ISO on Auto unless you have a specific requirement???
Stacking is one way, as you've done - the other more expensive way, is hard or graduated ND filters.
Of course, if you don't want the milky etherial water look, then exposure stacking is the only option.
PP using both images, along with dodging and burning to, and tweaked duplicate layers will provide you with the resultant output you're hoping to achieve - it'll take practise and restraint to not knock everything up to 11.
Of course, if you don't want the milky etherial water look, then exposure stacking is the only option.
PP using both images, along with dodging and burning to, and tweaked duplicate layers will provide you with the resultant output you're hoping to achieve - it'll take practise and restraint to not knock everything up to 11.
Hi,
the issue you are having is one of dynamic range. I.E, the difference between the lightest and darkesp part in your image.
As that land mass is in the dark, and the sky is very bright, the difference is just too big.
What you want is for the difference to not be so large.
This can be achieved by:
Shooting at a different time of day (10am-4pm are the worst time of day). Sunrise and sunset are ideal for this reason.
Waiting until that piece of land has sun on it
Wait for cloud cover.
As mentioned, a graduated filter woud help, but they only really work over straight lines, and not jaggedy mountains.
Image stacking is another. I am not a fan, but some results can be great.
I would go with option 1, i.e. waiting for a different time of day if you want to shoot into the sun.
As an example, this photo I took shooting into the sun, but as it was at sunrise, the difference between light and shade wasn't so large, so I could still get lots of detail in the rocks etc, even if they were in the shade. No image stacking or funny business.
Also, shoot in RAW, that will help massively with your dynamic range issues.
Hope this helps.
Tino
the issue you are having is one of dynamic range. I.E, the difference between the lightest and darkesp part in your image.
As that land mass is in the dark, and the sky is very bright, the difference is just too big.
What you want is for the difference to not be so large.
This can be achieved by:
Shooting at a different time of day (10am-4pm are the worst time of day). Sunrise and sunset are ideal for this reason.
Waiting until that piece of land has sun on it
Wait for cloud cover.
As mentioned, a graduated filter woud help, but they only really work over straight lines, and not jaggedy mountains.
Image stacking is another. I am not a fan, but some results can be great.
I would go with option 1, i.e. waiting for a different time of day if you want to shoot into the sun.
As an example, this photo I took shooting into the sun, but as it was at sunrise, the difference between light and shade wasn't so large, so I could still get lots of detail in the rocks etc, even if they were in the shade. No image stacking or funny business.
Also, shoot in RAW, that will help massively with your dynamic range issues.
Hope this helps.
Tino
Edited by tinoproductions on Tuesday 21st May 06:01
Would you believe they were shot in RAW at around 8.00pm?? Your picture is exactly what I was aiming for but as you can see, even as the sun is about to slide behind that hill, its still very 'white'.Disastrous said:
Evening all. Was out on Loch Lomond this evening and was trying to take a landscape but due to shooting into the sun, it wasn't working. I suspect I know the answer to this, but rather than guess, I wanted to put it to the experts...
So, what is the correct way to take this picture?
This was the original:
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
All underxposed and dark.
So I tried metering on the land and locking it in. As expected, the sky was overexposed with blown highlights all over the shop.
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So I took one last one in the same way as the first, but attempted a bit of processing in iPhoto to see if I could improve things. It just looks un-natural to me, though I concede I know nothing about image processing!
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So how *should* I do it?
I guess the answer is probably not to shoot into the sun (but I wanted that effect)? Or is the answer lots of processing? Or is it an ND filter?? Or is the answer simply "You can't"?
New to all this (epecially the processing part!) so any advice appreciated.
Thanks.
PS - Ignore the ISO noise. I dozily left it set at 2500 after trying nighttime snaps and appreciate that that ruins things far more than the lighting. Argument for leaving ISO on Auto unless you have a specific requirement???
ND grad filter for this scene, IMHO.So, what is the correct way to take this picture?
This was the original:
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
All underxposed and dark.
So I tried metering on the land and locking it in. As expected, the sky was overexposed with blown highlights all over the shop.
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So I took one last one in the same way as the first, but attempted a bit of processing in iPhoto to see if I could improve things. It just looks un-natural to me, though I concede I know nothing about image processing!
Untitled by Gylen Boardman, on Flickr
So how *should* I do it?
I guess the answer is probably not to shoot into the sun (but I wanted that effect)? Or is the answer lots of processing? Or is it an ND filter?? Or is the answer simply "You can't"?
New to all this (epecially the processing part!) so any advice appreciated.
Thanks.
PS - Ignore the ISO noise. I dozily left it set at 2500 after trying nighttime snaps and appreciate that that ruins things far more than the lighting. Argument for leaving ISO on Auto unless you have a specific requirement???
Where do I start with ND grads?
Are they generic? How do they work with lenses that rotate to focus? How much? Are there different types? If so, how many would I need?
In terms of what they do, they are presumably much the same as a pair of gradiented Ray Ban aviators, right? As in, the ground isn't tinted much but the high up sun is?
Sorry for all the questions folks but I'm find thins an absolutely compelling interest that seems to have near endless amounts of things to learn about!
Are they generic? How do they work with lenses that rotate to focus? How much? Are there different types? If so, how many would I need?
In terms of what they do, they are presumably much the same as a pair of gradiented Ray Ban aviators, right? As in, the ground isn't tinted much but the high up sun is?
Sorry for all the questions folks but I'm find thins an absolutely compelling interest that seems to have near endless amounts of things to learn about!
I wrote an introduction to using grads for my blog, http://www.markmullenphotography.co.uk/blog/2013/3...
markmullen said:
I wrote an introduction to using grads for my blog, http://www.markmullenphotography.co.uk/blog/2013/3...
Brilliantly comprehensive mark, thank you!Good stuff mark.
I've a bit of a blog post on light and how to manage it.
http://zarphag.com/2013/02/part-1-light/
I've a bit of a blog post on light and how to manage it.
http://zarphag.com/2013/02/part-1-light/
I can't afford a decent set of ND grads yet so I bodge as best I can in PP, though I've not gone as far as image stacking or HDR etc yet - so I use the much more basic approach:
1. Shoot in RAW.
2. Expose for the sky - I've always found it much easier to recover darkened hills than a blown sky.
3. Depending on what software you're using either tinkering with curves or the fill light slider will help.
4. At that sort of distance the hills might need a bit of extra contrast, so play with that to finish it off.
Not the best way of doing it - but a cheap and easy way of recovering some shots where you don't have the kit or PP skills to do it the best way.
And I'm not sure if you're going for the effect, but adding a decent polarising filter to your shopping list will help cut down on the bright white reflections on the water.
Unless you've got a camera which handles ISO noise really well (which I don't.)
1. Shoot in RAW.
2. Expose for the sky - I've always found it much easier to recover darkened hills than a blown sky.
3. Depending on what software you're using either tinkering with curves or the fill light slider will help.
4. At that sort of distance the hills might need a bit of extra contrast, so play with that to finish it off.
Not the best way of doing it - but a cheap and easy way of recovering some shots where you don't have the kit or PP skills to do it the best way.
And I'm not sure if you're going for the effect, but adding a decent polarising filter to your shopping list will help cut down on the bright white reflections on the water.
Disastrous said:
Argument for leaving ISO on Auto unless you have a specific requirement???
Personally I'd say leave it as low as you can unless you specifically need to adjust it higher. 80% of my shots are at ISO 100.Unless you've got a camera which handles ISO noise really well (which I don't.)
markmullen said:
I wrote an introduction to using grads for my blog, http://www.markmullenphotography.co.uk/blog/2013/3...
Just read that. Very well explained.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff