Clouds.

[.Mark]

Been thinking about clouds pictures the last few days. Anyone taken any good ones or do they all come out a bit 2D?
While my camera was being repaired I saw the most magnificent site over the harbour with the sky on the right orange, a mother of a black cloud over the city with rain falling and to the left the sky was bright blue over the IOW. Never a camera handy when you need one

I can imagine the picture in my mind with the differing layers of clouds and the greys/whites/sun breaking through but wondered if it was a succesful pass time?

[simpo two]

I think that's one instance where the Mk 1 Eyeball is deceptively good at discerning contrast, and cameras, esp film ones, struggle to keep up.

[kojak69]

Tip - Use a polariser to darken the blue sky against the clouds.

[ehasler]

You might also want to consider a graduated filter, which darkens the top of the picture by a set number of stops depending on the filter you use.

This will help prevent shots where the clouds are exposed correctly, at the expense of everything else being too dark, or the sky/clouds being over-exposed and washed out, with everything else being correct.

For example...

[gravymaster]

If using digital, my experience is that you need to get the exposure and white balance in particular just so. It take lots of practice but a decent digital camera will do most of it for you. I took these in oxford:

[actech]

Here are a few of my favourties. The first one was using film but the last two are digital.

First one is a sunset using the light to silhouette my wife in the foreground. Taken in Portugal.


This one I like as it was taken at dusk and the cloud formation was a perfect line right across the sky.


And finally this I took in Quebec overlooking the old town. The colour of the sky was fantastic and the silhouette of the church cuts into the skyline nicely.


Anthony.

[simpo two]

Nice. Did you just use Auto-everything or need to crack in some adjustments?

[actech]

Correction on my last post, the 2nd photo was with film, not the first!

Simpo, didn't use anything special as far as metering or white balance goes, just average and auto respectively. The shutter speed for the 1st photo was 1/128th and the third one I slowed the shutter to 1/6th to get the saturation. The second photo I took with my pocket IXUS set to "night mode", i.e. slow shutter/long exposure.

Anthony

[simpo two]

actech said:

Simpo, didn't use anything special as far as metering or white balance goes, just average and auto respectively. The shutter speed for the 1st photo was 1/128th and the third one I slowed the shutter to 1/6th to get the saturation. The second photo I took with my pocket IXUS set to "night mode", i.e. slow shutter/long exposure.

Actech, you used 'manual' settings without realising!

[getcarter]

You can always cheat with clouds. I took this looking directly up (where the clouds were most dramatic) and then took the photo of the trees (a few seconds later). I then replaced the boring clouds that were behind the trees with the dramatic ones.

Sepia was an afterthought - I was unsure, but other people liked it so I kept it (and have sold a few framed prints )

It's not real - but it's fun.

Steve

[.Mark]

Thanks for all the replies folks, there are some great shots there.
I think Simpo is right though there are some things the camera just can't get and the 3D image appears to be one of them. But then thinking about it it's only a 2D display isn't it?

[simpo two]

.Mark said:

I think Simpo is right though there are some things the camera just can't get and the 3D image appears to be one of them. But then thinking about it it's only a 2D display isn't it?

You can take stereo photographs - the Victorians did, and photo-reconnaisance still does. Take two pictures of the same subject but with the camera moved 3-4" sideways between shots. That's effectively taking 'right' and 'left' eye views. Then put the images side by side, separated by divider, and your brain will recreate a stereo image.