Blown out Sky
Feb 20, 2012 17:19:57 #
Taken early morning on a cloudy day. I like the first phot except the Sky is blown out. What should i had done or could i do to darken the sky. Shot with Panasonic fz35 bridge camera.
Feb 20, 2012 17:20:40 #
Feb 20, 2012 17:34:25 #
Tomphoenix wrote:
I would not mind to see what someone could do with the sky.
Go ahead and post the original by posting the pic again and checking the "store original" box.
As for what you did wrong or right...the problem is the tonal variation between the sky and the land...that's a common thing.
If you expose for the sky, you automatically underexpose for the land, if you expose for the land, you blow out the sky.
There are a few ways to deal with it. If you are on a tripod or can take two or three rapid fire shots without moving... then bracket them using your camera's "auto bracketing" feature...
OR just manually take two shots.
Then you can blend them in your post processing program.
the other way is to use a ND filter on just the sky part. A "graduated ND filter" that will darken the sky exposure so it matches the land. For my money, it's just as easy to do two exposures if necessary.
In the mean time...I'll have a go at it.
Feb 20, 2012 17:41:59 #
1) looks like a HDR gone to the dog and got bitten.
2) What is the interest of this scene?
From there, How do you expect anyone to have a PP capable of dealing with the sky and the water reflection to maintain a viable image?
Looks like a waste of time that could be better spent by going back there and do some retake with gradient neutral filters in order to even out the illumination.
And, oh, yeah, do post the original for folks who want to give a go at this.
2) What is the interest of this scene?
From there, How do you expect anyone to have a PP capable of dealing with the sky and the water reflection to maintain a viable image?
Looks like a waste of time that could be better spent by going back there and do some retake with gradient neutral filters in order to even out the illumination.
And, oh, yeah, do post the original for folks who want to give a go at this.
Feb 20, 2012 17:42:59 #
English_Wolf wrote:
1) looks like a HDR gone to the dog and got bitten.
2) What is the interest of this scene?
From there, How do you expect anyone to have a PP capable of dealing with the sky and the water reflection to maintain a viable image?
Looks like a wast of time that could be better spent by going back there and do some retake with gradient neutral filters in order to even out the illumination.
And, oh, yeah, do post the original for folks who want to give a go at this.
2) What is the interest of this scene?
From there, How do you expect anyone to have a PP capable of dealing with the sky and the water reflection to maintain a viable image?
Looks like a wast of time that could be better spent by going back there and do some retake with gradient neutral filters in order to even out the illumination.
And, oh, yeah, do post the original for folks who want to give a go at this.
I might replace the sky...don't know.
Feb 20, 2012 17:46:19 #
rpavich wrote:
Right, but what will you do with large water mirror so that it matches your changes??I might replace the sky...don't know.
Feb 20, 2012 17:49:26 #
I think Rpavich has sufficiently adressed the problem regarding the sky. I do think the overall image has interest though. I like the composition, lines and reflections. 8-)
Feb 20, 2012 17:53:09 #
The setup and the subject isn't a bad shot really, but I think I would have to go back and shoot it on a much nicer day. Some birds or a fisherman in a boat would add some interest to the pic too.
Feb 20, 2012 18:16:43 #
I am only posting to see the original and check the specs on it. I do agree a HDR bracket shot would work best. You may have that feature on your camera. I found it on mine.
Feb 20, 2012 18:22:55 #
Meives wrote:
I am only posting to see the original and check the specs on it. I do agree a HDR bracket shot would work best. You may have that feature on your camera. I found it on mine.
I wouldn't even bother with HDR...I'd just blend the two shots...one exposed for the sky, and one exposed for the land.
Feb 20, 2012 19:16:19 #
rpavich wrote:
I wouldn't even bother with HDR...I'd just blend the two shots...one exposed for the sky, and one exposed for the land.
Meives wrote:
I am only posting to see the original and check the specs on it. I do agree a HDR bracket shot would work best. You may have that feature on your camera. I found it on mine.
I wouldn't even bother with HDR...I'd just blend the two shots...one exposed for the sky, and one exposed for the land.
I guess that is what I was thinking too. I don't know the
definition difference of tone mapping and HDR. But the two bracketted shots would work well. Thanks
Feb 20, 2012 22:34:52 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
Tomphoenix wrote:
Taken early morning on a cloudy day. I like the first phot except the Sky is blown out. What should i had done or could i do to darken the sky. Shot with Panasonic fz35 bridge camera.
English wolf and MT shooter have said pretty darn much what I'd say.
If you are going to do landscapes you need to learn about weather, cloud formations, seasonal angle of light, and so forth and then you need to go practice.
Surely we are not yet at that point where any run-of-the-mill uninspired, uninteresting image can suddenly become inspiring and great simply by choosing the "right" filter plug-in, PP suite of effects, Orton and HDR and toss in some warp for the heck of it and all of sudden the actual skills and knowledge and experience of photographing just goes POOOF.
Is idiot proof image creation where we are going?
Feb 20, 2012 22:37:10 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
rpavich wrote:
I wouldn't even bother with HDR...I'd just blend the two shots...one exposed for the sky, and one exposed for the land.
Meives wrote:
I am only posting to see the original and check the specs on it. I do agree a HDR bracket shot would work best. You may have that feature on your camera. I found it on mine.
I wouldn't even bother with HDR...I'd just blend the two shots...one exposed for the sky, and one exposed for the land.
See, this image wouldn't have made it home with me - it wouldn't have made the cut.
Feb 20, 2012 23:33:59 #
Thanks to those of you who offered some C&C.For the rest of great Photographers you all are, the best suggestion i get out of you is to go back and try again. And "Dicrob" you have no creative input at all. I can appreciate that it is not an outstanding photo, that is why i posted it as asked what i could do to make it better.Nor did i limited suggestions to PP. I believe the scene is interesting enough for myself. I promise you if you were ask me for advice in my field of expertise ,it will not be given in such an inconsiderate manner.
Feb 20, 2012 23:41:31 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
Tomphoenix wrote:
Thanks to those of you who offered some C&C.Fo... (show quote)
Your right - none/zip/zilch/nada.
But you asked what you could do to darken the sky and I was telling you what you could do - you could learn to read the conditions better.
Nothing else was directed to you. Sorry if that confused you. But was instead a rant that I go into now and then when something triggers one of my demons.......time to go take my meds. Maybe I will wake up feeling creative...maybe I will wake up and see the light.....hope you do too....learn to see the light....cuz that's how you make the skies darker among other things......
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.