skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

This was taken 8/11, the evening after the Supermoon. I turned a corner and almost stopped in the middle of the street. Pulled over and took several shots, this one appears to be the best and is SOOC. Over 300,000 acres of active wildfires in Washington made for some colorful sunsets.

I'm posting this for critique, but also in reference to the conversation re "Another Sunset" and ask if this has the "elements" that make it work? Thanks.

(Download)

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I haven't time for a lengthy critique but I think this works and works well. The "tanks" in the foreground ad an element of interest to your already spectacular sunset.

Nightski

Wow ... this is an amazing shot. The colors you've captured are stung. I usually don't care for urban items in sunsets, but you've made this work very well. It haa a wonderful dark moody feel to it.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Thank you CM and Ski...

Nightski

You're welcome ... Sky ... :lol:

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Beautiful sunset shot skylane5sp.
Magic saturated underexposed colour and an interesting silhouette.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Thank you.

Aperture Priority, f5.6, 1/320, ISO 100, 0 exp bias, 300mm(450@35)

I didn't tweak exposure at all, no PP either. It really was this dark and foreboding. Lots of wildfire smoke in the atmosphere. Did you say underexposed because it appears so dark? I'm NOT arguing, just trying to learn and understand.

Can I assume that for the most part, the camera knows what it's doing? In other words, if you don't compensate exposure at all, is this WYSIWYG?

Nightski

I think that underexposure as overexposure can be used creatively to make a wonderful image such as this one. It was dark, it was smokey ... if you lightened, the mood would be lost.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Great saturation, skylane5sp. I'm a bit jaded by the plethora of overcooked sunsets but this one is so very natural with nice layers of varying luminosity and a great silhouette.

Graham

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

If you auto exposed without any compensation just on that sky area (without the sun in it) your image would be much lighter.
It would expose to 18% grey.
Because the strong falling sun is in your image, the exposure meter has been influenced by that and darkened the shot considerably - thereby darkening the rest of the sky and darkening the ground.

Your sky was not this dark, nor was your ground.
You would have been able to see detail in what is shown as a silhouette here.
I am not saying this is not a reasonably accurate depiction either.
It may be how you remember seeing the scene.
If you looked at the sun with your eyes, apart from being temporarily blinded, this would be how you saw the scene.

Our eyes cannot see a scene exactly as the camera does.
We have a different dynamic range than the camera. Our eyes have a larger range and will also constantly take in information and adjust and then our brain will join all the information together and send us an image. And it will do this on the fly.

It is not a case of - if you don't compensate exposure that your camera records the scene exactly as it is.
It cannot do that.
In ordinary normal light it can give a reasonable approximation of that - if we choose an exposure point that is close to 18% grey.

But if we are photographing something predominantly dark - the camera will take it too light.
And if we are photographing something predominantly light - the camera will take it too dark.

If we are photographing a scene with a mix of darks and lights - the image will be produced at whatever exposure we set it (it may be auto, it may be manual, that doesn't really matter), and even though we may think it has reproduced the shot accurately, it could well be that our shadows are darker than they were, and our sky is lighter than it was.
Yes, this does seem contradictory to the dark scene/light scene example in the previous point, but it just shows what a juggling match exposure can be.

The camera is never right, the camera is never wrong.
The camera just takes the image how we set it, or allow it to set itself.

Our eyes can selectively lighten and darken a scene. A camera cannot do that. There will always be a trade off, an averaging.
This is why people use graduated ND filters, or HDR, or exposure blending- to get the best approximation that they can, of the scene that was presented in front of them.

It is up to us, as photographers to decide at what level we want the exposure to be, taking into account all the trade-offs involved, taking into account all the deficiencies of the exposure system and limited dynamic range, to decide how we want the image to be presented.
To hopefully even understand and take advantage of those deficiencies to produce an even more remarkable image than the scene presented.
Sunsets/sunrises are a perfect example of this opportunity, and so are silhouettes.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Thank you kindly, Sir.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Wow. Thank you for taking the time to share that. I'm new at this. (Camera file names are just over 2200.) I kind of get the dark/light light/dark aspect. I've had some shots that had the mix you mention and I thought they would be OK but the camera just laughed at me...

I'm getting the dynamic range and HDR sorted out - I've actually sold three Real Estate shoots. Interiors are way easier for me than the exteriors. I'll post one for critique. Based on agent feedback, I'd say I've got my foot firmly planted in that door at least above my ankle.

There's just SO so much to remember. I sit down to look at images and it's almost disappointing when I then see what I could have done or should have done. Practice, practice, practice.

So that scene was almost that dark. Headlights were on. It was curiously dark then. There was a lot of smoke haze. You could look directly at the sun and it was about 100 watts. Two skater/stoner looking guys walked up when I was shooting and one asked "Yo, dude. Is that, that uh,crap, uh, oh yeah, Supermoon whatsis I heard about on the radio?" I bit my tongue. Then patiently explained that the Supermoon was the night before in the opposite direction and that this was the setting sun. "Cool, dude. Thanks." They wandered off... Really? You don't know you're looking at the sun????????? Sheeesh.

Again, Lighthouse, thank you.

Nightski

Wouldn't this have been a tough scene to use a grad filter with? Half of the silos and half of the trees would be darker than the other half. Right?

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Depending on your filter, mine is graduated horizontally. I would line that up with the horizon making everything below the horizon lighter and above darker.

Nightski

And one more question for you, lighthouse .. if you don't mind. How do you get your focus right this far away when it's so dark? Even if it wasn't this dark, it may have been dark enough to have trouble focusing and getting detail from so far away in low light. I always struggle with focus in low light if I am not close enough to use a torch.

Hope you don't mind, Sky. :-)