Capturing cloud iridescence.
Apr 6, 2013 05:03:56 #
sfmullens wrote:
I dropped the image into Photoshop and used auto contrast. Very dramatic. The colors really pop.
I then used shadow/highlight filter on that image and it still looks dramatic.
I then used shadow/highlight filter on that image and it still looks dramatic.
Feel free to post, SF.
Apr 6, 2013 15:50:04 #
R.G. wrote:
Yes. 1-stop down (-1 EV) would reveal more color, and 2-stops down (-2 EV) could even be better.So do you think the iridescence was overexposed?
Apr 6, 2013 16:02:03 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Yes. 1-stop down (-1 EV) would reveal more color, and 2-stops down (-2 EV) could even be better.
Thanks for that Nikonian. Would you say that's a general rule - the fainter the colour, the lower the exposure should be. And to be clear, are you talking about taking the picture or post processing it?
Apr 6, 2013 16:37:11 #
R.G. wrote:
Exposure. Manual = shorten shutter duration; Other camera settings = lower EV, but remember to correct when returning to normal photography.Thanks for that Nikonian. Would you say that's a general rule - the fainter the colour, the lower the exposure should be. And to be clear, are you talking about taking the picture or post processing it?
Apr 6, 2013 16:53:25 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Exposure. Manual = shorten shutter duration; Other camera settings = lower EV.
Thanks for that. Now all I need is some opportunities to put it to the test.
Apr 20, 2013 11:09:16 #
As others have said, the shot needs to be underexposed. Have you ever shot a rainbow? Auto settings will usually wash out most of the color, and an iridescent cloud is no different.
Most compacts have easy settings to underexpose by f-stops. Even my cell phone, the Casio G'zOne Commando does this. I'll attach a similar snapshot I took with my phone recently, slightly underexposed (notice how dark the mountains are).
Most compacts have easy settings to underexpose by f-stops. Even my cell phone, the Casio G'zOne Commando does this. I'll attach a similar snapshot I took with my phone recently, slightly underexposed (notice how dark the mountains are).
Apr 20, 2013 12:55:24 #
duane13 wrote:
As others have said, the shot needs to be underexposed. Have you ever shot a rainbow? Auto settings will usually wash out most of the color, and an iridescent cloud is no different.
Most compacts have easy settings to underexpose by f-stops. Even my cell phone, the Casio G'zOne Commando does this. I'll attach a similar snapshot I took with my phone recently, slightly underexposed (notice how dark the mountains are).
Most compacts have easy settings to underexpose by f-stops. Even my cell phone, the Casio G'zOne Commando does this. I'll attach a similar snapshot I took with my phone recently, slightly underexposed (notice how dark the mountains are).
Hi, duane13. Thanks for the comments and the photo. I'm amazed at how counter-intuitive it is. You'd think that weak colours would need all the exposure they can get. I suppose you have to factor in what the weak colours are competing against.
The compact that I used to take my pic doesn't have any way to underexpose, but my latest compact has an exposure compensation dial. Next chance I get, I'll give these ideas a try.
Your post has left me wondering what it would be like to underexpose a rainbow shot. The compact that took the iridescence shot actually managed OK with a rainbow, but it was a very vivid one, and it was photographed against a dark sky, which probably helps. Next time I see a rainbow and I have my new compact with me, I'll try various degrees of underexposure.
I've already seen what darkening a rainbow shot in PP can do - it looked surreal and almost mystical.
Rainbow shot enhanced in PP by MtnMan.
Apr 20, 2013 13:24:02 #
Beautiful shot, R.G. I have some rainbows also, but I don't think they are on this computer - so I just uploaded the recent snapshot that came to mind.
It is, indeed, counter-intuitive. And, this also works for colorful sunrises or sunsets. Auto-exposure tends to wash out the beautiful pinks, oranges and purples we are trying to capture. Taking it down a stop or two makes a huge difference (in the absence of HDR, which is a different ballgame).
Shots of the moon also fall into this category. They will almost always be washed out - a white blob - at auto exposure.
It is, indeed, counter-intuitive. And, this also works for colorful sunrises or sunsets. Auto-exposure tends to wash out the beautiful pinks, oranges and purples we are trying to capture. Taking it down a stop or two makes a huge difference (in the absence of HDR, which is a different ballgame).
Shots of the moon also fall into this category. They will almost always be washed out - a white blob - at auto exposure.
Apr 20, 2013 13:32:28 #
duane13 wrote:
.... this also works for colorful sunrises or sunsets. Auto-exposure tends to wash out the beautiful pinks, oranges and purples we are trying to capture. Taking it down a stop or two makes a huge difference (in the absence of HDR, which is a different ballgame).
Another excellent idea. I've noticed that skies in general tend to come out pretty good when underexposed. Again, the opposite of what you'd expect. And in the case of sunrises and sunsets, the underexposure helps guard against whiteout in and around the sun.
Apr 30, 2013 09:10:16 #
What you have there, RG, is a circumhorizontal arc, not a sundog. With the few I've managed to bag, I've found that underexposing about a stop helpsthat way you're less likely to de-saturate the colours. Shooting RAW (who doesn't?) also give you more controla little judicious tweaking of curves can help to bring out the colours.
For the curious, these arcs are caused by light refracting through hexagonal plate ice crystals in cirrus clouds when the sun is at least 58 degrees above the horizon.They get rarer the further north (or south) you go.
=:~)
For the curious, these arcs are caused by light refracting through hexagonal plate ice crystals in cirrus clouds when the sun is at least 58 degrees above the horizon.They get rarer the further north (or south) you go.
=:~)
Apr 30, 2013 14:35:31 #
DoctorChas wrote:
What you have there, RG, is a circumhorizontal arc, not a sundog. With the few I've managed to bag, I've found that underexposing about a stop helpsthat way you're less likely to de-saturate the colours. Shooting RAW (who doesn't?) also give you more controla little judicious tweaking of curves can help to bring out the colours.
Thanks, DoctorChas. Your comments reinforce what has been said previously. You're right - they are quite rare in the far north. I think I'll have to practice with rainbows in the meantime.
Apr 30, 2013 14:40:29 #
R.G. wrote:
Thanks, DoctorChas. Your comments reinforce what has been said previously. You're right - they are quite rare in the far north. I think I'll have to practice with rainbows in the meantime.
Here's a handy chart for working out the best times and places:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/chafreq.htm
Worth having a gander at the rest of the sitelots of interesting info on atmospheric optics.
=:~)
Apr 30, 2013 14:49:49 #
DoctorChas wrote:
Here's a handy chart for working out the best times and places:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/chafreq.htm
Worth having a gander at the rest of the sitelots of interesting info on atmospheric optics.
=:~)
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/chafreq.htm
Worth having a gander at the rest of the sitelots of interesting info on atmospheric optics.
=:~)
Thanks again. It sounds like it's like the business. I'll check it out properly when I've more time :thumbup: .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.