ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Highlighted sky help?
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
Camera sensors simply cannot keep up with the human eye in this respect, the difference between the relatively dark subject and the bright sky is well beyond the range of a digital sensor.
The exposure seems pretty much perfect for the foreground, I would suggest the only two options (that I know of, I don't really do landscape type stuff) would be to either use an Neutral Density Grad Filter which will darken the top half of the image nicely, or to take two identical shots (with a tripod), one exposed as is, and the other exposed for the sky, and then to merge them together.
I imagine a polariser won't even do much good, may help a little but won't have the same effect as an ND Grad, here is a nice example of how an ND Grad works...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2105492773_bfef4b7667_o.jpg
Note how the sea remains the same, but the sky is much darker.
The exposure seems pretty much perfect for the foreground, I would suggest the only two options (that I know of, I don't really do landscape type stuff) would be to either use an Neutral Density Grad Filter which will darken the top half of the image nicely, or to take two identical shots (with a tripod), one exposed as is, and the other exposed for the sky, and then to merge them together.
I imagine a polariser won't even do much good, may help a little but won't have the same effect as an ND Grad, here is a nice example of how an ND Grad works...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2105492773_bfef4b7667_o.jpg
Note how the sea remains the same, but the sky is much darker.
I was thinking that myself, just something I looked up on how to do borders in Photoshop.
Yes but only a little.
B
Brown.
ND grads or slight photoshopping as above seen as you have already taken the pic.....stay away from HDR its an easy way out and taking 3 of the same image is tiresome.......
I have lots to learn in the field of photography. Even the basics of Photoshop is never ending 
I'll start off with elements, plenty of podcasts and there's always www.elementsvillage.com
I'll start off with elements, plenty of podcasts and there's always www.elementsvillage.com
You know of any Grad filters that are tree shaped? You'll just end up with a dirty great line across the image and underexposed trees even with a soft GND filter. 2-3 image HDR would have been the best approach, done subtly enough people won't know its HDR. Alternatively shooting with the sun in a different location or in different weather could help but lots of hassle.
LY 182 FF CUPPED
An ND filter would not of helped in this situation as said earlier.
I would of waited for a day with less contrast, or HDR ( correctly done).
Or if you are feeling brave take it at night with a 2 min+ exposure and feather the sky in with some card.
This is what would of happened with a Nd filter attached
I would of waited for a day with less contrast, or HDR ( correctly done).
Or if you are feeling brave take it at night with a 2 min+ exposure and feather the sky in with some card.
This is what would of happened with a Nd filter attached
I have lots to learn in the field of photography. Even the basics of Photoshop is never ending
LOL
Photoshop isn't photography!! Photoshop is cheating!
(imo)
LY 182 FF CUPPED
why is it cheating???
It is an amazing tool, people do over use it - however most pro's will use "darkroom" techniques with no shame.
HDR is something that could of been created within a darkroom - it just so happens Digital is not quite there with exposure latitudes yet.
Won't be long until we concentrate less on "millions and billions" of pixels and want for 32/64 or even better 128 bit snsors to help in situations like Billy came up against.
People (me included) have been manipulating Photographs for years - I remember sitting with magnified goggles and a brush retouching "Red eye" from peoples images.
I would advise people to get as competent as possible with PS - but not to rely on it!!!
Like I said it is an amazing tool - just the pink fleshy bits on the end of the mouse that let it down.
It is an amazing tool, people do over use it - however most pro's will use "darkroom" techniques with no shame.
HDR is something that could of been created within a darkroom - it just so happens Digital is not quite there with exposure latitudes yet.
Won't be long until we concentrate less on "millions and billions" of pixels and want for 32/64 or even better 128 bit snsors to help in situations like Billy came up against.
People (me included) have been manipulating Photographs for years - I remember sitting with magnified goggles and a brush retouching "Red eye" from peoples images.
I would advise people to get as competent as possible with PS - but not to rely on it!!!
Like I said it is an amazing tool - just the pink fleshy bits on the end of the mouse that let it down.
Last edited:
Its not really cheating.
Its a nice picture, composition, focus, aperture etc etc etc.
You cant do all that with photoshop.
Then you know very little about photography. Developing is 50% of photography....
Anyway back on topic, Grad ND's can sometimes help if there is a reasonably constant horizon line, but in this case it would have worked. The best thing to do is HDR (Take 1 RAW picture and PP into 3 differently exposed pictures, then combine).
ND grad's still own though!
This is my point - you have to be able to take decent photos in the first place rather than relying on a program to be able to get a decent end shot!
I just think that you should be able to think about all the different settings (exposure, stop, use of filters, composition, ISO, white balance, spot or average metering etc etc etc) as you stand there and take the photo, not stick a camera on auto, press the button and go "it's alright, I'll sort it out later on the computer".
Like I said, all IMO.
(And I'm not implying that the OP didn't think about the shot, the above is general thoughts related to no-one in particular!)
I take the point that you can recreate different techniques in a darkroom but you wouldn't expect to do it with every single shot to make it decent, would you? I just think that people take photos then run the whole lot through PS to make them better because it's so easy compared to darkroom skill. It's good that people have the opportunity to experiment and learn a new skill, and I have no doubt that digital has allowed a much greater section of the public to improve their photography due to the vastly reduced cost of shooting and processing digital compared to film, but I still think that proper talent and skill is not something that you can recreate on a computer after the event.
IMO.
What the...
DSLR camera's (in general) do very little in camera-processing and produce flat un-sharpened images, your meant to develop them in PS.
As with modifying cars you can't polish a turd.
DSLR camera's (in general) do very little in camera-processing and produce flat un-sharpened images, your meant to develop them in PS.
As with modifying cars you can't polish a turd.
