| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2003 06:11:36 AM · #1 |
I have 3 sunset photos here:
//vic.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=28301
Would appreciate comments and how to improve snapping pics of such bright subjects such as the sun with limited hardware? thanks
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:27:36 AM · #2 |
I'm not completely familiar with your camera, so some of this may be off-base. My camera lets me pick where in the frame to take the exposure/focus from - I push the shutter button down halfway, then reframe the shot how I want it. If your camera can do this, experiment with taking the brightness from different places. Aiming it right at the sun itself and pushing the shutter half down will darken the shot, making the colors richer (and maybe silhouetting the clouds).
For example, these two shots were taken at the same corner, not even a minute apart, but I was fudging the exposure experimentally to see what I could get. See the difference between screamingly bright and moodily silhouetted? For the first, I focussed/exposured on the green awning on the right there. For the second, I aimed right at the bright parts of the sky to take my exposure and focus. Which is better? Depends on what you're going for. :-> Another take-the-brightness-from-the-sky shot: Morning Sky. You can see how that might be useful in a sunset shot, with the plume of steam lit pink like that.
Just another couple examples and I'll go away. :-> Yellow Sunset and Blue Sunset are actually the same sunset, three blocks further down the street, with different choices of where-to-get-the-exposure.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 06:42:19 AM · #3 |
eloise, thanks for the tips. Yes my camera allows that. It's called exposure lock. I'll experiment with that and see what gives the best output. Thanks.
By the way, I really like your "morning sky" photo! The soft lines gives that shot lots of "feel". Love it! |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:04:21 AM · #4 |
When you're taking sunset shots, there are a few things to keep in mind.
1. Clouds - the sunset won't be any good without these (90% of the time).
2. Framing - there are 1,000,000,000,000 sunset photos on this and any other site. What things around you make your interesting? Maybe it's a silhouette, as in my picture Fiery Exit: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17865 or this plane: //www.pbase.com/image/2631786
3. Definitely exposure control it. Darks, brights, whatever you're looking for. Not all sunsets are red and orange either. Look for those purple/blue/yellow sunsets, too.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:08:23 AM · #5 |
Dear lawyer Mavrik,
Thanks for sharing the photos. I'm very impressed with "Continental Airlines DC9 landing at sunset" It's sooo beautiful, is it yours? Someday I hope I can shoot something like that. Inspiring! |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:10:13 AM · #6 |
:-)
Clouds are not necessary for a good sunset:
(This one also won a local TV's POTD)
To meter for sunset, it's relatively easy:
1. If you have a spot meter, point it at the sun if it's bright, and set -2 exposure compensation. That will create a medium level color for the sun and will most likely dim everything else (as the photo as shown).
2. If you don't, use center weighted metering and point it at the sun. You'll most likely have to go down more than -2 exposure to get it right with a center weighted one.
As far as composition goes, i think it's safe to say that if you expose it for the sun, the sun will be the main focus point no matter where you put it. So it's a matter of placing it where you want the focus to be and it will automatically be the focus. You can put in smack center if you want. It's up to you.
[quote=mavrik]When you're taking sunset shots, there are a few things to keep in mind.
1. Clouds - the sunset won't be any good without these (90% of the time).
2. Framing - there are 1,000,000,000,000 sunset photos on this and any other site. What things around you make your interesting? Maybe it's a silhouette, as in my picture Fiery Exit: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17865 or this plane: //www.pbase.com/image/2631786
3. Definitely exposure control it. Darks, brights, whatever you're looking for. Not all sunsets are red and orange either. Look for those purple/blue/yellow sunsets, too. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:12:18 AM · #7 |
I couldn't find an example of the other 10% of the time - thanks Pag.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:15:06 AM · #8 |
Actually, I'd say that it exists far more than 10% of the time. I don't think clouds would necessary be a limitation for a good sunset.
Originally posted by mavrik:
I couldn't find an example of the other 10% of the time - thanks Pag. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 07:54:08 AM · #9 |
I find sunsets for the sake of them pretty boring. If you are just shooting the sky/ clouds it usually gets dull pretty quickly.
Things to consider: add some silhouettes - expose for the sky and you'll find most of the foreground goes dark - you can underexpose a touch to ensure this. Generally meter on the sky, with the sun out of the frame, unless you are shooting with a really long lens and you should be fine.
Bracketting isn't a crime either.
Clouds can add interest, but if its just clouds and sun, it doesn't add much. ALso look for interesting reflections, point away from the sun at things lit by the sunset and that sort of thing.
No clouds:
Mostly clouds:
 |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:03:53 AM · #10 |
| Gordon, that bridge/sunset photo is spectacular. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:08:17 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by progersct:
Gordon, that bridge/sunset photo is spectacular. |
Thank you. Just for grins, when I entered it in to the dpc challenge, I got this comment
...Should've taken one where the clouds were abound, would've been much more interesting as a photograph instead of a graduated change of color ... paganini
not that my picture couldn't be improved by some clouds, but it was amusing in context.
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 12:22:30. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:09:11 AM · #12 |
LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the giggle, Gordon!
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:33:56 AM · #13 |
well, i did change my mind about that :)
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by progersct:
Gordon, that bridge/sunset photo is spectacular. |
Thank you. Just for grins, when I entered it in to the dpc challenge, I got this comment
...Should've taken one where the clouds were abound, would've been much more interesting as a photograph instead of a graduated change of color ... paganini
not that my picture couldn't be improved by some clouds, but it was amusing in context. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:34:15 AM · #14 |
What are you laughing at? YOu're still a cloud believer.
Originally posted by mavrik:
LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the giggle, Gordon! |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:39:18 AM · #15 |
I like sunsets with clouds, yes. I don't always have to see them there to be interesting. There's a current pic right now in OC I think with no clouds in a sunset that I gave an 8-10. My suggestion was just for someone taking sunset pics to realize that a cloud may give the sun something to bounce off and make it more interesting color-wise. :)
M
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:41:17 AM · #16 |
Sunset with bridge is great!
Another way to take bright light situations is using a filter. But perhaps you wanted the more 'in your camera' approach. I agree though clouds help. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:42:19 AM · #17 |
| oops-- i think clouds help too-- what should of said. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 08:53:06 AM · #18 |
Actually, i'd think that sunset photos would mean that yoou are pointing at the sun. If you're pointing the other side, you're just shooting normal photographs with, well, good light :)
Either case, the exposure for sunset is arbitrary. It all depends on how much you want shown and how saturated/dark colors you want. If you want heavily saturated orange, underexpose from the spot meter at the sun, if you want light colors, overexpose from the spot meter reading at the sun. If the sky is light orange and you want to make it dark, spot meter it should already get it to a medium level orange, underexpose it for even saturated colors.
if you dont' have spot meter in your camera, then it's all errors and trials from here. Some camera's matrix metering would do a really good job, some don't.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Clouds can add interest, but if its just clouds and sun, it doesn't add much. ALso look for interesting reflections, point away from the sun at things lit by the sunset and that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 09:10:29 AM · #19 |
I think one can get good results from what paganini says. -2.0 exposure will generally provide good saturation of colors. Sometimes, with the right sunset/sunrise, you don't really need anything else but clouds and sky and they turn out nice. Lately, I've been trying to find other stuff to put in there to make it better for me, as a photographer, to enjoy the sunsets. Generally people still eat them up with just clouds and sky, so I wouldn't worry about the general population. //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=9567 They'll still like these.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=23226 This is actually a sunrise, but I think the same principles apply.
Whatever you like or prefer, do like Gordon said and bracket the heck out of it. If you do, you'll know what you can and can't do with the camera and what you like the best. In the end, it's your own satisfaction that matters first.
I took this one this morning on the way to work //www.pbase.com/image/18022366 It isn't anything award winning, but I liked the way the treelines framed the sunrise. I was driving at the time, so if it seems a little off, that's why.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 09:22:19 AM · #20 |
Well, i am a sky-lover (sunsets, clouds) and just a sunset without any silhouette will do me fine. There are several of them in my Sky portfolio (don't look at the reeds image because not only is it a cliché but it sucks and i ought to get rid of it). I took most of them by shooting right into the sun, spotmetering on an interesting part, and bracketing and just having a jolly good time experimenting :) Silhouettes are pretty hard to find here anyway standing at the Pacific Ocean.
What i have noticed in several imgs here, inspzil and paganini, is banding. Currently i am very much on my anti-banding kick and try to eliminate/avoid that as much as i can. In one of my sunsets, Sky Artistry i believe, i used neatimage but at a modest noise reduction level in order to avoid banding; as a result the image is still somewhat dirty and that bugs me. The other ones i just despeckled.
So, what's the word on avoiding banding? |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 09:45:41 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Journey:
So, what's the word on avoiding banding? |
Expose correctly, so you have to do as little tonal adjustments as possible in photoshop. (this is the biggy)
Work in 16 bit as much as you can.
Be careful how you convert between colour profiles (e.g., to sRGB for saving to the web)
But mostly get the best image you can from the camera, so that you can enhance it in the digital darkroom, not save it.
Bracketting is a great technique to help you learn and become more sensitive to what the 'correct' exposure should be - but only if you learn from the bad exposures as well as the good ones - EXIF helps a huge amount if you use it.
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 13:46:28. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 10:17:48 AM · #22 |
Use the G3's HISTOGRAM to look at your exposure. As long as you're not clipping the highlights or putting too much into the DARK area (i.e. that's where the noises are for 10D at least, it's in the shadows), you're fine.
As long as you have a decent exposure (i am not sure what defines "correct" exposure, as it depends on what you're showing in your photograph), then it should minimized. You really can't avoid banding if you shoot a SUIT though, the lines will create them, some worse in some cameras, it's a flaw in the Bayesian based sensors, the noises are due to interpolation.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Journey:
So, what's the word on avoiding banding? |
Expose correctly, so you have to do as little tonal adjustments as possible in photoshop. (this is the biggy)
Work in 16 bit as much as you can.
Be careful how you convert between colour profiles (e.g., to sRGB for saving to the web)
But mostly get the best image you can from the camera, so that you can enhance it in the digital darkroom, not save it.
Bracketting is a great technique to help you learn and become more sensitive to what the 'correct' exposure should be - but only if you learn from the bad exposures as well as the good ones - EXIF helps a huge amount if you use it. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 10:22:20 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Use the G3's HISTOGRAM to look at your exposure. As long as you're not clipping the highlights or putting too much into the DARK area (i.e. that's where the noises are for 10D at least, it's in the shadows), you're fine.
As long as you have a decent exposure (i am not sure what defines "correct" exposure, as it depends on what you're showing in your photograph), then it should minimized.
|
You just defined a correct exposure. It is the exposure that is right for how you want to show the final result.
Many people, particularly when shooting digitally, use any old exposure and then 'fix' it using levels/ curves - but it just doesn't work as well. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 10:30:11 AM · #24 |
Well, maybe i should define my method:
1. I'd want the histogram to show the thing in the center. Assuming that i am not shooting into snow, or anything like that, this would be good for a majority of the shots. If i were going for shadows, then i need to shoot for shadows then the histogram might be shifted. The problem? Noisy area in the shadows will affect the photo (for 10D, which has a tendency to have more noises in the shadows than in the highlights for some reason, especially at higher ISOs such as 400 or greater).
2. If the photo has the histograms in the center, then if i want to underexpose or overexpose, it becomes trivial AND i minimize noises, particularly if i want to overexpose (again this is 10D only, G2 has better response to noises @ ISO 50)
3. If the scene contains more highlights or more shadows i can do either way: i can either just shoot for the exposure in the CENTER andthe adjust it later, OR i can shoot for the exposure of the scene (i.e. just the scene without having underexposure or overexposure on purpose). I'd use the 'zone' method if i have the time and aim at different areas to get the calculation and adjust the compensator for the exposure I want.
An exposed photo where the histogram is in the center (no shadow or highlights are clipped) is the best for post adjustment purposes, but that doesn't happen in sunsets (if you're pointing at the sun) or in snowy mountains. In those situations, your only thing to do is try to get the exposure that you want in camera using the 'zone' method or whatever and be done with it.
BTW, the 10D has a huge latitude for exposure. The exposure compensator in RAW conversion works incredibly well and produces nearly noise free results (at ISO 100) I had a shot which was -1 2/3 and was able to compensate it back without any loss in the details (then again, the shadows are preserved much better than highlights)
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
Use the G3's HISTOGRAM to look at your exposure. As long as you're not clipping the highlights or putting too much into the DARK area (i.e. that's where the noises are for 10D at least, it's in the shadows), you're fine.
As long as you have a decent exposure (i am not sure what defines "correct" exposure, as it depends on what you're showing in your photograph), then it should minimized.
|
You just defined a correct exposure. It is the exposure that is right for how you want to show the final result.
Many people, particularly when shooting digitally, use any old exposure and then 'fix' it using levels/ curves - but it just doesn't work as well. |
|
|
|
|
06/19/2003 10:39:58 AM · #25 |
I think the original question was asking how to avoid the nasty banding your shot shows around the sun.
My comment about 'correct' exposure is just that you want as much of the dynamic range of your shot centered around the area you care about. If you want a high key final image, then it doesn't make sense to under expose and try to adjust later, because you end up with nasty banding because you've stretched and tweaked the tonal ranges so much.
I unfortunatly expect we'll see a great deal of that in the black on black challenge, where more prudent control of exposure would have produced a much improved final result. |
|
