Let's talk exposure

[Master Mason]

Another option is if your camera has an exposure bracketing funtion, it will snap off the extra pictures for combining rapid fire.

 

[Groucho]

A circular polarizer might do the trick, it generally darkens the sky so you're a lot more likely to get a nice deep blue sky instead of a bright white sky.

Because it can cut down of reflections, it will change the look of the water, too, but you may find that you prefer it. (For example, you could probably get rid of some of the bright white reflection on the water in the bottom of the photo.)

 

[My2Girls66]

Thanks- I may try getting the filters- neutral density and polarizer. I have Photoshop 3 on my laptop but rarely edit so I don't know much about it- pretty useless on it! except cropping and removing red eye and blemishes.
Now I just have to get back to British Columbia where they have that beautiful blue/green water
I use a D50.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that a polarizer would help on a clear or partly cloudy day, but when it's solid cloud cover, I don't think it would help much at all.

If you get a neutral density filter for this problem, get a graduated neutral density filter. That's one where part is dark and part isn't. If you get a normal neutral density filter, that just makes everything darker, which doesn't help you. The grads come in two major types - ones with hard edges and ones with soft edges. The hard edged ones transition from dark to clear over a very short distance and the soft ones have a gradual fade area. Both have their uses.

 

[Jeanne B]

Now I just have to get back to British Columbia where they have that beautiful blue/green water

I was going to ask where the picture was taken because I knew it couldn't be NH!! Then I scrolled down and saw your second post. It's typical Caribbean colored water yet the mountains and trees have that very northern look, a very odd looking mix to me...but interesting!! I didn't realize there was water of this color in Canada.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I was going to ask where the picture was taken because I knew it couldn't be NH!! Then I scrolled down and saw your second post. It's typical Caribbean colored water yet the mountains and trees have that very northern look, a very odd looking mix to me...but interesting!! I didn't realize there was water of this color in Canada.

It has something to do with bits of ground up rock dumped into the water by the glaciers. Here are a couple of examples from my recent trip.

Morraine Lake

Lake Louise

Bow River

 

[Jeanne B]

Mark, those pictures are so amazing to me!! I guess because I live in the Northeast and we head far south for the beautiful Caribbean water, I'm ready to head to Canada now!!

 

[jann1033]

Mark, you make me sick>>>>just kidding,absolutely fantastic shots as usual...

so any ideas on when it's best to use the nd filter and when it's best to do the exposure layering ( thinking that is the same as hdr???) I am guessing the nd would work best with a more definite cut off point to hide the light to dark shift place...
and other than remembering to take more than one exposure for the other technique, what do i need to know /remember to do when i actually take the photo? guessing that would work only with a tripod since you have to layer them

 

[MarkBarbieri]

so any ideas on when it's best to use the nd filter and when it's best to do the exposure layering ( thinking that is the same as hdr???) I am guessing the nd would work best with a more definite cut off point to hide the light to dark shift place...
and other than remembering to take more than one exposure for the other technique, what do i need to know /remember to do when i actually take the photo? guessing that would work only with a tripod since you have to layer them

Yes, exposure layering and HDR are the same thing.

When to use a graduated ND vs HDR is still under debate in the photographic community. My sense is that you should use a graduated ND when you are hand holding (because it is almost impossible to get sufficiently precise registration between multiple handheld photos).

You should also use the graduated ND if there is considerable motion in the picture. That can even be something as simple as the swaying of trees or blowing of leaves. If what you are shooting is different between the different HDR shots, stacking them can be very, very hard.

On the other hand, you usually want to use HDR when the dark and light areas aren't divided by anything like a straight line. If you've got a few odd patches of sky and a lot of subject jutting into those spaces, it can be impossible to darken the sky with a filter without also darkening some of your subject.

With graduated ND filters, you typically use a hard edged filter (one with a short or no transition between dark and clear) when you have a very sharp shadow. A common example is the shadow cast by one cliff on another cliff. You use a filter with a softer (more gradual) transition when the dividing line isn't so straight or hard. A good example is a relatively bright sky over some trees. The tree tops are probably ragged and some sky probably peaks out in the trees.

Strong proponents of HDR techniques like to stress that you only need to be concerned about motion when it occurs in a boundry area. If, for example, you are taking an HDR photo that includes a wandering buffalo in deep shade along with some sunlit rocks and a bright blue sky, you can still use HDR because the part with the motion (the wandering bufallo) will come entirely from a single shot.

If you get graduated ND filters, I strongly recommend the square ones that fit into a Cokin type holder. They allow you to rotate the filter and move it up and down. You can buy screw-in round graduated ND filters, but with them, you have to adjust your composition so that the dividing line matches the dividing area of the light. I'd rather move my filter than recompose my shot.

There is no one perfect graduated ND filter. As mentioned above, you sometimes want hard and sometimes want soft transitions. You will probably also want filters with different densities. Sometimes you want to lightly dim an area and other times you want to dim and area a great deal. For this reason, I'm not so uptight about my usual rule of buying the best filters you can afford. If you are serious about landscape photography, you'll probably wind up with at least 6 graduated neutral density filters. If you drop $200 a piece on them, well that's some decent change. I'd recommend buying a few cheap ones and adding more cheap ones as you see the weaknesses with the ones that you have. If you find that you are using one or two a lot and want to improve them, that's the time to drop the big money. Even better, find an old photographer that doesn't get out much anymore and borrow theirs whenever you go somewhere.

 

[My2Girls66]

Jeanne- In Europe there are many lakes and rivers with that coloring also. Glacier Nat. Park, I believe, does too. Mark's explanation is what we were told while in Europe.
Mark- how did you take your photos? Filters? Photoshop? Or using camera settings? They are beautiful. My DH was at both those lakes a few years ago.
This is Garibaldi Lake, BC - the other lake(above) was Joffrey Lake BC

 

[manning]

A circular polarizer might do the trick, it generally darkens the sky so you're a lot more likely to get a nice deep blue sky instead of a bright white sky.

Because it can cut down of reflections, it will change the look of the water, too, but you may find that you prefer it. (For example, you could probably get rid of some of the bright white reflection on the water in the bottom of the photo.)

You have to consider the angle of the sun. Polarization is most effective at 90 degrees to the sun. This means that the subject that you are shooting will display maximum polarization at right angles to the sun's position. At 180 degrees, in other words with the sun right behind you, polarization is almost non-existent.

 

[jann1033]

thanks for the pointers, i had already ordered a set of cokin nd filters which is backordered but hopefully i'll get it prevacation. i think they are all soft edge though, i'll have to check that out but they are only about 20 each vs the 70 or so for one for my largest lens...i hadn't thought about the motion aspect at all so that will come in handy

 

[DVC Jen]

I have noticed that regardless of where I am shooting - inside - outside - with studio lights - whatever, my exposure always seems to be a bit dark.

I am shooting raw - totally manual. My histogram looks great - perfectly centered nice "hill". But when I open the photo in my raw converter I always have to increase expsoure - adding noise.

I am going to start just compensating for this when I am taking a photo and see how that goes.

I thought I read once that this is a normal thing with Canons - but I could have just come across an article written by one of those (joking here) nasty non canon camera owners.

I have no idea if it matters for those of you who do not know - but I have a Canon 30D.

Is this happening to anyone else or am I just doing something wrong and if so - what?

 

[KrazyPete]

I use the light meter in my camera more for my exposure and make adjustments based on what I see happening in the histogram.

I could be using the histogram incorrectly but I don't try to pile it up in the middle. I just use it to make sure I'm not piling it up on the left or the right. The distribution in the middle doesn't matter to me as much as making sure I'm not blocking up the shadows or blowing the highlights. For example, if I'm looking at the scene and it's brightly lit I expect it to be on the right side of the histogram but I try to keep it away from the edge.

 

[DVC Jen]

I use the light meter in my camera more for my exposure and make adjustments based on what I see happening in the histogram.

I could be using the histogram incorrectly but I don't try to pile it up in the middle. I just use it to make sure I'm not piling it up on the left or the right. The distribution in the middle doesn't matter to me as much as making sure I'm not blocking up the shadows or blowing the highlights. For example, if I'm looking at the scene and it's brightly lit I expect it to be on the right side of the histogram but I try to keep it away from the edge.

That is what I meant - most of the time it is like a nice hill shape - sometimes it is evenly distributed but not actually touching either end. Just seems really strange to me that it shows good exposure in camera - but when I pull it up on the PC it looks really dark.

I think I will calibrate my monitor again today and see if maybe that is the issue... but I do it regularly and this is not something new - so my gut is saying it is not my monitor.

I am not above thinking I am simply not doing something right. That could very well be the issue.

 

[KrazyPete]

I'm fine with blaming it on Canon.

 

[DVC Jen]

I'm fine with blaming it on Canon.

 

[bostran1]

I hate to ask the obvious question but you didn't accidently change the exposure compensation, did you? My digital rebel XT doesn't have this problem (at least I don't think it does!). But I have noticed that some pictures will look sharper if I drop the exposure compensation down a stop or a half a stop.

 

[DVC Jen]

I hate to ask the obvious question but you didn't accidently change the exposure compensation, did you? My digital rebel XT doesn't have this problem (at least I don't think it does!). But I have noticed that some pictures will look sharper if I drop the exposure compensation down a stop or a half a stop.

nope

Maybe I am just metering wrong. I will hog tie one of my girls this weekend and force them to endure me practicing on them once more.

They secretly like it - I just know they do.

 

[bostran1]

nope

Maybe I am just metering wrong. I will hog tie one of my girls this weekend and force them to endure me practicing on them once more.

They secretly like it - I just know they do.

That is strange. Do you have any examples online? Anyway, it looks like you have a way to resolve the issues hopefully!