I would appreciate some advise as to what I could have done better with these shots I took yesterday. I had real trouble highlighting the mountain & sky. It was 5am, could I have used a polorizer? What about PP?

Any assistance would be much appreciated.......................Thanks

K10d & Sigma 75 - 300mm

#1 - 1/1000 @ F8
#2 - 1/1500 @F6.7

[m8o]

Really decent image to start with for some PP... Here's just a couple of minutes with it.

The start:


Using Lightroom 1.3, WB Temp -10 (towards blue from yellow), Tint +10 (towards magenta from green), left exposure alone, brightness -11 & contrast +25, applied color Clarity, color Vibrance (but didn't increase Saturation), and added the Landscape preset for unsharpen mask.

Attached Images

 

[little laker]

Thankyou all for your feedback. I was programmed in AV mode and let the camera set the shutter itself. Little Laker I would be thrilled if I was after the "old style", however I was trying to just get a shot that was within a bulls raw of what some of you guys produce.....

I was at ISO 800, what would you have used?

Hey Peter thanks heaps for your time, I think I follow what you are saying. I will give it a go and see how I fare!!

LL, I love what you did with Peters shot. If you dont mind can you explain the process for us beginners?

Many thanks

CF...

Sorry that I didn't get back to you earlier chookfarmer, I'm pretty frustrated over something myself.

I'll start by saying to try shooting landscapes at ISO200 with the K110, or K100 models, or ISO100 with the K10D
This will help them look like a modern photograph.

Now for the processing technique I use with most pictures these days.
I should mention that I use ACDSEE Pro for most of my editing. It's not free, but it works well with my style.

Here's the original image.


First I use the shadow / highlight setting, and oddly enough I darken the shot to bring out the detail in the sky.


Now I lighten it up, bringing out the foreground.
I next click on Done.


I click on Exposure next, and fiddle with the contrast in both directions until it looks like I want it to. It's often perfect right where it is.


Then I fiddle with brightness in both directions and see if either way improves the shot.
And finally click on Done.
In this case it didn't need any.

This process usually takes me 30 seconds or less

With pretty well the same method I came up with this version of your first image.

[chookfarmer]

Thanks Stu, that gives me a heap of homework over Christmas, I really appreciate you giving me some of your time.

Thanks also Mo8 amazing what you can do when you know how.

I think Santa will be bringing me an ND filter this year.

Hope you all have a great Christmas.

Many thanks CF...........

[little laker]

I got my first ND filter last week, and I really don't think that it's necessary except for longer exposures.

In most cases I feel that your better off buying another lens.

I really bought mine for 2 reasons.
1. I got a really good deal on a Hoya ND (x4)
2. Several people like velvety water scenes, and an ND filter helps with that.

[HGMonaro]

ND and Grad ND are two different things... ND allows you to use slower shutter speeds or wider apertures, a Grad(ual) ND allows you to hold back exposure for part* of the scene. You can get ND Grad's with different 'fades' from the clear (no ND) to the ND section, usualy refered to as 'hard' (sudden change) or 'soft' (slow change).

* usually used horizontal, but you can turn it sideways if necessary

[attack11]

are your AE points linked to the AF points? where you using center weighted metering?

that kind of shot is what hdr is for. not the obnoxious tone mapping everyone does; but real hdr like below. try auto bracketing 5 shots with a range of 2 stops and merge into an hdr; just don't do the lame 'hdr glow' every n00b does and you'd have a fantastic picture. use a tripod and the 2sec timer to start it.

[jshurak]

I got my first ND filter last week, and I really don't think that it's necessary except for longer exposures.

ND and Grad ND are two different things... ND allows you to use slower shutter speeds or wider apertures, a Grad(ual) ND allows you to hold back exposure for part* of the scene. You can get ND Grad's with different 'fades' from the clear (no ND) to the ND section, usualy refered to as 'hard' (sudden change) or 'soft' (slow change).

Exactly. Here's a link to a picture showing exactly what a grad ND can use. Its not my picture so I don't want to post the picture itself. Here's the link though. A filter like that tilted diagonally could accomplish everything you need without the PP and producing (IMO) a more natural look.

[gpaual]

hi chook.......took a poke at your image this morning over coffee......i like the shot very much, sad really that the sky got blown out, but often, that's digital !......anyway i approached your image from channels, opening the histogram to ' all channels', and then the levels box under image >adjustments>levels......you can then make adjustments to all channels to try and bring a balance to the color in the image.......i then used hue/sat to make additional small changes to sat and hue.......and a favorite ( selective color ) which allows me to make minute adjustments to the tonal range while controlling color levels.......as in all things, it is really what one is pursuing, one's adjustments may not work for another....my personal visions, may not be your, or the next guys , so as one tag here suggests, think well before opening the shutter. Sometimes i see incredible landscapes rich and full, but my vision may be B&W so all that color just represents tonalities, and some, one may want to change.
Not sure what time of day you shot your image, i saw morning, and curved my pp to that end, morning to me, while containing warm hues, always seems cooler than mid-morning, or afternoon so that was my approach.....i ended my session with a blending change to darker color, opacity drop, and after flattening the image i took the blur tool and very lightly toched some pixels along the edge of the mountain to smooth out some of the pixelation...also reshaping the weird shaped cloud at the apex of the mountain.......if you are not familiar with National Association of Photoshop Professionals ( no, i don't consider me one ).....you may want to visit them at National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) you can uncover a lot of info there on pp and other methodolgies of retouching. You may want to bear in mind that there really is no cheating here, this is digital photography, and these are the darkroom tools, so how one goes about it, is as varied as those snapping the shutter. Have fun whatever you do, it's a real possession in an otherwise vacillating world. gl to you.

[jshurak]

I also would have closed down the aperture. You fast shutter speeds, which aren't necessary when taking landscape shots. Using a smaller shutter speed would increase the depth of field in the shot. I think it might improve the softness of the mountain. Also reduce the ISO.

[chookfarmer]

Hi jshurak, you have convinced me to ensure there is one under the tree next week. The example is amazing........

Thanks..

[chookfarmer]

Hi gpaual
A lot to take on board, however I have followed your advce and started reading he web site. I love what you did. Should I have exposed for the sky and then PP'd the underexposed foreground???

Many thanks for your time.

Regards CF..................Merry Christmas!

[chookfarmer]

are your AE points linked to the AF points? where you using center weighted metering?



Hi attack11, not sure what you are getting at here! Any chance you could elaberate for me ?

many thanks CF............

[TaoMaas]

I agree that a graduated ND would have helped. If it were me, I would have put the graduation along the top edge of the mist, then exposed for the bright patch of grass under the tree in the foreground. You'd lose some of the detail in the mountain this way, but I think that the sky you'd have gotten would have made up for that loss.