Gee! You're smart when you set your mind on something useful.

Shhhh. I need to be covert Yves.

I see a lot of comments about blending exposures, etc, but I know at some point in the thread the user asked about time of day or how to make the shot better from the start.

In an image like the original you showed, you'd want the sun to be lighting the trees or mostly behind you. That often helps balance the contrast and with RAW processing, you'd be able to finish the shot without much struggle. However, at the extreme (i.e. the sun setting behind you, you can still end up with silhouettes if the sun isn't directly lighting the subject of the photo (i.e. they are in the shade)

Of course that sunset lighting often provides the best photos, in which place I often use Enfuse if needed, otherwise I take advantage of the silhouettes and make the most of what's available. I'm not a huge fan of HDR or exposure blending just because they quickly reach a point that I find them lacking a natural look.

There are many times when you can't be there at the right time however. And for most of us that is most of the time. You have to remember that our eyes are a lot more resilient than any camera or film. They adjust to varying conditions better than any sensor or emulsion. Sometimes you just can't get what you saw. So you double process. It's not any different than what we use to do. It's just a different way of doing it is all. Now instead of hand cutting and multiple exposures in a darkroom you use Photoshop. Same end result. A nice photograph.

One other thing you might try is fill light in ACR then bring up the blacks again.

[emalvick]

There are many times when you can't be there at the right time however. And for most of us that is most of the time. You have to remember that our eyes are a lot more resilient than any camera or film. They adjust to varying conditions better than any sensor or emulsion. Sometimes you just can't get what you saw. So you double process. It's not any different than what we use to do. It's just a different way of doing it is all. Now instead of hand cutting and multiple exposures in a darkroom you use Photoshop. Same end result. A nice photograph.

One other thing you might try is fill light in ACR then bring up the blacks again.

I understand that, but the original poster asked about when would have been a better time to shoot the photos, and no one really gave that answer.

I wasn't trying to start a debate over computer processing vs shots, and I am quite aware of the various limitations out there. I was merely stating that it is possible to improve a photo before the computer and reduce the need for some of the methods you (and most people in this thread) described. I typically avoid a lot of the processing like HDR and exposure blending because I find that it takes a lot of effort, and I am more of a fan of photographing than processing. Granted, if I practiced, I'd get better at it, but photography as a hobby for me is more about taking the photographs than processing them although I enjoy processing the RAW photos as much as the old darkroom process especially with the ease at which programs like Lightroom make it.

To go along with your response, in my own experiences, I've found the fill light in Lightroom (similar to ACR) and black levels to get me a great result with much less effort than HDR has in instances where I've shot 5 exposures for HDR. Again, it is probably my lack of experience, but when I do get all that dynamic range in there, I feel like the image is too flat, and I am more happy sacrificing some of it on the "best exposure" and choosing where I will do so. The beauty of course is that there really is no right or wrong, and as long as I enjoy my results, I am happy.

I understand that, but the original poster asked about when would have been a better time to shoot the photos, and no one really gave that answer.

I wasn't trying to start a debate over computer processing vs shots, and I am quite aware of the various limitations out there. I was merely stating that it is possible to improve a photo before the computer and reduce the need for some of the methods you (and most people in this thread) described. I typically avoid a lot of the processing like HDR and exposure blending because I find that it takes a lot of effort, and I am more of a fan of photographing than processing. Granted, if I practiced, I'd get better at it, but photography as a hobby for me is more about taking the photographs than processing them although I enjoy processing the RAW photos as much as the old darkroom process especially with the ease at which programs like Lightroom make it.

To go along with your response, in my own experiences, I've found the fill light in Lightroom (similar to ACR) and black levels to get me a great result with much less effort than HDR has in instances where I've shot 5 exposures for HDR. Again, it is probably my lack of experience, but when I do get all that dynamic range in there, I feel like the image is too flat, and I am more happy sacrificing some of it on the "best exposure" and choosing where I will do so. The beauty of course is that there really is no right or wrong, and as long as I enjoy my results, I am happy.

In reality there may be no "best time". He's already got shadows in front of him so the sun is over his right back. Any exposure he make will be a compromise to light the trees. He will either blow out the sky or lose the shadows. In his first shot I don't see a "best time" at all. You can't get both highlight and shadow in the same shot.

[emalvick]

In reality there may be no "best time". He's already got shadows in front of him so the sun is over his right back. Any exposure he make will be a compromise to light the trees. He will either blow out the sky or lose the shadows. In his first shot I don't see a "best time" at all. You can't get both highlight and shadow in the same shot.

I don't disagree there, and I haven't been to that particular spot to know. But a little earlier (assuming it is late in the day) could give a little less shadow and more light on the trees helping remove some shadows. Of course there is a risk in elevating the highlights, but how would anyone really know unless they've been at that spot and what the surrounding environment dictates.

So, yes, there is no guarantee that there is a best time, but there can be better times, and I am only suggesting what the user might look for in possibilities in improving the initial shot including where the sun might be. Even in going the HDR route, it doesn't hurt to understand the environment you were in when you took the shot and how to maximize your returns, especially if you have the flexibility to do so.

[flyer]

Shhhh. I need to be covert Yves.

Nice answer! I promise to keep quiet from now on.

Even with your overexposure a decent photo can still be had.

---

Last edited by graphicgr8s; 07-30-2010 at 06:13 AM.

[Canada_Rockies]

I copied your image to my drive (JPEG is small, so this only the barest hint of what Photomatix can do. I am sure, as well, that there are other programs for this purpose, but Photomatix Basic is the one I have. The steps to produce this result were to open your JPEG in LR 2.5, make a virtual copy so that I had two images to work with. I darkened one two stops and raised the contrast a bit so that the sky was as striking as I could make it. I raised the exposure two stops on the other copy. Exported the two copies and opened them in Photomatix Basic, used the [Combine] > [Hightlight and Shadow] option to come up with this.

Again, I must emphasize that working with JPEG images off the forum is not the best way to show off the program, but it came out ok. E mail me your RAW file if you want to see what it really can do, or better yet download the trial and do it yourself.

Again it all revolves around what you like. I did this in PS with the quickness using double processing. It's totally reversible. (nondestructive) I used a really big soft brush to speed it up but with patience you can really do a bang up job. Personally I think PS held the sky better than Photomatrix.

[Marc Sabatella]

FWIW, here's what you can do with a local contrast enhancement tool like ACDSee Pro's "Lighting" tool. I just clicked on the trees and dragged up until I found a balance I liked between seeing detail in the trees but having the appearance of light and shadow still be believable. No brushes, selections, layers, or blending of multiple exposures involved - just a single click and drag on the "underexposed" picture:



I tend to like this look better than the results of blending different exposures, although I'm sure with sufficient skill one could make a blend I liked.

[HGMonaro]

you can make it as complicated as you want, or a simple levels adjustment...

A simple level adjustment though still won't open up the tree line as well as double processing can.

[JohnBee]

This is very a common phenomenon in DP and as others have already mentioned, it's often accepted as a compromise between that of exposure and getting the shot.

However... the good news is you don't need to take this laying down

There are a few measures you can take to help reduce and control such things and so I'll do my best to share whatever information I have gathered on the issue.

Aside from metering and progressive result check(histogram and display previews), your biggest control factor will fall in that of post processing. And though HDR has been suggesed, I also think it's worth saying that HRD(both in camera and off ) has its share of drawbacks. Namely... in the accuracy dept. and so I'd like to put out there, that its not always ideal in many situations.

In my own workflow, I've come down to two solutions.

1. Raw developement corrections(none descructive)
2. Post processing corrections(baked editing)

An good example of how to use the first option(No. 1) can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f35Kvpt4hFw

The second option, is far broader since it leaves the user with a number of methods to choose from. However... for the sake of driving a point, I'm posting a global correction method and say that you can localize those correction just as accurately as first method(same results). So I guess it really comes down to preferences.

Though I use both methods extensively, I'm finding that the first method has proven to be quicker and easier to control than the second method. Nevertheless, I'll use both depending on the intended output and type of image I'm working with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_JFKBs4MaA

Hope this helps.

[rustynail925]

I understand that, but the original poster asked about when would have been a better time to shoot the photos, and no one really gave that answer.

I wasn't trying to start a debate over computer processing vs shots, and I am quite aware of the various limitations out there. I was merely stating that it is possible to improve a photo before the computer and reduce the need for some of the methods you (and most people in this thread) described. I typically avoid a lot of the processing like HDR and exposure blending because I find that it takes a lot of effort, and I am more of a fan of photographing than processing. Granted, if I practiced, I'd get better at it, but photography as a hobby for me is more about taking the photographs than processing them although I enjoy processing the RAW photos as much as the old darkroom process especially with the ease at which programs like Lightroom make it.

To go along with your response, in my own experiences, I've found the fill light in Lightroom (similar to ACR) and black levels to get me a great result with much less effort than HDR has in instances where I've shot 5 exposures for HDR. Again, it is probably my lack of experience, but when I do get all that dynamic range in there, I feel like the image is too flat, and I am more happy sacrificing some of it on the "best exposure" and choosing where I will do so. The beauty of course is that there really is no right or wrong, and as long as I enjoy my results, I am happy.

Great Point.. As a beginner i wanted to concentrate & learn first on taking a photograph before learning the editing/processing..

In reality there may be no "best time". He's already got shadows in front of him so the sun is over his right back. Any exposure he make will be a compromise to light the trees. He will either blow out the sky or lose the shadows. In his first shot I don't see a "best time" at all. You can't get both highlight and shadow in the same shot.

I hope not.. I did get back on that place today and took some shots. ill post some pics later..

I don't disagree there, and I haven't been to that particular spot to know. But a little earlier (assuming it is late in the day) could give a little less shadow and more light on the trees helping remove some shadows. Of course there is a risk in elevating the highlights, but how would anyone really know unless they've been at that spot and what the surrounding environment dictates.

So, yes, there is no guarantee that there is a best time, but there can be better times, and I am only suggesting what the user might look for in possibilities in improving the initial shot including where the sun might be. Even in going the HDR route, it doesn't hurt to understand the environment you were in when you took the shot and how to maximize your returns, especially if you have the flexibility to do so.

I'm not a fan of HDR either.. If the place is accessible and you've got the time IMO its better to take photographs than mulitiple exposure to do HDR..
The images was taken around 3:30PM. The sun was at the my back facing at the trees on the 2nd pic.

[rustynail925]

Thx all of you guys for the suggestions and infos...