How to Go From A to B?

[uniktangerine]

(A) Here's what I shot:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/richinalljust/5bb5da12.jpg


(B) Here's what I wanted:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/richinalljust/9aad8212.jpg



Any advice on bringing out the sky more vividly? Also while we're on the topic of the sky, what can I adjust to prevent a sky from coming out blown out and extremely overexposed?

[Master Mason]

Isn't that what a circular polorizer and graduated ND filters are for??

[uniktangerine]

Yeah, I know those help. But is there anyway to get what I wanted without a filter or is that the only option?

[VegasGeorge]

I don't understand. If B is what you want, then you've got it, right? So, what's the problem?

[uniktangerine]

Ah, sorry I forgot to mention that B is what I got after doing some PP in CS3.

[cw695356]

if you know what how to get to B as it was you that PPed it why are you asking? Is it a competition? I dont udnerstand what you are after

[Mgw189]

Nope no way that I know of to go from A to B without PP or as mentioned before filters. You could change the White Balance but that would mess up the rest of the image.

[uniktangerine]

Yeah, I didn't think so. Alright then...what filters work best to correctly expose an overexposed sky and/or bring out the blues more clearly?

Anyone have any names of great filters?

[AirBrontosaurus]

We're you going for something like this?

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1650/5bb5da12ly6.jpg

If you like it I can go through what I did to get it. If not... then never mind! ;)

[Mortgage101]

I think the reason perhaps he wants to do this without PP is if you notice the PP picture there is a "glowing" effect along the bridge that makes it appear more Processed?

[uniktangerine]

We're you going for something like this?

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1650/5bb5da12ly6.jpg

If you like it I can go through what I did to get it. If not... then never mind! ;)

Yes, that's what I want but not after PP. I want the camera to capture just that. You all think I'm talking about PP. I'm not. I just used PP as an example to show what I wanted to capture on location, not on computer.

[AirBrontosaurus]

Yes, that's what I want but not after PP. I want the camera to capture just that. You all think I'm talking about PP. I'm not. I just used PP as an example to show what I wanted to capture on location, not on computer.

Ah... I understand now.

Well, the unfortunate truth is that without a filter, you can't. The difference between the darkest dark and the lightest light in the shot is probably many, many stops of light. Your camera's sensor simply doesn't have the dynamic range necessary to capture all the data. You'll either blow out the sky, or black out the shadows.

Shooting in RAW can help, as RAW captures more data than a jpeg. Polarizers and GND filters will also give you those results. However, without a filter and barring an HDR, you can't get a many-stop-variable image perfectly exposed out of the camera.

[uniktangerine]

Ah... I understand now.

Well, the unfortunate truth is that without a filter, you can't. The difference between the darkest dark and the lightest light in the shot is probably many, many stops of light. Your camera's sensor simply doesn't have the dynamic range necessary to capture all the data. You'll either blow out the sky, or black out the shadows.

Shooting in RAW can help, as RAW captures more data than a jpeg. Polarizers and GND filters will also give you those results. However, without a filter and barring an HDR, you can't get a many-stop-variable image perfectly exposed out of the camera.

Thank you Chris. That's what I was after all along. When you say that my camera doesn't have the dynamic range necessary...is that just my camera? Do better canons such as the 30D, 20D, 5D and so on have this?

Looks like I'll have to look into a filter for my camera!

[Glenn NK]

One thing to keep in mind with a polarizing filter is that while it will improve your skies, it will remove the glare (glistening/reflections) from the water; which is fine if that's what you want. However as you remove the glare/shine with a polarizer, any water reflections will die in the process - which with a shot over water, is often one of the prime desires.

Basically, a polarizing filter will remove or reduce non-metallic reflections. Side note: with a UWA lens, there will a noticeable fall-of of the polarizing effect away from the central portion of the image - this is unavoidable, and results in a "darker blob" in the middle which graduates to lighter areas away from the central area.

In answer to the OP's last question, it's been mentioned on this forum a few times that a 5D will provide a bit more dynamic range, but not to the degree that you want. Sensors simply don't have nearly the dynamic range of the human eye. Pity.

[AirBrontosaurus]

Thank you Chris. That's what I was after all along. When you say that my camera doesn't have the dynamic range necessary...is that just my camera? Do better canons such as the 30D, 20D, 5D and so on have this?

Unfortunately, as Glenn said, no Canon body really has a massive dynamic range boost over the others. The new 1DMK3 supposedly can capture more range in RAW form (14bit vs 12bit of normal RAW), but reports I read said it won't be too noticeable (it's more for gradations in the sky, etc than actual dynamic range improvements).

[Hellashot]

Your shot is very over exposed. If you would have exposed for the sky you probably could have got your "desired result" by simple curves and shadow lightening since the bright was so light to begin with. "hdr" not needed.

[uniktangerine]

Your shot is very over exposed. If you would have exposed for the sky you probably could have got your "desired result" by simple curves and shadow lightening since the bright was so light to begin with. "hdr" not needed.

If I gave you the basic EXIF, could you tell me what I did wrong?

[rammy]

If I gave you the basic EXIF, could you tell me what I did wrong?

The EXIF is intact on the first image: 1/400 sec - F/4 - ISO100

But changing any of these settings won't give you the result you are looking for. A polarizer will help with sky but will remove the glare from the water as others say. Which is no bad thing.

A GND filter will not help as it will also affect the bridge as this is a more complex image.

You may want to look at an HDR type of shot (AEB with your camera - check the manual) and then blend them.

[StewartR]

We're you going for something like this?

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1650/5bb5da12ly6.jpg

If you like it I can go through what I did to get it. If not... then never mind! ;)I'd be interested to know how you did it, as I really like the look, and I don't mind a bit of PP to achieve it. I'm also interested in understanding where the 'halo' came from, so I know how to avoid it.

[SgWRX]

here's my take on it. i used lightzone. within that i used a tone mapper to 'recover' highlights which darkened the brighter areas of the sky and also used that tool to increase some mid-tone contrast. next i used a couple of zone mappers to control the highlights some more and also a color layer to saturate it a bit more - i have to say i love the blue sky AirBrontosaurus got.

the halo is something that typically results from post-processing contrasty areas. and in the original photo you can see a bit of the halo, just a hint, seems to come from the high contrast