Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail)

Joeymozzer · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

What went wrong? I couldn't get the color in the sky to stand out/pop out from the waterfall/Line....I did use a circular polarizer

1/50...F10 ISO400

Qbx · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

I don't see any color in the sky. It looks overexposed to the point of having no detail (blown-out). But the rock and falls look underexposed. I think that is your problem. Getting sky and rocks both in good exposure will require an HDR approach, or shoot the sky then shoot the falls then combine the two shots in post processing. I don't think a pola filter is needed here. If you shot in RAW you might be able to recover some by creating two copies and doing a merge.

joedlh · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

Was the mountain part in full shadow? If so, that was your problem. The dynamic range of the scene was broader than your camera was able to record. Come back when the sun is shining on the rocks or take two exposures -- one of the rocks and one of the sky -- and layer them together in post processing.

Or just get a nice sky and layer into this one. You don't have to go back. But you should tone map the rocks anyway to correct for the underexposure.

GorgeShooter · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

I don't see an image.

dkizzle · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

I feel that its not sharp at all and agree with others that detail is missing.

LV Moose · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

I think I'd take the HDR approach on that shot. Also CPL's work best when shooting at 90 degrees from the sun.

Joeymozzer · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joedlh

Was the mountain part in full shadow? If so, that was your problem. The dynamic range of the scene was broader than your camera was able to record. Come back when the sun is shining on the rocks or take two exposures -- one of the rocks and one of the sky -- and layer them together in post processing.

Or just get a nice sky and layer into this one. You don't have to go back. But you should tone map the rocks anyway to correct for the underexposure.

Thanks guys, yes I was standing in shadow as was the whole mountain. I just now switched my camera over to RAW/Jpeg... I have yet to try post editing or HDR. Hopefully my next trip up will have some experience at using HDR thanks again

GorgeShooter · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

Looks like your meter underexposed due to the bright sky. Use exposure comp next time.

Guari · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

Try to use the lowest iso possible,

You decrease your dynamic range when you raise your iso

Joeymozzer · 1st of July 2012 (Sun)

Ok thanks, wish I was in Yosemite or some amazing environment to practice... Thanks for all the help and tips

rolex87 · 2nd of July 2012 (Mon)

That spot is definitely better late in the day if you have the time. You were basically looking straight up into the light source. The light winter was a good thing in this situation, normally you would be drenched!

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#1
Joeymozzer Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Moz Angeles Posts: 242 IMAGE EDITING OK	Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) What went wrong? I couldn't get the color in the sky to stand out/pop out from the waterfall/Line....I did use a circular polarizer 1/50...F10 ISO400 __________________ My Camera: Canon T1i Lens: (canon kit) EFS 18-55* EF 50mm F1.8 llEFS 55-250 Accesories: Lowepro Sling Shot 102 AW BagDolica ZX600B103 TripodRocketFish CP/ND Filters (52mm/58mm)430ex II * My Shots: Still Learning Last edited by Joeymozzer : 1st of July 2012 (Sun) at 01:35.

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#2
Qbx Goldmember Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,734 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) I don't see any color in the sky. It looks overexposed to the point of having no detail (blown-out). But the rock and falls look underexposed. I think that is your problem. Getting sky and rocks both in good exposure will require an HDR approach, or shoot the sky then shoot the falls then combine the two shots in post processing. I don't think a pola filter is needed here. If you shot in RAW you might be able to recover some by creating two copies and doing a merge.

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#3
joedlh Goldmember Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Long Island, NY, North America, Sol III, Orion Spur of the Milky Way galaxy. Posts: 3,895 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) Was the mountain part in full shadow? If so, that was your problem. The dynamic range of the scene was broader than your camera was able to record. Come back when the sun is shining on the rocks or take two exposures -- one of the rocks and one of the sky -- and layer them together in post processing. Or just get a nice sky and layer into this one. You don't have to go back. But you should tone map the rocks anyway to correct for the underexposure. __________________ Joe Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger http://photo.joedlh.net

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#4
GorgeShooter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,413	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) I don't see an image. __________________ 1DX \| 5D MkII (gripped) 16-35 f/2.8L \| 24-70 f/2.8L \| 24-105 f/4L IS \| 70-200 f/4L IS \| 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS \| 24 f/3.5L TS-E \| 45 f/2.8 TS-E \| 40 f/2.8 Pancake \| 15 f/2.8 Fisheye \| Tokina 100 f/2.8 Macro \| Canon 1.4x TC \| 580 EX II \| 430 EX II \| Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 \| Kirk BH-1 :: Smugmug :: \| :: Photography BLOG :: \| :: Workshops and Classes ::

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#5
dkizzle Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 266	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) I feel that its not sharp at all and agree with others that detail is missing. __________________ Landscape Photography - Follow my visits and adventures in photography to exotic places \| Like & follow me on Pinterest

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#6
LV Moose Cream of the Crop Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 6,822 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) I think I'd take the HDR approach on that shot. Also CPL's work best when shooting at 90 degrees from the sun. __________________ --------Moose-------- Gear flickr flickr2 Last edited by LV Moose : 1st of July 2012 (Sun) at 12:57.

1st of July 2012 (Sun)	#9
Guari Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 194	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) Try to use the lowest iso possible, You decrease your dynamic range when you raise your iso __________________ My blog *My FB page*

2nd of July 2012 (Mon)	#11
rolex87 Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Yosemite National Park Posts: 422 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Waterfall (Yosemite; Bridesvail) That spot is definitely better late in the day if you have the time. You were basically looking straight up into the light source. The light winter was a good thing in this situation, normally you would be drenched! __________________ 5DII, 40D, 24-105L, 100-400L, 50 1.8, 100 2.8 Macro Staff Photographer - Ansel Adams Gallery, Yosemite Nat'l Park www.mikereevesphotography.com - enter coupon code "potn" for 15% off!!! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-R...y/354497123758 - Fan Page My 4x5 has hundreds of megapixels, at the expense of low FPS and zero autofocus points.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Waterfall Photos: 100 photos of top 10 famaous Waterfall in the world!！	socalrailfan	Nature & Landscapes	20	12th of September 2012 (Wed) 06:09
Yosemite	Lynne	Nature & Landscapes	8	11th of August 2008 (Mon) 03:11
Yosemite Waterfall	ramblingman	Nature & Landscapes	20	17th of July 2007 (Tue) 03:32