Rainbows

My wife and I saw these rainbows last week in Rocky Mountain National Park. This is the first example of supernumerary arcs that I have shot myself. I feel as though I have cooked the saturation too much in my attempt to bring out the rainbow. I would like other opinions (and even better suggestions on how to improve the shot). Thanks.

Really like the color.... and because I feel like I have to, "oh my god, double rainbow! wow! double rainbow!" (if you haven't seen the youtube video - you should)

Use a circular polarizer rotated to an appropriate angle. That way, you won't have to add saturation in PP.

John

jrader wrote in post #12796973
Use a circular polarizer rotated to an appropriate angle. That way, you won't have to add saturation in PP.

John

I had a CP in my bag but passed on it for two reasons. First, the light was changing very quickly, and my CP needed me to get out step down rings, etc. to get it mounted properly. Second, it was a fairly wide angle shot and I was concerned with uneven effects across the sky. Rainbows don't happen that regularly for me to have played around technique much, and I really didn't want to miss the supernumerary arcs. So, I tried to go with what I thought might be the safer route (but I did think about it though...).

nice shot, not too over cooked for my eye

like it, great shot

Suggest you use Photoshop to select the rainbows and then increase their color saturation alone. I've done this before, and it really emphasizes the rainbow while leaving the colors of the sky and foreground quite natural. To me, the selective enhancement of the rainbow reflects how I perceive it when I'm actually seeing it live.

jrader wrote in post #12796973
Use a circular polarizer rotated to an appropriate angle. That way, you won't have to add saturation in PP.

John

Using a CirPol on a rainbow causes it to disappear so that's not good advice. Go try it at a waterfall that has rainbows and you'll see what I mean.

Cool pic! Maybe a GD ND filter would have been nice.

MrGreen wrote in post #12798977
Using a CirPol on a rainbow causes it to disappear so that's not good advice. Go try it at a waterfall that has rainbows and you'll see what I mean.

Also, it looks as if the sun is right in front behind the cloud. A CPL works best for coloring the sky when it is 90 degrees from the sun, not pointed right at it. A CPL would not have helped this shot at all. A GND filter, on the other hand, might have helped.

MrGreen wrote in post #12798977
Using a CirPol on a rainbow causes it to disappear so that's not good advice. Go try it at a waterfall that has rainbows and you'll see what I mean.

I'd read that too, but my personal experience shows otherwise. Yes, at certain orientations polarizers make rainbows disappear, but just rotate the filter and the rainbow appears even stronger.

Shot this with a polarizer, RAW w/ 0 change in saturation or vibrance in PP; sun was at about 7 o'clock angle:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fuzzsummit/5924​070455/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fuzzsummit/5952​432655/

One thing I may do is clone out the blue blob of sky in the top right and replace it with clouds. That immediately drew my attention away from the rainbows.

What do you think...am I getting any better? The grey clouds are still grey and hopefully the saturation isn't so obvious this time around.

I would still remove the blue sky in the top right. Also, just my personal preference, but I would clone out the two cars and the two road signs as well.

Looks MUCH better this time around.

i like this way better, the foreground and trees are now more properly exposed