Am I expecting the impossible with this shot?

I am very new to taking pictures with a SLR. I'm using a Canon Digital Rebel, with the kit 18-55mm lens.

I was out this evening by the lake trying to take a series of pictures that I could possibly stitch together to make my first panoramic. I've read that the best thing to do for a panoramic shot is to figure out what the best combination of f/stop and shutter speed is, and to lock it in. This way the exposure is the same and stitching is made easier. (Yes, I am using a tripod).

Anyhow, I tried to get the exposure just right. It was around 7:30pm, and the sun was still above the tree line. To tell you the truth, I was sorta lost. I tried to base my choice in exposure settings by watching what numbers the "P" mode gave me, and then dialing them into "M" mode.

Unfortunately, I was stuck with this.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Use a graduated neutral density filter to hold back the sky.

---Bob Gross---

Would using something like a Polarizer help? Would a polarizer be more effective if I was at that spot a few hours earlier? Maybe even 2-3pm?

Lack of dynamic range - thats the problem. Unfortunately, you can't properly expose the sky and foreground in this case........

My trick..........

I ususally underexpose the shot. I find that CAnon's JPEG mode retains shadow details very well...............In fact, I am surprised how well they retain it.

I then go into photoshop and use "curves" to expose the shadows and underexpose the highlights.

I find this works very well..............

Here is an example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Forgive me......

But here is my poor attempt to salvage your image:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

A polarizer would probably help to make the sky more blue and less overexposed, but for panoramas, a polarizer will not be a good idea. The effect of the polarizer is very dependent on the direction in which you point it. If you rotate the camera for a few shots, the effect of the polarizer will vary greatly between the shots and it's not going to be easy to stitch the shots.

Here's a website with (almost) everything you want to know about panorama photography: http://www.panoguide.c​om/

Couldn't you do one of the sky correctly exposed, then one of the land properly exposed then photoshop it all and make it all good?

Thanks for the information on the polarizer, I can understand what you're saying. I went ahead and played with what I had in the Photostitch program, and was pretty impressed with what it could do, although the first thing I learned was that bodies of water don't make good panormas. Especially when there's as much movement going on with wind as there was yesterday.

I guess it's all about learning.

The only thing that was a bit weird yesterday, was the other photographer that decided to plunk down infront of me and start taking shots of the sunset. Shrug. Oh well.

Two possibilities... one he was lonely and wanted to engage you in conversation about his equipment or two... he was just a moron...

Nevermind, he was younger than me with 2X's as much equipment... I was going to go up to him and start asking questions, heh.

Unfortunately, I wasn't wearing my "newb" t-shirt, so I decided to leave.

Plus, my fiancee decided it was a bit too cold to continue posing, even though she had on a parka.

Hey Lex...Mississauga, heh? I have family in Toronto and been to the same spot you took this photo at. Small world. In any case, roanjohn has the best idea. Since you don't have that great of a dynamic range using this, shoot exposed for the sky and then "curve" out the shadows. If you use RAW mode, you'll get better shadow information than with JPG. It will be less noisy and have finer gradations.

If you are thinking of doing panoramas, consider using a good panoramic head to minimize parallax error and get better stitches.

Good Luck.