The Thinking Spot

[kiley9806]

A shot from the lake during the day. The shore is spotted with these little benches, perfect for reading a book or watching the fish flop. This one is quite out of the way, and I tried to capture the feel of the place in the photo.

[Travis]

nicely exposed...

i wouldn't mind doing some thinking there....

you still on vacation??

[kiley9806]

its a great little lake - my husband has been up there camping for the past 25 days working at an oil lease (he did have one half day off in there ).
so we've been back and forth lots. we just got home today, and before we left, my daughter and i were sitting at one of these benches and a bald eagle flew right over top of us, maybe 10 feet above our heads... one of those moments when youre kicking yourself for not having your cam in hand...

[tegan]

Very good composition and an excellent location. It is underexposed but that can be easily fixed with the smart photo fix option in your PaintShop Pro program.

BTW, I think you forgot about following up re a certain noise problem in an owl photo.

Tegan

[Travis]

I don't think it's underexposed... I think it's a good compromise between the sky and the foreground. The time spent dismantling this image for selective exposure would not provide much in the way of benefit IMO.

IMO

IMO

IMO

[tegan]

I don't think it's underexposed... I think it's a good compromise between the sky and the foreground. The time spent dismantling this image for selective exposure would not provide much in the way of benefit IMO.

IMO

IMO

IMO

Look closer at the photo, Travis. The slightly dead colours in the foreground indicate underexposure. "Dismantling the image" for selective exposure is NOT necessary either. There are several one step approaches.

Tegan

[Marko]

I'm not sure I agree tegan. In this digital age with a restrictive colour range, it may be more of a case of what you were exposing for, (and/or adjusting for after the shot was taken) rather than saying an image is underexposed. There is way too much play here to be so certain. I think we are getting into semantics - or we need to analyze the histogram. For me this is a good exposure.

Either way, for me the solution would be some simple dodging to lighten up the foreground grass and shadows in the tree.

Overexposure is the real image killer these days and it may well have been harder to handle highlights here with much more exposure.

[tegan]

I'm not sure I agree tegan. In this digital age with a restrictive colour range, it may be more of a case of what you were exposing for, (and/or adjusting for after the shot was taken) rather than saying an image is underexposed. There is way too much play here to be so certain. I think we are getting into semantics - or we need to analyze the histogram. For me this is a good exposure.

Either way, for me the solution would be some simple dodging to lighten up the foreground grass and shadows in the tree.

Overexposure is the real image killer these days and it may well have been harder to handle highlights here with much more exposure.

Actually, it is easy to be certain. One histogram indicated 56 percent and the graph along near the bottom which suggested underexposure. Another in a different program indicated clipping at both ends but very little midrange at all.

As for what you are exposing for, it does not make sense to expose for a mostly white sky and ignore the exposure of your foreground which is where the visual interest is supposed to be. Moreover a smart photo fix quickly brings up the foreground without blowing out the sky and it can be easily controlled by cross bar adjustments. To get more sophisticated a software polarizer will also control the sky.

Dodging is helpful in some shots but does not always get the colour right and adjusting saturation is seldom recommended.

The easiest way to handle a bright sky is to use a polarizing or graduated ND filter on the camera. Next easiest is keep the highlights down and brighten the shadow areas with one click using your photo editor.

No need for what can be tedious and precise dodging and it is much faster.

Tegan

[Marko]

The easiest way to handle a bright sky is to use a polarizing or graduated ND filter on the camera.

yes - but what is the best way to handle the entire image that includes sky?

Answer - depends on the image and the tones in the scene.

My technique is to get as much detail as possible without clipping the highlights (UNLESS they don't matter that much in that rare shot).

[tegan]

yes - but what is the best way to handle the entire image that includes sky?

Answer - depends on the image and the tones in the scene.

My technique is to get as much detail as possible without clipping the highlights (UNLESS they don't matter that much in that rare shot).

As indicated in your quote from me: The best way to handle the entire image that includes the sky is to use a polarizing filter or graduated ND filter.

A graduated ND filter will darken the sky and bring up the foreground, which is what is wanted. A polarizing filter will do the same but the angle of light becomes important and tones don't matter in either case.

My software technique is also for the whole image including the sky and as I indicated the highlights were already clipped in the original. Besides you may have misunderstood. Shadow detail can be brought up in the whole image without effecting the highlights without selection, masking, dodging, etc. using Kiley's photo editor

Tegan