Photography of landscape including the sun and it's rays

<p>Hi everyone;<br>

I've been having a tough time getting this right.</p>

<p>I want to photograph e.g. mountains/lakes etc.. but then the sun also in one top corner and the sun to look clear and nice.<br>

-The way I've done it is usually take 3 photos at: -1,+1 and 0 exposure<br>

- use spot metering and focus on a neutral area in the blue sky then recompose to include the sun<br>

- still despite this a small fraction of my photos end up being with a nice 'sun'<br>

should I buy a special filter; and which one? should I do extremes of exposure of a certain scene e.g -2,-1,0,1,2 then come and check on photoshop?<br>

are other setting relevant? I do ISO 100; aperture often 5.6-8; and shutter speed depends but faster than 1/100 sometimes 1/2000.<br>

Thanks everyone :)</p>

<p>Not sure just what "nice sun" means, but you do understand that the dynamic range is well beyond that of either digital sensors or film....so using HDR is probably your only solution.</p>

<p>Hi; what I meant is that my best one so far is this: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/eljamali/6102602405/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/eljamali/6102602405/in/photostream</a></p>

<p>pretty basic and I just uploaded to show you folks here :)</p>

<p>Whereas what I am aiming for is something like this with regards to the sun:<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=photography+of+the+sun&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&tbnid=hN7YSDEXWSk1qM:&imgrefurl=http://favim.com/image/76386/&docid=1DHmh1IcqOjJQM&w=500&h=356&ei=-IRfTo2jKOP2mAX_450b&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=787&vpy=313&dur=1085&hovh=189&hovw=266&tx=225&ty=123&page=4&tbnh=155&tbnw=200&start=54&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:54">http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=photography+of+the+sun&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&tbnid=hN7YSDEXWSk1qM:&imgrefurl=http://favim.com/image/76386/&docid=1DHmh1IcqOjJQM&w=500&h=356&ei=-IRfTo2jKOP2mAX_450b&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=787&vpy=313&dur=1085&hovh=189&hovw=266&tx=225&ty=123&page=4&tbnh=155&tbnw=200&start=54&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:54</a><br>

or<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=photography+of+the+sun&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&tbnid=O16Qd9pO_FWMMM:&imgrefurl=http://lewisryan.co.uk/People_portrait_photography.htm&docid=5UUqUmasiAkgsM&w=681&h=511&ei=-IRfTo2jKOP2mAX_450b&zoom=1">http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=photography+of+the+sun&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&tbnid=O16Qd9pO_FWMMM:&imgrefurl=http://lewisryan.co.uk/People_portrait_photography.htm&docid=5UUqUmasiAkgsM&w=681&h=511&ei=-IRfTo2jKOP2mAX_450b&zoom=1</a></p>

<p>I tried you're HDR advice because in my last attempt I did a few at +1,0,-1 exposures and still HDR once made you can't edit the RAW anymore on photoshop<br>

Any advice on how to shoot the sun just like two google search examples thanks heaps</p>

<p>btw I'm using the 24-70 lens mostly</p>

<p>The samples you have provided are exposed for the sun/sky. Try 1) Metering (spot) just off the sun, in an area of bright sky but <em>not including the sun itself. 2) </em>Do a very long bracket on the under-exposure side. I mean in 1/2 stops, go from a general meter reading to as far under (at lowest ISO) as the camera's lens and shutter speed will allow you. Examine the results, and learn from which exposure aids and abets your vision.</p>

<p>I am a big proponent of teaching people to experiment and learn from it directly. That way when problems are encountered afield, where there may not be anyone to turn to, you can troubleshoot n your own.</p>

<p>Luis: thanks. what you said makes sense; so excited to try it tomorrow. It makes sense cause I realized the -1 exposure photos where better than the 0 and +1; and I wished I went as far as -2. <br>

as for focusing on neutral spots I think I realized my mistake; sometimes my lens hunted for that neutral spot in the sky and I focused on a cloud that far away from the sun and it's rays; but maybe the whiteness of the clouds stuffed things up?!<br>

thanks to all</p>

<p>The two photos you linked to had the sun low on the horizon. That position can make the sun less bright because the rays of the sun has to pass through a lot more atmosphere. It also tends to make the sun redder. Your photo has the sun directly overhead. It is hard to get the same look given the different positions of the sun.</p>

<p>Also the two photos are exposed for the sun rather than the foreground subjects. Your photo is exposed for the foreground.</p>

<p>My suggestion is expose for the sun and try to wait until the sun is low on the horizon if you want to duplicate the effect of the two photos.When you have the sun in the frame, it is often much better to greatly underexpose rather than to get the "right" exposure. Digital photos are essentially free so feel free to try a variety of exposures rather than just the one the books say is the "right" one.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

<p>Have you tried a split grad?</p>

<p>I think Danny's first paragraph is key to understanding the difference in what you're attempting to accomplish, and what the photos you linked have accomplished.</p>

<p>Use film! Digital just can't capture the tonal gradations in the vicinity of the sun like film. When I sold my last film camera, I knew that shots with a strong sun within the frame would no longer be possible (regardless of HDR, GND filters, or whatever).<br>

E.g.: <br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/14019432<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/12066735<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/13081057<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/13081074</p>

 

<p>http://reaganpufall.blogspot.com/2010/07/nature-tips-3-shooting-sun.html<br>

I shoot the sun all the time, if you have any questions shoot me an e-mail. I rarely check my photo.net anymore.</p>

<p>As was suggested, the 2 pictures, yours and what you'd like are very different because of location in the sky. The higher the more power, the more flare.<br>

Zooms give a lot more bad flare usually, so a prime lens would be better..... on a low sun<br>

Sunrise sun should be weaker than at sunset, so less flare<br>

sunrise: 300mm f/2.8<br>

<img src="http://robertbody.com/california11/images/2011-05-31-dv-dantes-silhoues-74536.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>sunset...... 70-200m f/2.8 IS II + 1.4x<br>

<img src="http://robertbody.com/arizona11/images/2011-05-22-supers-sunset.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>but usually you would want rays bending around mountain horizon, or something else:<br>

35mm f/1.4 - the rays seemed longer and less flare than with 24-70mm but i couldn't compare side by side, just a feeling<br>

<img src="http://robertbody.com/arizona11/images/2011-05-15-supers-star-71181.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>definitely pick a prime. 17-40mm was vignetting and i had to adjust the angle which was messing with the composition.... definitely pick a prime<br>

<img src="http://robertbody.com/utah10/images/2010-09-14-canyonlands-mesa-33768.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>avoid filters, they add to vignetting, artifacts</p>

<p>time of year matters. This is winter sun..... almost bearable vigneting..... 18-35mm Nikon and f/16<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/colorado07/images/2007-01-28-love-west2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>for the star formation you want f/16 or f/11 ....... try those</p>

<p>try a prime too</p>

<p>Robert, those are all good (IMO), but the second one demonstrates what I was wanting to say about the abrupt tonal transitions in many digital shots. There's a white disc (the sun), followed by a yellow doughnut, which rather abruptly transitions to an orange doughnut, which then rather abruptly transitions to a brownish-orange doughnut that is quite wide and in some places appears to have other transitional lines running through it. This didn't happen in your first photo, and I think the transitions are wonderful (besides being a great photo). Why/How the difference? Same camera in both? Perhaps the first just has a greater relative exposure and has "wiped out" the transition zones -- I don't know. Or maybe it was shot with film!?</p>

<p>They are all digital Stephen, this one is with film but the sun is low and out of picture, so not a good comparison:<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona00/images/2000-08-supersti-sunset.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I know what you mean about the color transition or even harshness of color in some cases, Velvia film can't be touched in some circumstances.<br>

There are lots of other variables though and shooting film is...... hard. Hard on the wallet too, hard to experiment with, can't look directly at the sun [and no live preview], but there are times when all the elements align and it's a perfect opportunity so film would be better to use, the overhead though is a lot for most people.<br>

No harm in carrying a light body with Velvia for those special times.<br>

<a href="http://www.robertbody.com/cities/city-sunsets.html">Few More Sunsets (city sunsets)</a><br>

mostly digital, but this is not<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona00/images/2003-03-camelback-sunset.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Robert, I know what you mean about film being "hard." For me, it's impossible because I've sold all of my film cameras. I've tried a few "sun in the frame" shots with digital, but they were quite bad. Only when the sun is quite low and obscured to some extent by heavy haze can I hope to get a decent sun shot. Still, from time to time I see a really good sun shot with digital (e.g., your first example -- that's amazing), and I wish I could figure out why some turn out and others don't.</p>

<p>I got an A2E camera for about $30 a year ago, used it for the following 2 weeks, for a very specific purpose of 2hour star trails, and it has been sitting since then. K&H have that camera and others for that price.<br>

The right tool for the job..... i like doing that, but digital workflow is so much easier. It takes a bit of vision to know an opportunity is worth using the film workflow. Best shots are with the sun low anyway :). <br>

I do reject many shots [at home] when shooting into the sun, and sometimes I wonder if it would "look as bad" on film too, flare particularly and those circles either just next to the sun or a bit away. And the color spectrum from white to yellow to orange to red like in my first shot of second post [first film shot] i don't think digital would do it quite as well. I have seen an ugly color progression from my digital pictures that's why i say that, just a way too yellow or too red colors and no way to "fix them" in photoshop, some things only film can do with color [Velvia].<br>

More on the topic of digital sun shots (a small percentage within the 400 shots), these are my <a href="http://www.robertbody.com/cities/tempe/tempe-town-lake/previews.html">Phoenix sun shots</a> and here is an example<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/cities08/images/2008-10-05-tempe-plane-32358.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>one other factor (not directly connected to exposure though) is that lenses behave differently when it comes to direct sunlight. While some freak out totally in how it renders the sun others handle it really well. An example of a really good one is Zeiss Distagon 21mm 2.8 (several mounts).</p>