350D and overexposed skies...?

[design8r]

Ok i'm finding increasingly hard to get perfect pictures with skies

in them...

My setup is the EOS 350D with Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5 and Hoya

cicular polarizer 72mm.

 

The problem i'm finding is getting good skies...when the sky is

perfectly blue with nice white clouds...everything on the ground is

underexposed...if my subjects are nicely pictured then the sky is

totally white...am i doing something wrong? Didnt used to have this

problem with the Sony F828...

 

all advice will be greatly appreciated

 

thx

[coconutdaydream]

dslr's dont have the dynamic range that negative film does, <br>this might be something to get used to, especially if <br>it's your first dslr. i would try using a tripod, expose one image for the <br>sky, one for the ground, and combine in them Photoshop or whatever program <br>you use. maybe a graduated ND filter?

[phule]

Or shoot less-contrasty scenes! :)

[mormegil]

I second the graduated neutral density filter.

 

I just got one a few weeks ago, and it's made a world of difference in my landscapes.

[phule]

There is actually a ton of detail in the shadows of those images. You can probably pull the subjects out of the shadows (the trade off being an increase in noise) if you expose more for the sky.

 

You could also see the couple hundred threads on this issue that exist in the archives for more tips, tricks, and advice.

[design8r]

Thx for advice, but it seems kinda hard to imagine the F828 would take better pics...

[PuppyDigs]

The Sony has more postprocessing built into the camera. DSLRs are designed to leave

most of the heavy postprocessing to you. You make the creative choice... Besides, it's

easy to pull shadow detail out an image with PSCS's highlight/shadow tool or a PS

Action (or manually if you know how).

[billy_ness]

Using an slr is nice because it gives you the capability (not necessarily ability, however) to MAKE a photograph. If you're into "taking pics" and expect the camera to do all the work, indeed a p/s with very shallow dof and constant f2.8 super zooms, and the ability to compose from the sensor's view, all may be positive features that outweigh whatever reasons you had for moving to an slr. Shoot in raw and learn to combine images or at least how to pull detail out of shadows and balance a scene. If done well, the dynamic range and cleanliness of the canon sensor in conjunction with raw processing and photoshop, will outshine the tiny p/s sensor and in camera jpg processing easily.

[billy_ness]

that should read, point and shoot with LACK of shallow dof

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

Options :

 

1) Buy a Grad ND filter set

 

2) Take 2 exposures (one for the sky and one for the land) and create a composite image in Photoshop like this :

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/article_2/

 

3) Pull detail back from shadows (worst method, due to pulled shadow tones suffering from 'posterisation' - pixelation of the colours

[ericpetersonphoto]

What Jose said. I invested in the Cokin system for Less than 200 bucks I got the holder and rings, A 4 stop ND( polorizer is 2 stop), a grad 2x and grad 4x. gray. Works great. It also makes me slow down and I find my shots have improved.

[chris_whitted]

What Puppy Face said. I used a 300 not long after they first came out and decided I was going to pass because I didn't get anything remotely useable with it. Most shots I took were extremely high contrast (white snow, dark pines, clear blue sunny sky - you get the idea). Then I discovered that shadow/highlight tool and wow. Went back to some of the images and they're perfectly useable.

 

Digital SLR simply requires more post processing work on your own after the fact. Here's a perfect example:<div></div>

[chris_whitted]

And here's with a little shadow/highlight adjustment. That was the only edit made between the two files (they've been resized from original but no sharpening or levels or anything).<div></div>

[chrisjb]

hi kp, have you tried the lense without a polariser incorrect angles of sun to filter can affect the out come, I use this lens on several different bodies with not many hassles , only ever use pol. with extreeme white subjects, eg cricket team pics. also dont know the body you have try different metering modes. my 20d hasn`t given much luck as centre weight but ok evaluated. Also the time of day morning and late afternoon ideal for scenics. middle of the day is to harsh a light with higher contrast.

 

have fun

[buck_rogers1]

The beauty of shooting raw (.CRW) is that you can "develop" the file with exposure compensation. Shoot your photo (expose for highlights as blown highlights in digital-like in transparencies-are gone for good). A second exposure with a tripod will ensure the highest quality but may be inconvenient. Instead, when you develop your raw file, develop it twice. Once with little or no exposure correction, then develop it again for the shadows (+ 1.0 to 2.0 EV). With the two files in photoshop, you can layer one over the other and remove the unwanted pixels (over or underexposed however they're ordered) from the top layer to reveal the well "developed" pixels beneath. <p> This technique allows a lot of flexibility, much more than an ND filter-though at the risk of being done digitally (acceptable if you're not a complete purist and if you were, you wouldn't be using digital) and accentuating some grain.<p> Search pnet for discussions on this technique and layer-masking.<div></div>

[chrisjb]

A little tutorial that may help for uneven exp

 

http://www.myjanee.com/tuts/paint4/city.htm

[digitmstr]

If you meter the incident light you'll have good, avg reading and a good RAW conversion program (like C1 PRO) will "extract" the extra dyn. range needed in such occasion. Certainly as much as any film could deal with. We used certain techniques with film, such as pull processing, for dealing with extreme contrast scenes. The same can be done with digital with much more precision and without the danger of screwing up the original.

<p>

I have found that C1 PRO does an excellent job at dealing with high-contrast scenes where an in-camera JPG would usually blow the high-lights.

<p>

The samples I am including are straight RAW conversions without any postprocessing, other than re-size. It's a high-contrast situation with 2 o' clock sun, clear skies and dark and white subects. Yet, C1 PRO managed to develop without blowing highlights or sacrificing shadow details. Again, no other post-processing was done to the images.

<p>

<p>

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3303061-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3303061-sm.jpg"></a><br><i> Straight converesion 1.</i></center>

<p>

<p>

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3303718-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3303718-sm.jpg"></a><br><i> Straight converesion 2</i></center>

[chrisjb]

Hi, I still don`t mind jpeg for convenience, this shot trying out sigma 24 70 2.8 Average metering at 24mm f11, with a little PS levels. 4pm sun.<div></div>

[dogbert]

Something that everyone else seems to have missed here is that if you are shooting JPEG, turning down the contrast in parameters will help. The 350xt's default settings have the contrast at +1. With a contrasty scene this can end up with a JPEG that is too contrasty - exposing for highlights will lead to too much shadow, or exposing for shadow will blow the highlights. Turning down the contrast to 0 or even -1 will produce a histogram much more bunched in the middle and should help.