Blown out sign

[sunsets]

<p>Hi every one I have been playing with night photography and I can not seem to find a way to expose the signs right without all other things being turned to black. Maybe a neutral density filter? Take a look if you dont mind and maybe let me know what I can do. I am just learning and am stuck without taking two pictures and blending them together just to get it right. I would rather learn to do it in one picture than to cheat and use two.thanks for all who can help me. Bobby</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p>....stuck without taking two pictures and blending them together just to get it right. I would rather learn to do it in one picture than to cheat and use two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's absolutely nothing wrong with using two, or three, four or more, to get the image that you want...<br>

But where's the image?</p>

[sunsets]

<p>Dont know It didnt go through now to figure how to get it here</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>You can shoot a little earlier before it's black out, or you can bracket exposures and then blend them. If you shoot this as is, then 2 or 3 stops under, in raw preferably, you can then select just the highlights from the underexposed image, feather the selection, and copy and paste it into the other shot. If done properly you can get a natural looking result. There are other methods. This is one, and it works very well if done right.</p>

<p>As far as cheating, I am a staunch opponent of Photoshop fakery, but I don't think this falls into that category. Here you're using software to help overcome the limitations of the camera. The end result is something that's actually closer to reality than what the camera can give you in one expsoure.</p>

[john v.]

<p>The dynamic range of that scene simply exceeds the capabilities of the camera. If you shoot RAW (assuming your camera has that capability), you may be able achieve somewhat better results with one shot. However, you're best bet is to use a tripod, take two (or more) photos and combine them. Some new camera models are just hitting the market with built-in HDR capabilities, so the days of combining photos may be coming to an end. </p>

[john v.]

<p>The dynamic range of that scene simply exceeds the capabilities of the camera. If you shoot RAW (assuming your camera has that capability), you may be able achieve somewhat better results with one shot. However, you're best bet is to use a tripod, take two (or more) photos and combine them. Some new camera models are just hitting the market with built-in HDR capabilities, so the days of combining photos may be coming to an end. </p>

[john v.]

<p>The dynamic range of that scene simply exceeds the capabilities of the camera. If you shoot RAW (assuming your camera has that capability), you may be able achieve somewhat better results with one shot. However, you're best bet is to use a tripod, take two (or more) photos and combine them. Some new camera models are just hitting the market with built-in HDR capabilities, so the days of combining photos may be coming to an end. </p>

[john v.]

<p>Mods, feel free to delete my redundant posts. The net hung up when I hit the confirm button, somehow causing my post to send in triplicate.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>I've seen lots of double posts John, but a triple ... nice. ;)<br>

A ND filter won't help - as it will make everything darker. I agree with everyone else - combine some bracketed images and I think you would have a really nice photo.</p>

[sunsets]

<p>I did this around 2am because that is about the only time the wind will lay down to get the reflections that I was seeing. I did shot in raw at 125 iso on tripod for a 10 sec, 24-70 L @f8 with a 5dmii. I never thought about bracketing but will try it and see what happens. This is straight out of the camera and converted to jpeg. Thanks</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>I would rather learn to do it in one picture than to cheat and use two."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, I think you want to achieve "what the eye apparently sees", correct?</p>

<p>If so, do note that the eye has auto-iris and autofocus that can not be (easily) defeated, and when viewing a live scene such as your picture, your eye can only isolate small sections at a time to create a composite in your mind while making micro-adjustments as your eye bounces around - just as a camera would using spot metering.</p>

<p>If you stare at a light, you won't be able to make out shadow details even if it's close in your peripheral vision. If you then look at the shadows, it'll take a short time before dark vision is restored; just as cameras. So, blending multiple exposures isn't cheating at all, rather it's a method of compressing the dynamic range (just as your eye would) so the resulting image will <em>appear to resemble </em>what the eye sees.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just read the instructions on posting the picture -- make it maximum dimension of 700 pixels and put a title on it and it will display in line.</p>

<p>That being said, here is a reduced version of your image, and a simple fix done in Adobe Camera RAW to bring up shadow detail and reduce highlights (aka the "Ozone System":). With better exposure for the highlights, either an HDR kind of approach or even just bringing up shadow detail as I have done would produce something more like what the human eye sees.</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Multiple exposures / HDR / etc. are great, but simply masking around the blown sign and then using that mask to burn in the glare area around the sign can help. I didn't take a lot of time on this, so my burning is awfully bumpy, but this will give you an idea of what can be done without reshooting the image.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Nice shot, by the way!</p>

<div></div>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Robert,<br>

I responded hours ago, but couldn't come back to you sooner to follow up.</p>

<p>It's good you are getting to grips to wanting shoot a good picture. There's nothing like a bit of dissapointment in trying something and getting moderate success, but with the support and advice of all the suggestions that you have received above, you shall soon see that it can be done. No, not always easy with just 'one shot', but this visual demanded more than one.</p>

<p>You mentioned that you shot this in RAW. Excellent. Now do some searching on how you can use layers or HDR to make a single exposure effectively seem like 3 or 4 different exposures. You have tons of more data with your .RAW file than we respondents have to play with, so let's see your 'playing' results. Have fun! </p>

<p><em>(PS. I had to 'play' too!)</em></p><div></div>

[wogears]

<p>Robert: There is no 'cheat'. It's a ridiculous word in this context. Do painters 'cheat' when they leave details out of a scene? In the case of your image, exposure blending combined with adjustments in software would be the best way to get the result you want. It would best represent what your eye saw at the moment of exposure. </p>

[sunsets]

<p>I want to thank all of you who gave me this help. That is why I am here. I have a long way to go but I am learning a lot from these answers that you all have given me. I do not have photoshop yet but have been on lynda training web site learning before I invest to make shure I get what I need. The terms HCR is new to me and also ACR so I would tend to think that this is a photoshop term. For now I just use the software that came with the camera DPP theres my three letters. I would tend to guess photoshop is the way to go or atleast the way most people go? Or do i need to look at other software. Camera raw, light room, photoshop or all? Thanks again because my wife just doesnt get it why I like and spend so much time and effort trying to take the same picture working to get it right. Where as every one here does thats why we are here. Bobby</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Is the flare on the bank sign from the lens or the sensor, a combo of both?</p>