how to get ride of glare

[ronny_calenberg]

<p>what would be the best way to get ride of that high contrast glare in the back round ( the sky )<br>

a filter</p>

<p>please have a look at my pic</p>

<p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151059845477343&set=a.10151040655037343.425271.580942342&type=1&theater">http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151059845477343&set=a.10151040655037343.425271.580942342&type=1&theater</a></p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>Best suggestion I can think of - shoot at a different time of day, when the sun is in a different position.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Take the photo at another time of day? Use HDR? Crop it out? Try another camera angle?</p>

[phule]

<p>It's not glare, it's simply an over-exposed sky. The camera cannot handle the huge difference between the darkness of the shadows and the brightness of the sky in one exposure. Short of copying and pasting in a blue sky from a different photo, there is nothing you can do with this existing photo. As others have said, pick a different time of day, a different angle, multiple-exposures (HDR), or all three.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>What Rob said.</p>

<p>Another trick, that can help in certain situations is to use a Graduated Neutral Density filter. I purchased a serious plate-and-holder set, and also a simple screw-on, rotatable filter. I use the latter much more, simply because it's convenient.</p>

<p>B+W makes a nice one, in 0.3 and 0.6 darkening values. 0.6 is the one to get. It is rotatable, similar to a polarizer filter. Most times you want the darkening portion near the top of picture, but for your posted pic, for example, you'd rotate it to darken the right side.</p>

<p>The screw-in version doesn't have the flexibility and effectiveness of the square plate and holder filters, but is very convenient, and a cheaper introduction, to try it out.</p>

[ronny_calenberg]

<p>wow thanks alot for your speedy , helpful responses</p>

 

[ronny_calenberg]

<p>i was considering buying the gnd filter ,, think im gonna give it a bash , many thanks</p>

[grh]

<p>Another option, if your camera allows, is to shoot in RAW and (mostly) expose for the sky. Then post-process to brighten the darker areas and bring out the details you're looking for.<br>

A dramatic example of the kind of information that RAW records can be seen here:<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/UR05N.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="1064" /></p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Yep, shooting Raw and then recovering highlights on conversion (using a converter with <em>good</em> highlight recovery - many don't) will get you an awful long way, Ronny.</p>

<p>A somewhat relevant discussion is here: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00atzB</p>

[craveprints]

<p>Try getting your exposure right on the sky and then use this exposure setting for the image. This shouldn't wash out the sky, but may create more underexposure on the focus of a shot like the image above because I am assuming the awning was in a shadow.. Perhaps correct exposure setting on the sky and a fill flash for the shadow under the awning? Also polarizing filters will darken the sky just like polarizing sunglass do on your eyes, so a good polarizing filter may be just what you need. The ND filters from what I understand gradually transition from dark to light, but there may be a line across the middle of a shot like this; I think they are more suited for landscape photography, and not too good if there is something like a mountain in the image, since its not a straight horizon line (not exactly sure because I have never used one). But definitely the use of shooting in RAW will help you adjust this problem in post like the others said.<br>

-A</p>