Skatterball
Veteran Member
Simple either bracket, bracket and bracket or shoot HDR.
--
John
--
John
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
how would you have metered this scene?
- Thread starter tc333
- Start date
Skatterball
Veteran Member
exactly. and the other option is to wait until sunset or sunrise and take advantage of the orangey, muted light. Also it's a good candidate for hdr.
--
John
--
John
Skatterball
Veteran Member
Great advise. Problem is, I think, a lot of us just want to go shoot and capture a decent scene without all the technical stuff. Yes, that is not always easy. But I want what I want when I want it, so to speak.
--
John
--
John
rondhamalam
Veteran Member
Correction: mistypingIf the dynamic range is low it will have no difference between multiple exposure and one-shot HDR, but if the dynamic range is very high the camera can not capture all the tone on the high dynamic range scene.
Example where the dynamic range was too high, even after I metered at lower exposure (everything became dark) the details on the highlights were still blown off and could not be recovered.
Of course this was just a test shot, why would normal people make a picture of a scene from inside a restaurant in Legoland with the camera on the table?
I don't have comparison ready. I leave this privilege to you
Look for an extreme dynamic range scene (like from inside restaurant), then create multiple exposure, then process HDR from 3 files. And then use the first file only, do process it as single shot hdr, and compare the results. You will find extreme condition when the single shot can not recover all the details and color. On cheaper camera (e.g. 40D) you can easily find that the color of the sky will be broken, and with other camera you will find banding in shadows area.
I meant D40 (Nikon) not the 40D (Canon).
The D40 is worse in dynamic range.
VittoDigital
Leading Member
Cary I fully agree with you, it looks better than the white sky but it's still totally fake. I only was suggesting that when everything else is lost you can still count on PP to improve your pics 
.
I know there are many possibility to get it better but it requires more time and skill.
I, personally, prefere the mask obtained working on a copy of the more contrasted channel, in this case the blue one, and I paste a suitable sky from my personal gallery to accord it to the direction of the light I see in the original pic. I've found that smoothing a little (0,5-0,8 radius) the mask reduces the artifacts and improve the "natural" effect. Here a quick, but more"worked" try, hope you like it better
Take care
Vitto
--
Lol, I need an upgrade, my Nikon D6x is a too limited gear!
.I know there are many possibility to get it better but it requires more time and skill.
I, personally, prefere the mask obtained working on a copy of the more contrasted channel, in this case the blue one, and I paste a suitable sky from my personal gallery to accord it to the direction of the light I see in the original pic. I've found that smoothing a little (0,5-0,8 radius) the mask reduces the artifacts and improve the "natural" effect. Here a quick, but more"worked" try, hope you like it better
Take care
Vitto
--
Lol, I need an upgrade, my Nikon D6x is a too limited gear!
Fjrjacko
Leading Member
----------
Now that sure looks cooked...If you stuff up , fill the sky in later
cary smith
Veteran Member
yes VD, happy you agree
and I do very much like your last re-work with the clouds, v nice, looks very real
cary
and I do very much like your last re-work with the clouds, v nice, looks very real
cary
VittoDigital
Leading Member
--
Lol, I need an upgrade, my Nikon D6x is a too limited gear!
Lol, I need an upgrade, my Nikon D6x is a too limited gear!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum