Another solution: compositing.
Original pic:
Modified pic:
www.musicalpix.com
Nice subtleties? Lol.
Ah - you're posting from hell now, right?I did use Photoshop on these, but just dramatized them a little -
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner/henry122
Henry
--
Henry Falkner - SH-2, SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner
Just forget about the weather and concentrate on the subject.
www.musicalpix.com
I maybe wrong. Polarizers are for controlling glares from direct or reflected lights. On overcast day where there is hardly sunlight. Unless the shooter is aiming far the possible direct sunlight at a possible opening in the cloud, what is there to polarize?
I agree with Moti. But then, I am never a fun of photo manipulation by computer.Not sure about that. For me, the original is much better. You took a very nice photo with nice subtleties and you completely screwed it. Why?Another solution: compositing.
Original pic:
Modified pic:
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
A polarizer filters light with a certain polarization angle. When direct sunlight reflects off an object (dust particles and water vapor, water surfaces, glass, many building materials, etc), the light is polarized in on one direction (or within a narrow range of angles). A CPL lets you "tune" the polarization angle to be filtered.
The light you see from a cloud is a mixture of transmitted light (e.g. the sun is behind the cloud) and reflected light. The light that is reflected can be manipulated with a CPL, but the amount of the effect varies greatly due to many different factors. In my experience, there is usually an angle of the CPL that will enhance the contrast in clouds if the clouds vary in density. However, if the sky has a fairly consistent and even cover of clouds, the filter might not have a noticeable effect.
Photo manipulation I don't mind - if it's done tastefully and looks realistic. If the OP was trying to provide an example of the possibilities - this is a terrible example of how to do photo manipulation. Especially at the top of the tree line, the blending is obviously faked - and even the combination of dark, gray trees with bright blue sky and white clouds is a glaring color mismatch. A bit of dodging + burning and tone contrast, however, might turn this into a very interesting B&W image.I agree with Moti. But then, I am never a fun of photo manipulation by computer.Not sure about that. For me, the original is much better. You took a very nice photo with nice subtleties and you completely screwed it. Why?Another solution: compositing.
Original pic:
Modified pic:
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
--
ecube
buybuybuy, post a slightly larger version, and let us take a go at it?
It's the DPR default for images without recognizable EXIF data. ("No EXIF Data" means it was removed.)
Overcast days are much better for portraiture. No hard nose shadows on faces etc. bright sunlight is the worst condition for this type of photography. I also prefer overcast for landscape.
I agree.
Often when it's overcast I change my frame of mind to thinking of shots that will work as B&Ws. Overcast days are often ideal for B&W work because of the softer tonalities. The moodiness of overcast days usually mates well with B&Ws. For instance, check out a lot of Michael Kenna's work.
Shoot at first and last light, aka Blue Hour. I much prefer the blue sky you get at that hour to the gray sky you get later in the day. Plus, if the scene includes artificial lights they add points of interest you also don't get during the day...
In he film days, it was cheaper and easier to process B&W. For the average hobbyist, it was difficult and expensive to use and process color film. Most digital camera can convert color shots into monochrome, sepia, etc.
- just another DPR bug 