River at Appleby

[treetop]

Okay you experts here's another one of my pics. Now I can't see much wrong with this one, but I'll bow to you more experienced guys/girls. What if anything can be done to improve this shot?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/3212771190_2a6e62d02e.jpg

[owenmorris]

I tried this....


Yours
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3365/3522696417_a9c50236bb_o.jpg

Mine
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3522695919_36cf634c71_o.jpg

[coffee]

This is a very nice shot treetop, I look forward to the challange. The one thing I see is that the clouds are blown out in the sky, not in the water. So this one will be tough.

[treetop]

I understand what you are saying about the clouds being blown out in the sky. How could I have overcome that in the original shot.
I thought Owen did a great job. I wish I was clever.
I have to say this one of my favourite pics.

[coffee]

Easy to do. You take at least two shots on a tripod. Take one that exposes for what you have in your original shot. Then without moving the tripod, expose for the sky. You know have two images. Take those two to your editing program, and merge the two. There is some fiddling involved. But you can merge the two images so the foreground is properly exposed, and the background is properly exposed. When merged, you have the perfect foreground, and perfect background. A perfectly exposed shot.

When shooting shots such as these, and you have no tripod, you have to make a decision on what you want exposed correctly. In this shot I would say you did very well. The sky is a very small part of the overall image, so you had no choice but to expose for the foreground and you did very well.

Owen did pretty well in bring back some of the sky, but it's a little over saturated in the foreground and looks a little unnatural. With two exposes you can get it all correct. One of the beauties of landscape shots like this is that you can get it all right in post processing. But seldom in one shot if parts are overexposed.

[coffee]

There are other ways to help this image in PS if you only have one shot of this. One way is to "select" the sky and work on it some by adjusting the exposure, color, and levels. But it won't be as good as merging the two correctly exposed images.

[jaydi]

Easy to do. You take at least two shots on a tripod. Take one that exposes for what you have in your original shot. Then without moving the tripod, expose for the sky. You know have two images. Take those two to your editing program, and merge the two. There is some fiddling involved. But you can merge the two images so the foreground is properly exposed, and the background is properly exposed. When merged, you have the perfect foreground, and perfect background. A perfectly exposed shot.

When shooting shots such as these, and you have no tripod, you have to make a decision on what you want exposed correctly. In this shot I would say you did very well. The sky is a very small part of the overall image, so you had no choice but to expose for the foreground and you did very well.


Owen did pretty well in bring back some of the sky, but it's a little over saturated in the foreground and looks a little unnatural. With two exposes you can get it all correct. One of the beauties of landscape shots like this is that you can get it all right in post processing. But seldom in one shot if parts are overexposed.

Hi
Not sure what you mean by exposing the sky
Cathy

[coffee]

Hi
Not sure what you mean by exposing the sky
Cathy

OK, exposure is a very complicated subject. But for most that take pictures they take one shot. Your camera is looking at the entire shot, and exposing for the majority. So in this case, they majority is the foreground which is exposed properly. And in order to get that proper exposure for the majority of the image, it has to over expose the sky. If the majority of the picture was the sky and clouds, the rest of the image would have been underexposed or much darker than what you see.

If the camera only had the sky and clouds in the frame, it would have look far different from the sky and clouds in this shot. It would have been very blue, with nice white clouds, but since the majority of the image was the foreground, it made a determination that THAT'S what needed to be properly exposed, and thus blowing out the highlights of the sky to properly expose the foreground.

I hope this makes sense.

For those of you that have question about what exposure means, how the camera exposes a shot, and any other questions about basic photography, please give the Proud Photographers Course a look. This course is perfect for those that love taking pictures, but may have questions about how to better their photo taking outcome. If you are new to photography but not quite sure what it takes to capture better images, give this course a look. It really is the best thing you can do to get better images, and you have an instructor that will guild you through the entire process. It is the fast track to taking better pictures, not to mention it's the best value in basic photography 101 that you will find. But of course the forum and other members will certainly do anything we can to give a hand.

[dkippen]

I think Joseph should be an assistant instructor - you do very well at this.

[treetop]

Jeeez, ain't you lot clever. Please feel free to continue to give constructive criticism I am really wanting to improve my photographic skills, as it's something I enjoy very much. I will not be offended in any way, it's very encouraging when people in the know give praise to amateurs like me.
But I must stress I'm not so clued up with some of the thecno jargon, so please do your best to keep it simple as possible.

Cheers Len
aka treetop

[ladyups]

You could also use an ND filter on your lens...me, I prefer to expose for the sky. I like my sky blue and then I mask off the foreground in PS and bring up the exposure a bit. As long as you are shooting with a low ISO, the noise level isn't apparent in the underexposed part of the image. If you are shooting at idea light conditions, I don't think this is nearly as bad a problem as it is when the sun is high above the earth. This image had no filter and no exposure adjustment. It was just shot in the morning with the light to my back. Maybe I'm wrong in my thinking here, I'm just learning too, but I don't have nearly as much trouble with blown skies when its early morning or late afternoon and I expose for the sky.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/ladyups/RuleofThirds3_assignment5.jpg

[coffee]

Here is my go. And as always a little sloppily done, but the sky change was the important issue.

[owenmorris]

I feel that I am still relatively new to photography and also to any editing,If I am not 100% happy with a photo I will try my hardest to make the image pleasing to me with white balance, saturation even sharpness before I post it anywhere.One thing I personally don't agree with in editing is adding things to photographs such as sky etc as its then not original.I have seen some very nice photo's and when asked the photographer how he shot such a nice sky for him to say it was add just kills it for me....

[owenmorris]

Here is my go. And as always a little sloppily done, but the sky change was the important issue.

Hi Joseph I don't mean to sound harsh I know you say its just a quick edit and I'm by far not the best at editing but to me it looks like that sky has just been dropped in there and does not look at all natural which kind of defeats the object.

[coffee]

Some people feel that way. But the way I see it is if it's a choice between trash canning what could be a great photo because of one aspect of it, then I two do what I can to save it. But also remember, that by changing the saturation and sharpens you could also be altering the actual image that you took.

Everyone has their own comfort level of how much they will or can do to an image.

[coffee]

Hi Joseph I don't mean to sound harsh I know you say its just a quick edit and I'm by far not the best at editing but to me it looks like that sky has just been dropped in there and does not look at all natural which kind of defeats the object.

I agree it may not look as natural at a single shot image, due to time mainly and the nature of an edit. The objective as I saw it when I gave my go was to fix the sky, but it was too blown out to fix. But like I said, even if I had been able to fix it instead of pasting a new one in, I would consider that the same kind of change. It didn't get right in camera, so in order to save what could be a good image, you do what you can.

Would you consider an HDR, or taking two shots of this image and merging them together to get the correct exposure for the for ground and sky as a cheat? And hey, to each his. No worries here either, but I do consider even changing saturation as a major edit to an out of camera image.

I also think there are two types of photography. A more pure photography, and one that leans to the artsy side. I love them both.

[owenmorris]

Hi Joseph without going to far into it and stealing this thread I understand what your saying and yes HDR may well change exposure by blending 3 or more of the same image but the point I made was adding another photo or blending two different photos altogether.

Yes your right each to his own.

Owen

[jaydi]

OK, exposure is a very complicated subject. But for most that take pictures they take one shot. Your camera is looking at the entire shot, and exposing for the majority. So in this case, they majority is the foreground which is exposed properly. And in order to get that proper exposure for the majority of the image, it has to over expose the sky. If the majority of the picture was the sky and clouds, the rest of the image would have been underexposed or much darker than what you see.

If the camera only had the sky and clouds in the frame, it would have look far different from the sky and clouds in this shot. It would have been very blue, with nice white clouds, but since the majority of the image was the foreground, it made a determination that THAT'S what needed to be properly exposed, and thus blowing out the highlights of the sky to properly expose the foreground.

I hope this makes sense.

For those of you that have question about what exposure means, how the camera exposes a shot, and any other questions about basic photography, please give the Proud Photographers Course a look. This course is perfect for those that love taking pictures, but may have questions about how to better their photo taking outcome. If you are new to photography but not quite sure what it takes to capture better images, give this course a look. It really is the best thing you can do to get better images, and you have an instructor that will guild you through the entire process. It is the fast track to taking better pictures, not to mention it's the best value in basic photography 101 that you will find. But of course the forum and other members will certainly do anything we can to give a hand.

Thanks Coffee, you cleared that up very well,

[jaydi]

I really want o learn how to take good pics without resorting to PS....am a bit of a purist I think.

But at the same time I think it can be good for changing or altering a pic but really only as a last resort....this may also be because Im not sure how to use my CS3 and am just making excuses HEHE!!:D

Cathy

[ladyups]

Hey, Cathy...I agree and we should all strive to get it right in camera but remember...even Ansel Adams didn't always get it right in camera...he did a lot of dodging and burning in the dark room. This was long before computers and PS...I'll dare to say he would have used PS if he were still here among us. :)

[coffee]

OK, exposure is a very complicated subject. But for most that take pictures they take one shot. Your camera is looking at the entire shot, and exposing for the majority. So in this case, they majority is the foreground which is exposed properly. And in order to get that proper exposure for the majority of the image, it has to over expose the sky. If the majority of the picture was the sky and clouds, the rest of the image would have been underexposed or much darker than what you see.

If the camera only had the sky and clouds in the frame, it would have look far different from the sky and clouds in this shot. It would have been very blue, with nice white clouds, but since the majority of the image was the foreground, it made a determination that THAT'S what needed to be properly exposed, and thus blowing out the highlights of the sky to properly expose the foreground.

I hope this makes sense.

For those of you that have question about what exposure means, how the camera exposes a shot, and any other questions about basic photography, please give the Proud Photographers Course a look. This course is perfect for those that love taking pictures, but may have questions about how to better their photo taking outcome. If you are new to photography but not quite sure what it takes to capture better images, give this course a look. It really is the best thing you can do to get better images, and you have an instructor that will guild you through the entire process. It is the fast track to taking better pictures, not to mention it's the best value in basic photography 101 that you will find. But of course the forum and other members will certainly do anything we can to give a hand.

I should clear something up here. When I say your camera exposes for the entire scene, that's assuming you use the metering mode of Evaluative/Matrix. They are the same. Most people use this mode and never change it. I think a lot of P&S cameras default to Center-Weighted Average.

If you are in Partial/Spot, or Center-Weighted Average, your camera looks at the center focus point, and tries to meter a small portion of the center of the frame. So Spot would be best used if your subject is back lit, so your camera ignores what isn't in a very small area of your center focus point. But when backlit, and you use Spot, your subject may be metered correctly, but you will certainly blow out the background where it's backlit.

http://www.best-family-photography-tips.com/metering-mode.html

[treetop]

Here is my go. And as always a little sloppily done, but the sky change was the important issue.

Joseph, have you done some sort of trickery here, or is that my picture as it should look if I knew what I was doing?
I just can't believe that is the same photograph.

Okay I've had a good second look and I've been flicking between the two pictures I see what you have done now I don't know how you've done it but it's very clever.

[coffee]

No it is not the same sky. The sky in your image was overexposed to the point where there was no detail in it. I pasted in a different sky image from one I had laying around.

[treetop]

Another part of the beautiful English countryside. I need one of you experts to tell me how I can stop blowing out the sky on my pics.
The sky's reflection in the water is nothing like the sky in the pic.

[jesse]

Hey Treetop,
Love your photo. placed some clouds behind your shot, not the best match but my cloud inventory is rather low. Being a low resolution photo it's hard to blend the trees with the clouds. I also removed the safety rail leading to the water. I think removing it helps the eye to keep moving down the line and onto the river.
I feel it's quite alright to edit your photos by adding clouds or removing sticking points. Sometimes you can't get back to that spot again and get the shot you know is there. I recently posted a shot called "big old tree". I'll never get back there but it was a childhood memory of my best friend so I wanted her to have a photo of it as she used to see it. Took out the white drab background and inserted some fluffy clouds.
If you have some clouds and a higher resoltion I would be happy to insert them for you.

Jesse

[treetop]

How the bloody hell do you do that?
Now that's clever.

[Kaye]

Easy to do. You take at least two shots on a tripod. Take one that exposes for what you have in your original shot. Then without moving the tripod, expose for the sky. You know have two images. Take those two to your editing program, and merge the two. There is some fiddling involved. But you can merge the two images so the foreground is properly exposed, and the background is properly exposed. When merged, you have the perfect foreground, and perfect background. A perfectly exposed shot.
When shooting shots such as these, and you have no tripod, you have to make a decision on what you want exposed correctly. In this shot I would say you did very well. The sky is a very small part of the overall image, so you had no choice but to expose for the foreground and you did very well.

Owen did pretty well in bring back some of the sky, but it's a little over saturated in the foreground and looks a little unnatural. With two exposes you can get it all correct. One of the beauties of landscape shots like this is that you can get it all right in post processing. But seldom in one shot if parts are overexposed.

Hi Joseph,
I am following this thread; would love to ask one question - hope it is easy.
Your text above that I highlighted in red.... - How do I merge the foreground and the background together if I take two shots separately, exposing the foreground in one... and eg. the sky(background)in the next.
Can this be done in PS?
(I only have CS2 at present). If it has something to do with masks, I have not yet learnt this - but this is my next lesson I wish to teach myself.

[Kaye]

Here is my go. And as always a little sloppily done, but the sky change was the important issue.


I feel that I am still relatively new to photography and also to any editing,If I am not 100% happy with a photo I will try my hardest to make the image pleasing to me with white balance, saturation even sharpness before I post it anywhere.One thing I personally don't agree with in editing is adding things to photographs such as sky etc as its then not original.I have seen some very nice photo's and when asked the photographer how he shot such a nice sky for him to say it was add just kills it for me....


Joseph and Owen,
In my opinion it is OK to add or detract something from a photo if the photo means something to you, and you are prepared to spend the time to do it properly, but most importantly trying to keep it as close to the original as possible.
Joseph, I rather like the colour,(or perhaps a shade or two lighter) in your sky change, but would it not have been better to have replaced with a sky with "cumulus" style clouds to match the reflection in the water rather than the "straight" ones?
These "sky replacement" edits are still "above my head" at present. I love editing in PS (as my shots sometimes need some), but my aim is to learn most about edits in PS. (and also taking better shots) !!

[jesse]

Thanks Tree,
In photoshop they have this Realy Cool tool called "patch" and it is very easy to use, sort of like the healing tool. Not sure if it is available in elements. The sky was added using a layer and mask using the blue color channel. You use one of the color channels to make a layer, then drag in the background. It's little more complicated than that. I just learned it from Scott Kelbys book The Photoshop Channels Book. That is a realy nice photo, were was it taken? I'm not familiar with Appleby.

Jesse

[treetop]

Appleby Cumbria. we were staying in a cottage at Lower Betham North Yorkshire, and we decided one day to take a trip on the settle to Carlyle railway,the train crosses the Ribblesdale Viaduct we alighted at Appleby in Cumbria had little stroll round took a few snaps had a pint caught the train back, we had a great day out.

[treetop]

The Cottage we stayed at.

[Pat]

Ansel Adams would have thought he'd died and gone to processing heaven with Photoshop. Wait, I guess he did.
There's no such thing as a photography purist. There are those who might think they'd like to be, for whatever idealistic reasoning, but it's just not going to happen. The very act of capturing an image on whatever medium alters that image. No camera will capture an image as it appears to your eye/brain. My eye/brain sees a different image than yours. Interpretation is what makes art.
I think, though, that when you start adding elements, it is no longer a photograph, a "recording of light". Removing small, bothersome distractions is relatively inconsequential. I think the more interdependance between the photo and the object being added/removed, then the more it should prey on your conscience to do so.
Having said all that, if photojournalism is your aim, then you do have a moral imperative to keep it honest. Art photography is a horse of a different odour, however. Pretty much anything goes. While it is true that every picture tells a story, some are fiction, some non-fiction. It is incumbant upon us to know the difference.

[Pat]

And in keeping with the exposure line in this thread...
My cam can be set up to take three shots at variable exposures (up to +/- 2 stops). This is to facilitate HDR photography. However I have found it also quite handy in the above mentioned multi-exposure combining (sort of HDR Lite). I place the different exposure on dif. layers, select a soft edged brush, and erase portions of the different layers (usually using just two layers).
Even without a tripod, if I don't have my cam set to burst mode, I'll take a shot, dial down the exposure and take the same shot (roughly). I keep a rule of thirds grid permanently visible in my viewfinder that helps keep the shots fairly close. Cropping takes care of excess edges.

[Pat]

Hi Tree.
This is your original sky. (Or what there was of it that was retreivable). I isolated the sky from the rest, boosted the colour saturation, lowered the midtones, and applied a goodly amount of gaussian blur to even out the blockiness that appeared.

cheers...

[treetop]

I like it.

[coffee]

Nice edit Pat.