An evening walk with the kids

[scoff]

I need some help with some pictures I took.
None of these have been processed in any way, although some of the colours would possibly suggest otherwise!

When I had my old SLR I used filters to darken the sky so I could represent the clouds, and the landscape. But With the Digi I dont, because I'm assured you can sort it out in post processing! Well I cant???
So do I use a filter or what???

Anyhow, do these pictures work? I like some, but others lack the X-factor bland lifeless colours etc...

HELP!!!!!

http://www.andyschofield.co.uk/photo/peak1.jpg

http://www.andyschofield.co.uk/photo/peak2.jpg

http://www.andyschofield.co.uk/photo/peak3.jpg

http://www.andyschofield.co.uk/photo/peak4.jpg

http://www.andyschofield.co.uk/photo/peak5.jpg

http://www.andyschofield.co.uk/photo/lady1.jpg

[WetSparks]

ND grad work great on digital as well :)

OK, yes you can sort it out in PP, and its also a lot more flexible if the pics are shot in raw format. There are several options open to you involving layer masks or simple doge and burn tools amongst many.

With this quick re-work all I did was use the magnetic lasso tool to select the sky, then inverse the selection (I find I get a better selection doing it that way. Fortunately because you have such a clear definition between sky and land its quite easy on these shots. In the selected area I altered the gamma, saturation and contrast settings to give the effect shown. Then I just gave the whole scene a small amount of USM (sharpening). Took all of 5 mins ;)


http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/Lake_1.jpg

[WetSparks]

Oops, forgot to add this. It's a link to a site where you can download some video tutorials, like blending exposures.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-video.htm

[CT]

WetSparks has done a good job there with what he had to work with, but the problem is these shots are all badly under-exposed. They're also suffering from severe compression artifacts which you can see in the water above. Enhancing the contrast only makes those artifacts more noticeable.

Here's another I've done a quick HDR fudge job on.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/530/Generated_HDR_-_Tone_mapped_scoff_.jpg

It's not really pretty :D. If you go back to the original image and process and reduce for web more carefully, you have some recoverable images, but they'll never look as good as if you'd got the exposure right in the first place. :shrug:

[WetSparks]

CT, is that where the reflections in the water look a little 'digital' square'ish ?

[CT]

CT, is that where the reflections in the water look a little 'digital' square'ish ?

Yes. You can see them in Scoff's original too. :)

The image is only 79kb, so hardly surprising.

[WetSparks]

Taa for that, another little bit learned :thumbs:

[CT]

Tha's the reason we set the image size limit at 160kb for images posted in Gallery here. With careful size reduction it's still a reasonable image quality, but small enough to be of very limited use to anyone who wanted to nick the images. ;)

[scoff]

Cheers Guys,
I shot most in RAW and photoshop did its auto adjustment, which in some I was unhappy with. I mostly bracketed the pictures with a view to blending, but I'm no expert and seem to cock more up than enhance! Some of the images I have, with some "good" processing could be reasonably good, But I need to work on the processing I think!

CT, the exposure is the Issue for me, If I expose the picture using the cams meter I get good foreground exposure, but the sky is white! or If I expose to capture the sky, the foreground is under exposed.

Without using a filter, how can I get this balance right without lots of post processing???

Appreciate the comments and help chaps
thanks

[CT]

CT, the exposure is the Issue for me, If I expose the picture using the cams meter I get good foreground exposure, but the sky is white! or If I expose to capture the sky, the foreground is under exposed.

Welcome to a problem that has beset photographers since the very beginning.:D


Without using a filter, how can I get this balance right without lots of post processing???

The short answer is you can't. You can try metering for the sky and foreground separately then setting a midway exposure which with RAW processing may give you enough leeway to preserve detail in both, but it's far from a satisfactory method, and wont give the results that a grad filter will, or taking two separate exposures and combining them in processing.

[scoff]

lol
Ok So its not just me then! :)

[CT]

lol
Ok So its not just me then! :)

Far from it. ;) I hate messing about with filters, but landscape photography is difficult and if that's where your interest lies then a selection of grad filters and a polariser would be pretty essential investments.

Strange how we use that word for something which will cost a bomb and isn't really an investment at all. :lol:

[scoff]

I had in my old SLR kit a Blue and Grey Grad filter, and found its use totally invaluable, I guess I should be looking at going back to basics and not rely on the Digital world for my landscapes. That said I have seen some truly spectacular effects from guys here with HDR processing.. I need to find my balance I think.

thanks for the help.