How do you get the setting sun to look like a circle / sphere?

gilbouk

gilbouk

Messages
3,435
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
My attempt resulted in a messy looking sun. Do I need a filter?

5Y0A5176 1 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
 
ancient_mariner said:
No, you need the sky in front of the sun to be free of clouds.
Click to expand...
I've seen some examples where the sun doesn't quite have the sting in terms of the highlights being blown out. How is that achieved? P.S. is this good for the sensor? I know it's not good for your eyes if you have a DSLR however I have a mirrorless
 
And probably a few stops of underexposure compensation.
 
The easiest option is HDR done well. Lots of careful shadow recovery can help. I intentionally blow the sun unless it's really big and dull, because that's what the eye sees.
 
You need to expose for the sun and for that to work it needs to be just on the horizon. A bit of haze can help. This is as close as I think I've managed...

Sunset from the A3072 GX7 P1140405.JPG
 
A couple of examples.

You need decent lenses to shoot directly into the sun, especially when it's high in the sky. This shot was taken with an older 28-200 superzoom. The lens design simply can't cope with such an intense point-source, and has flared heavily as a result.
Weston mono 1 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Here's a more conventional type sunset shot - clear skies and a dark forground:
Morjim Goa sunset 1 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Finally, here's what you probably wanted - a large, low sun, weakened by having to shine through a low haze so that it's barely brighter than the foreground.
Sundown La Pared by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

But a little breakup of the ball isn't a bad thing. This was shot using an old manual-focus Nikon 135 f2.8, and has flared within the sun area, losing definition that a modern lens would retain.
Chesterton mill-8817 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
As others have said I find a clear or slightly hazy sky with the sun quite low and under exposure works best for me.
I'm often a stop or two under but as it gets closer to the horizon I find I need less under exposure.
Untitled-1 small.jpg
 
I find dumb luck works for me.


_7513906.jpgDSC_6965.jpg
 
swanseamale47 said:
As others have said I find a clear or slightly hazy sky with the sun quite low and under exposure works best for me.
I'm often a stop or two under but as it gets closer to the horizon I find I need less under exposure.
View attachment 364008
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity do you use a narrow aperture to get the birds nicely sharp? I find my AF struggles with the amount of negative exposure compensation I have to use. Maybe more so with mirrorless?
 
rpn said:
Weather condition plays a big part in getting what you are after.

Red Horizon by Stan, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Stunning, I'd be interested to see what your photo looked like straight out of the camera, and how much if any shadow recovery you had to do
 
I'm finding that when using mirrorless, dialling in negative exposure compensation means that threw the electronic viewfinder, you can't make out the foreground at all, and often the camera misses focus if you target the foreground. Would for this sort of photography turning off the exposure preview be the solution, and using MF? I also understand for DSLR photographers, looking through the optical viewfinder damages your eyes. Keen to understand how people would shoot this - tripod / shooting with live view?
 
ancient_mariner said:
A couple of examples.

You need decent lenses to shoot directly into the sun, especially when it's high in the sky. This shot was taken with an older 28-200 superzoom. The lens design simply can't cope with such an intense point-source, and has flared heavily as a result.
Weston mono 1 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Here's a more conventional type sunset shot - clear skies and a dark forground:
Morjim Goa sunset 1 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Finally, here's what you probably wanted - a large, low sun, weakened by having to shine through a low haze so that it's barely brighter than the foreground.
Sundown La Pared by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

But a little breakup of the ball isn't a bad thing. This was shot using an old manual-focus Nikon 135 f2.8, and has flared within the sun area, losing definition that a modern lens would retain.
Chesterton mill-8817 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Stunning photos, my favourite has to be your second one with how well the flaring is controlled, and the detail you've got in the foreground
 
gilbouk said:
Stunning photos, my favourite has to be your second one with how well the flaring is controlled, and the detail you've got in the foreground
Click to expand...

Thank you. Sony A7III and 24-105 - the lens is really well designed and the sensor simply has huge dynamic range.
 
gilbouk said:
Out of curiosity do you use a narrow aperture to get the birds nicely sharp? I find my AF struggles with the amount of negative exposure compensation I have to use. Maybe more so with mirrorless?
Click to expand...
I cant remember off hand the setting, but I'm usually around the F8 mark. I just got lucky with the gulls, someone was feeding them a bit further up.
 
gilbouk said:
I've seen some examples where the sun doesn't quite have the sting in terms of the highlights being blown out. How is that achieved? P.S. is this good for the sensor? I know it's not good for your eyes if you have a DSLR however I have a mirrorless
Click to expand...


I've shot (probably) thousands of shots straight into the setting sun (on DSLRs and mirrorless) and haven't damaged a sensor yet. I wouldn't try the same thing with the Sun at noon though!

I'm almost always after the colours and cloud shapes rather than anything in the foreground (other than the sunset reflecting in the sea) so I expose for that and lose as much of the blocked out foreground as possible. From memory, I usually spot meter off the Sun and dial in one or 2 stops of underexposure, chimping to check that I'm getting what I want. Aperture is usually around the f/8 - f/11 range.
 
gilbouk said:
That's what I'm after!! You must have really underexposed. Did you manually focus in this, or if AF what did you focus
Click to expand...
For this type of shot I would have set A priority and selected f16 for the greatest DOF. Then spot metered on the sky above the sun as that is what I wanted to capture and locked that in. I would then used Auto focus on one of the boats in the foreground, half pressed the shutter and recomposed.
The result was underexposed in the foreground but then brought back in PP.
 
Having the sun as a disk in a cloudless sky best achieved in long dry spell or when there is lot of dust in the atmosphere.
The more dust and ozone there is the mire likely you will get a round disk.
 
Suvv said:
For this type of shot I would have set A priority and selected f16 for the greatest DOF. Then spot metered on the sky above the sun as that is what I wanted to capture and locked that in. I would then used Auto focus on one of the boats in the foreground, half pressed the shutter and recomposed.
The result was underexposed in the foreground but then brought back in PP.
Click to expand...

I must be going wrong I never use f16 at least not since my film days.
Oh wait realise why now it us a matter of sensor size and lens combo. Not an absolute setting. I also use MF and an understanding of DOF to get what I want.
 
This is 1980's shot on slide film pretty much straight scan and how the scene looked to the eye

Clearway by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
I must be going wrong I never use f16 at least not since my film days.
Oh wait realise why now it us a matter of sensor size and lens combo. Not an absolute setting. I also use MF and an understanding of DOF to get what I want.
Click to expand...
A lot of people shooting digital will not use smaller apertures such as f16. They normally talk about problems with diffraction but, in my experience, what you gain in extra DOF compensates for the loss in overall sharpness due to diffraction
 
Suvv said:
A lot of people shooting digital will not use smaller apertures such as f16. They normally talk about problems with diffraction but, in my experience, what you gain in extra DOF compensates for the loss in overall sharpness due to diffraction
Click to expand...

You plainly fail to take into account not everyone uses the same equipment and as such this poor advice for others.
You shoot how you wish.

I never need to use f16 for DOF.
 
This is one of my bugbears with digital. I love a crimson sun descending into the cloud/haze/ mist but I continue to have difficulties reproducing that in an image. It was never easy on film but with digital it seems almost impossible. This is the best I've been able to do on such a night, even after quite a bit of PP. _6030438_DxO.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top