The Trossachs

Like that. Looks like a great spot.
Do you think (only my opinion) that it would benefit from a bit more saturation/vibrancy?
 
I agree, a bit more lushness to the trees would make it better, it would be nice to get a shot at sunrise/set depending on the position of the sun. Great location!
 
macvisual said:
I'll return to the raw file and re-work on it soon. Thanks for the advice on the processing, great stuff!

Yes this area is so beautiful, when I shot this it was quite an average day weather wise, dull'ish conditions. I rode my Suzuki V-Strom DL1000 to this area to look for captures, it's awesome countryside for motorcycling, such beautiful scenery.

I'll return again in a few weeks time (and in winter to), so many areas with superb photographic opportunities in/around the Trossachs.
Both Aberfoyle and Dukes Pass are a stones throw away from this spot, spoilt for choice.
Click to expand...
Used to love riding the "Duke" over Dukes Pass.
 
The image called reflections is so similar.
 
Don't spent too much time on it, you know the composition to take, just go back when the light is right. Yiu've got blown bits of sky. Use it as reference to compose in AM, PM golden light. You'll never ae a show piece out of this conditions, nice lift and clours on the trees but you never see a sky like that. Watch your histogram when you expose, get it over to the right, but don't clip.
 
Very nice image Peter is it Loch Ard?
 
Look how much better you second image is Peter! So you can do it :) Yes an ND grad would help a little here but there not always easy to use especially in your shot with that tree line. You would probably need a soft grad at an angle following the tree line. Soft grad because the tree tops would become unnaturally dark at the tops if you used a hard grad.

The grad will rationalise the exposure by balancing the light entering the camera and in effect balancing the very light areas (sky) with the darker areas (land) so the camera can get the correct exposure. It's really because the cameras as good as they are can't handle the dynamic range (there not as good as our eyes, the sensor can only handle so much bright and so much dark across the image before it says sod off I can't handle so much difference between light an dark and still retain the detail).

Steve uses a method of exposure known as ETTR (expose to the right) this is normally achieved by shooting and checking your histogram (or if your camera can display histogram in Live View) and making sure the histogram is as far over to the right you can get it without it popping over the edge (blowing). To shift the exposure from what the camera wants, you just use exposure compensation. It can be disconcerting because in camera the shot will appear over exposed. You can also achieve the same using the 'blinkies' as they call them, and adjust your EC until the blinkies just appear or disappear. There are much better explanations on the web I'm sure.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice a small area of blown sky or whatever but as long as you know you have done it and you've done it for a reason. After all when you look at the sky, as good as your eyes are some of it will be blown out ;).

Anyhow your second image is much better Peter look at the colour! Now although I hate to say go and apply that PP across some of those images you have on Flickr and you will notice the difference! I take it your shooting RAW? If you do have your wondered why JPG looks more vibrant? For colour an vibrancy try this little exercise.. Set your camera to shoot JPG and RAW then when you get them on the computer compare.... JPG look good? RAW look flat? Now pump up the RAW to look like the JPG!

Hope you don't think I'm teaching you to suck eggs:(. Just trying to help! Although i do normally talk a load of cobs! ;).

PS Of course another approach if you don't have the filter would be to take 2 images one exposed for the sky and one for the land (trees) and then blend them together....
 
Last edited:
Normally the histogram is used in camera to check the exposure is good, so you take a shot and look at it to see how you did. With the histogram the blacks (dark) are over to the left and the whites (light) to the right. The claimed ideal histogram would look a bit like a hill with a board summit in the middle and sloping down to the foot of the hill stopping at the far right and left respectively.

If all the information is hunched up on the right hand side, but not climbing up the right side of the graph and there is some information on the black side, it's a very light image not overexposed, If none of the data extends over to or falls well short of the black side and on the white side is climbing the very edge of the RH side then it is overexposed and the opposite the other way round for underexposed. That's it in a nutshell.

There's far better and pictorial representations on the web just google camera histograms.
You'll get the hang of it, it's actually a very useful tool.
All the best Steve
 
macvisual said:
So for the blown out high lights in the sky in the above displayed image, would I have needed to use the likes of a Lee ND filter and/or graduated filter to help prevent this happening ??

I actually have a "Lee 100 filter system" with these filters I've stated above, but with recently changing camera system I've yet to sort out a ring size adaptor for the Fuji lenses.


Any advice/knowledge in this subject appreciated. Thank you.
Click to expand...

The histogram is a chart of colour and brightness, to keep it basic and for this sort of thing, you want to ensure when taking images no pixels, or very few are on the very far right, it means they are blown.

Steve's given some great info here. What I don't agree with is this "The claimed ideal histogram would look a bit like a hill with a board summit in the middle and sloping down to the foot of the hill stopping at the far right and left respectively." Technically its right, but I'd rather see that hill shifted further to the right, with no 100% black pixels and no 100% white pixels but an emphasis on lighter pixels. Read this

Read this which is my field based approach to it and this

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

However. I should be cruel to be kind. You are not yet at that stage. Compositionally, seeing your posts now from then, you are visualising more attractive scenes but you need to consider lighting and time of day, and the position of the sun relative to the subject matter and how that effects it.

Grads are great, I can tell just looking out and about which one to use, I prefer soft edges unless shooting seascapes where the horizon is flat.

Dynamic range is the range of light, light to dark your camera can see before losing pixels to black and pure white. Typically in a landscape to expose the foreground to render detail and retain the sky, you need a graduated filter to darken the sky down to allow enough light in to expose the front foreground without losing the sky. Not always but quite often. In this scene of yours here, the front, darker water refection is fine, but the sky has been over exposed, a nd filter would have saved that, I'd have used a 3 stop soft edge myself

It's all well and good reading this stuff, but where you need to work on 1st really is the time of day you shoot, your locations are fine, your equipment is fine, you are bracketing so can exposure blend if grad filters aren't for you. Until you get up early, and get here nice and early, or stay out later, you will never get an image that is particularly good. It's light innit.
 
ST4 said:
The histogram is a chart of colour and brightness, to keep it basic and for this sort of thing, you want to ensure when taking images no pixels, or very few are on the very far right, it means they are blown.

Steve's given some great info here. What I don't agree with is this "The claimed ideal histogram would look a bit like a hill with a board summit in the middle and sloping down to the foot of the hill stopping at the far right and left respectively." Technically its right, but I'd rather see that hill shifted further to the right, with no 100% black pixels and no 100% white pixels but an emphasis on lighter pixels. Read this.
Click to expand...

In my defence i did say "The claimed ideal histogram" not necessarily what i agree with;):exit:
Nice reply Steve... Thats a pretty good explanation!



(I think i got away with that folks)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Cracking photo, I love reflections and I love autumn so this photo is great for me! I'd echo what's been said before and say this same shot during the golden hours would look incredible, especially if you get a morning where the water and reflections are very still.

Be careful with histograms; they show the levels for the JPEG preview shown on the screen and not the RAW file. The RAW file will certainly have more dynamic range than the JPEG (which is affected by settings such as contrast etc), so you can usually pull back highlights from a little further than the histogram would have you believe. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top