13 Raw files into one

[Edsport]

It is not OVEREXPOSED! Just the range is quite a bit high. If the OP had lowered the exposure then the hill is all dark then you two would say, it is underexposed!

OP: personally if I am really attached to the photo I would clone out the clouds and make the bright sun ray spot a lot smaller.

I thought if things was blown out so that there is no detail left than it was over exposed. If this isn't over exposed i need a new monitor...

Is one part of the photo "blown", or is the whole photo blown?
I personally see it being slightly underexposed if anything.

I do agree with the HDR comments, as that would have been ideal. But I didn't have the setup for it.

It's not all blown. Some parts are overexposed and some are underexposed...

 

[Dominantly]

No, sometimes overexposed photos are also shadow clipping.

Is there a percentage to it?! I'm not really sure.

You should see these snow shots I took, over exposed like you wouldn't believe.

 

[Fishpaste]

I don't think it's overexposed...The vapor in the air makes the sunburst rays visible, but also washes out the background contrast and details.

With regards to software crashes: maybe you could stitch together a third of the photos at a time, and then stitch each result?

 

[Overread]

My view - 13 captures for the whole scene and it looks like the blending went really well. At least at this scale (which is admittedly tiny and not the best for viewing the quality) I can't see any merging lines strange bits which stand out to me.

I'd also say that the light coming through the trees has been captured really well, maybe a tad dark there, and might be room for a little contrast boost over the main side of the hill. It shouldn't hide the light beams and might boost interest in that local area (which is after all, your main subject you want people looking at).

The sky however, ahh if you'd got there earlier and the sun were just that bit lower (or later if it was evening) you might have got away with it. But as it stands I feel you've a massive ball of pure overexposed light in the shot. Bright points attract our eyes and currently you've two main ones in the shot. The lower right corner, which holds no compositional nor content interest; and the ball of the sun, which sadly also appears to be sitting somewhat on a powerpoint (near rule of 3rds). So not only is it bright, but its also in a position we are naturally expectant of content.
Combined together it sadly detracts from an otherwise good photo. It's just too much, and whilst I fully accept that there are creative uses for such a massive overspilling of light, I feel that this shot is not one of them.

 

[Edsport]

Wikipedia's definition of overexposed - A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, when important bright parts of an image are "washed out" or effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" or "clipped whites"...

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Wikipedia's definition of overexposed - A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, when important bright parts of an image are "washed out" or effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" or "clipped whites"...

*may be*

 

[Overread]

To make you all happy - the frames with the sun in them ARE overexposed. The frames without the sun are not overexposed, and most would appear to be a touch underexposed. As a whole single entity the majority of one of the major (if not the major) points of interest is fully overexposed and fully lacking in detail (the sun is not that big, there is a massive area of lit cloud and sky with no detail present).

 

[cgipson1]

Wikipedia's definition of overexposed - A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, when important bright parts of an image are "washed out" or effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" or "clipped whites"...

I dare you to try to get a picture of the sun that isn't overexposed!!! lol! It can be done.. but requires special equipment, filters, etc! (On second thought.. please don't try to get that shot! You can easily damage your camera and/or your eyes). But hopefully get my point!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Nighthd/Astrophotography/sunjbmethod.jpg

 

[Compaq]

Wikipedia's definition of overexposed - A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, when important bright parts of an image are "washed out" or effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" or "clipped whites"...

I dare you to try to get a picture of the sun that isn't overexposed!!! lol! It can be done.. but requires special equipment, filters, etc! (On second thought.. please don't try to get that shot! You can easily damage your camera and/or your eyes). But hopefully get my point!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Nighthd/Astrophotography/sunjbmethod.jpg

Dude, that shot is seriously underexposed... look at all that clipped black! No detail whatsoever...

Just because there are blown highlights doesn't mean the shot is overexposed. That's ridiculous in my eyes. AND, just because some hobby photographer has taken the time to write something on wikipedia, doesn't mean that it's true. I'm skeptic to "definitions" from wikipedia unless I know who has written the article and when.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Wikipedia's definition of overexposed - A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, when important bright parts of an image are "washed out" or effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" or "clipped whites"...

I dare you to try to get a picture of the sun that isn't overexposed!!! lol! It can be done.. but requires special equipment, filters, etc! (On second thought.. please don't try to get that shot! You can easily damage your camera and/or your eyes). But hopefully get my point!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Nighthd/Astrophotography/sunjbmethod.jpg

Will try to use that method and turn my photos HDR!

 

[Dominantly]

That was my point.I am just finding quite a bit of generalization on the forum as of late, and I'm not a fan.It seems like there is a secret checklist of absolutes that everyone goes through when looking at a photo, that I missed.

 

[Destin]

How can you guys say this is overexposed? ITS THE FREAKING SUN HITTING CLOUDS. Even looking at it with your own eyes in real life, it's gonna be nothing but pure white. The blue sky is properly exposed, as is the foreground matter, AND the clouds around the edges. The only part that is overexposed is the part in the middle where the sun is coming through the cloud. Big whoop.

If it was exposued properly the rest of the scene would be pitch black and youd have a nice shot of a cloud. If it was HDR, you'd all be whining that it didn't look natural because the sun wasn't blown out. Did ya'll eat a bowl of ridiculous for breakfast this morning or what?

OP: I like it. I wish the rays were a bit more defined, maybe some selective dodging/burning could help with that. I'm not super fond of the shot, or the composition, but it isn't bad, and I certainly couldn't do any better.

 

[Destin]

That was my point.I am just finding quite a bit of generalization on the forum as of late, and I'm not a fan.It seems like there is a secret checklist of absolutes that everyone goes through when looking at a photo, that I missed.

I totally agree, and it's getting old.

 

[Edsport]

Wikipedia's definition of overexposed - A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, when important bright parts of an image are "washed out" or effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" or "clipped whites"...

I dare you to try to get a picture of the sun that isn't overexposed!!! lol! It can be done.. but requires special equipment, filters, etc! (On second thought.. please don't try to get that shot! You can easily damage your camera and/or your eyes). But hopefully get my point!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Nighthd/Astrophotography/sunjbmethod.jpg

Dude, that shot is seriously underexposed... look at all that clipped black! No detail whatsoever...

Just because there are blown highlights doesn't mean the shot is overexposed. That's ridiculous in my eyes. AND, just because some hobby photographer has taken the time to write something on wikipedia, doesn't mean that it's true. I'm skeptic to "definitions" from wikipedia unless I know who has written the article and when.

Sorry but blown highlights do mean overexposed...

The only part that is overexposed is the part in the middle where the sun is coming through the cloud. Big whoop.

That is the part that i'm talking about. If it's so under exposed, do you think the shot would have benefited from a longer shutter speed?

 

[Overread]

The only part that is overexposed is the part in the middle where the sun is coming through the cloud. Big whoop.

Well its a big bright point and bright points attract our attention - and its significantly brighter than the surroundings; and its sitting right on a compositional power point.
One can get away with blown out highlights and overexposed components of a photo, but these also have to be in areas of the photo where the viewers attention won't be drawn to. There is so much more in the photo itself and the scene that its not the sun and blown clouds you want people to be looking at; but its what they'll all end up looking at.
Could you have gotten better with a single exposure with the dynamic range of that camera - probably not, at least not without creative use of filters or combining multiple exposures to capture more of the dynamic range presented. To my mind that still does not take away from the fact that the blown area is major and distracting in this specific example.