Can't get the background color correct.

[riley3245]

Hey everyone,

New to photography and I'm having trouble with this photo. I was trying to get a landscape shot of Philadelphia and I couldn't seem to get the sky to look deep black while still being able to shot the city. I tried a bunch of ISO, shutter speed and aperture combinations, but I know I'm missing something. I was using a Canon T4i with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens. The first shot is the best I could do. The second

IMG_6548 by riley3245, on Flickr

IMG_6560 by riley3245, on Flickr

 

[jaomul]

There is light in the sky due to the buildings artificial light and atmospheric due the exposure time etc. To get a deep black sky here you will need to post process in software.

 

[Scatterbrained]

That's a side effect of humidity.

 

[Forkie]

Switch your white balance to tungsten or fluorescent.

 

[CameraClicker]

There are a couple of things going on. Air is reflective and higher humidity makes it more reflective. Your camera's meter wants to make everything 18% grey, so it will over expose a dark scene, and under expose a bright scene. Sunlight, incandescent, fluorescent and LED lights all have different temperatures. Choosing the incorrect white balance results in your photo having a colour cast.
The orange sky can be turned to a shade of grey by adjusting the white balance. Exposure controls how dark the sky is. If you can't get what you want from the camera, you can edit it later, either dodging and burning or applying a gradient that affects brightness.
Even relatively small towns put out a lot of light pollution. A large centre has a light dome that hides the night sky. You have to get a long way from a major centre to see/photograph all the stars in a dark sky.

 

[riley3245]

Thanks guys. I'll to mess around with the white balance since I don't have any processing software. Thanks again.

 

[Pejacre]

If you don't have any PP software, LightZone and DarkTable are two free tools you could try.

Had a play in Lightroom:

 

[riley3245]

That is the color I was going for, but I was hoping not to loose that much detail in the foreground. On a side note I was wondering if the L lens is worth it on a T4i or should I just save my money for a Mark iii of 1Dx

 

[Pejacre]

Working with the original RAW file you'd be able to recover far more shadow detail than a jpeg.

The Canon shooters will best advise on the L lens with a T4i but I understand it's generally better to invest in glass before body.

 

[CameraClicker]

On a side note I was wondering if the L lens is worth it on a T4i or should I just save my money for a Mark iii of 1Dx

Doesn't your first post say you used an L lens? The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens is the kit lens for a 5D/1Ds. Less wide aperture and IS was Canon's decision based on the expectation the lens would be used for video.

Generally, the L lenses are Canon's best. The sensor in your T4i can take advantage of the lens quality. I find the Rebel bodies are a bit light for many of the L lenses, the combination seems front heavy instead of balanced. So, with the exception of the 100-400, I usually reserve the L lenses for bigger, heavier bodies. On my Rebel, I usually use a Sigma 18-250 which is made for the crop body and has a good stabilizer, and a Sigma 10-20 for really wide shots.

 

[riley3245]

Thanks Pejacre. I think I'll get Aperture when I get the Mac Pro. That why I have more options for editing.

CameraClicker: Yeah I have that L lens. I picked it up for $740. I guess the person purchased a 5D and sold the lens separate. I saw online that the price for the lens was a little over $1000, so I thought it was a good deal. I hope I was right. I reason I ask is because I got the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens last year and the quality appears similar. I sure it's me not using the L lens to its potential, but I just wanted to know if it was the camera. The first 2 photos is the EF 70-300mm and the second 2 are the L lens 24-105mm. The last photo is here for you guys to critique and give any tips.

IMG_2850 by riley3245, on Flickr

IMG_2832 by riley3245, on Flickr
L Lens.

IMG_6494 by riley3245, on Flickr

IMG_6504 by riley3245, on Flickr
Any suggestions?

IMG_6499 by riley3245, on Flickr

 

[ronlane]

You can add more L glass to meet your needs and to get faster glass (f/2.8 and lower) but that 24-105mm is a really good general purpose lens. I'd swap for it now if my wife wouldn't kill me.

 

[riley3245]

Ronlane: LOL. I hear yeah. I have a 13 year old car and instead of getting a new car I'm buying a third motorcycle. I figure I should buy all my toys before I get married.

 

[ronlane]

Ronlane: LOL. I hear yeah. I have a 13 year old car and instead of getting a new car I'm buying a third motorcycle. I figure I should buy all my toys before I get married.

exactly, get them now. As for upgrading the camera body, that's just what you want to do or if there is something that is limiting your current photographs. Your call on that one. Some people just want to go to full frame, others don't. I'm having to wait until the end of the year so I have time to see what Canon will be bringing out soon. (Waiting on the specs of the 7D mark ii)

 

[riley3245]

I'm doing the same thing. I figure the new line up will be out early next year. I mainly got into this so I could make a short film, so I think I'll spend the extra money and pick up the 1DX replacement. At least that will be something I can grow into.