Lack of Detail in Sunsets - Please Help

Unfortunately, underexposing has a tendancy to increase noise when you make adjustments to exposure later. However, you also need to preserve the highlights to prevent lost data by blowing out one of the color channels (RBG) as you did in the first link. It is a compromise that you have to decide on. Which is best for your image.

Pixel peeping will drive you crazy if you don't consider what the print will actually look like. The larger the print, the more the noise will be noticed. Probably anything up to an 8x10 will hardly be noticed unless it's awful to begin with.

Invest in quality ND, Grad ND and CPL filters for sunrise/sunsets if that is your main interest. (CPL's are best at 90° to the sun.)
 
MY GOD THOSE ARE SOME HUGE FREAKIN PICTURES! :)

That was the point. If I were to size them down, people would not be able to see the noise and lack of detail in them.
 
Unfortunately, underexposing has a tendancy to increase noise when you make adjustments to exposure later. However, you also need to preserve the highlights to prevent lost data by blowing out one of the color channels (RBG) as you did in the first link. It is a compromise that you have to decide on. Which is best for your image.

Pixel peeping will drive you crazy if you don't consider what the print will actually look like. The larger the print, the more the noise will be noticed. Probably anything up to an 8x10 will hardly be noticed unless it's awful to begin with.

Invest in quality ND, Grad ND and CPL filters for sunrise/sunsets if that is your main interest. (CPL's are best at 90° to the sun.)

Thanks for the input. Will the Grad ND make it so I can have the entire sunset exposed correctly instead of having the water a little underexposed and getting that noise? Would it help if I got the correct exposure while taking the photo and then brought the darkness out in post processing to eliminate the noise?
 
Thanks for the input. Will the Grad ND make it so I can have the entire sunset exposed correctly instead of having the water a little underexposed and getting that noise? Would it help if I got the correct exposure while taking the photo and then brought the darkness out in post processing to eliminate the noise?
Yes once you position it correctly.
 
Does the D40 have mirror lockup? I would use that also to reduce camera shake.

I thought it might, but it looks like it's only for cleaning the sensor. I can't take pictures while it's open.
 
I'd looked at these earlier but didn't have time to comment.

Camera shake does not appear to be the problem. Portions of the sky in both photos are sharp. If it were camera shake it would all be blurred.

I would have shot both at the smallest aperture I could get (f22, f27 etc.), at the lowest iso, and manual focus about 20 yards into the scene. This is where some foreground interest comes in handy with the longest depth of field possible. Manually focus on a boat, rock, twig or dead body floating by. A cable release is better, the timer is fine. Don't sweat the mirror. I've done plenty of these type shots and never once had a mirror cause me a problem.

I'd also recommend trying to work with scenes where you can keep your focal length down. The 18-55 will work fine. Get as close as you can.

Both scenes really don't have that much detail to begin with.
 
Will being underexposed result in them being less sharp? I know at higher ISO, being underexposed can cause noise, but I didn't think that would affect ISO 200. I'm really trying to get rid of the noise before I even put them on my computer. I don't care about fixing these photos, but preventing the noise in the future. I guess I really just need to work with a higher shutter speed. I guess until I figure it out I'll do a lot of experimenting.

Sharpness is a trait controlled by lens quality and appropriate aperture used for the sitaution. Are we discussing noise or sharpness? Even at ISO 100, a poorly exposed picture will have more noise than a properly exposed picture.

In a sunset situation, you want to do everything necessary to get a nice well exposed shot. This means (usually), a very deep depth of field or in laymen's terms a F-stop (aperture) that is numerically high... but not so high that you go too far past your lens' sweet spot. For most, thats in the F8-F11 range, but I have successfully used F/16 on occaission. Along with this comes either the need for higher ISO or a slower shutter speed.

There are times that even when I am at low ISO and in bright conditions on a properly exposed pic that I get more noise than I want and I run it through a very low level of noise reduction, but its not often. It depends on how much pixel peeping I do and how anal I am feeling that moment... lol.

2260944419_f4a5d7a66a.jpg
 
From the EXIF data on your photos, Palyriot! Somehow I trust those.

You cannot always trust EXIF for all things. If the camera doesn't factor in it's sensor crop factor in focal length calculations, it will report things 130 to 200 percent off, depending on what the sensor crop factor is.

In this case, if he had a 200mm lens and a 1.5 crop factor, his EXIF could erroneously be displayed as 300mm.

This is not the EXIF's fault, it is the fault of the camera for entering "incorrect" info.

Taking pictures of sunsets is challenging. In very few other situations are you going to have as broad a range of lighting conditions and need to compensate for them. One important trick is to know WHAT to meter against. If I want a deep dark silhouette, I meter closer to the sun. If I want a better exposed area off to the sides or beneath the sun, well I meter for those areas.

If I want a well metered sun and subjects visible clearly (ie: no silhouette), then I need the aid of a second light source (off camera flash time folks!).
 
In this case, if he had a 200mm lens and a 1.5 crop factor, his EXIF could erroneously be displayed as 300mm.

If the crop factor is 1,5, and the EXIF says "Focal length in 35mm eq.: 300mm", what would be erroneous about that?
 
If the crop factor is 1,5, and the EXIF says "Focal length in 35mm eq.: 300mm", what would be erroneous about that?

It is erroneous in the fact that he was using a 200mm lens, not a 300mm. His focal disance is different from the physical lens he is using. Then comes up all the crap about FOV not magnification, yadda, yadda, yadda.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top