limits, mine, camera or lens

[FeatherMonkey]

IMG_2107

A little c&c please

Kind of know a few bits sun in wrong place and really should of put the camera on the tripod. Composition missed.

Had to do quite a bit pp just to get this, using a Canon 600d, sigma 18-250mm f3.5/6.3

So did take a few up there but, was pushing me for a first time trying landscape. This doesn't have the lake which clipped. Found no amount of tweaking could really capture it from bits under to bits overexposed. Even this pic clipped in sky yet dark and under in foreground. So ended up more of a recconance day, will go back a little more prepared.

So really can the combo create a great pic or will it generally be tweaked in pp?

 

[weepete]

Yip, your setup can produce a great photo. But you need to learn to work with the limitations of your system and how you shoot. Raw files allways need post processed whereas jpegs use in camera processing which can do the work for you if you are happy eith the electronics making choices for you.

Landscapes generally need the right kind of light in the right places which can require timing, great weather and a superp location. There are some work arounds that will give you a bit more leeway. Tripods, GND filters, remote shutter releases, composition, lens hoods and polarising filters all help in overcoming some of the limitations of our cameras but being in the right place at the right time is paramount.

F8 and be there!

 

[Derrel]

The land has one optimal exposure; the sky tones would require another, vastly different optimal exposure. That is the crux of the problem, but secondarily, the lighting on the land is...just not "all that interesting"...this is a challenging scene, as seen and as framed, at that time. This scene, from that location, at that focal length, is just not that compelling; the foreground objects are plain, and rather far away in appearance. The things weepete mentioned are true,. and farily well understood. A hard-edged nedutral density filter could have been used to "hold back" the sky, while exposing the foreground properly, which would have given a better exposure. But the f8 and be there part, meaning a GREAT subject and light, requiring only f/8 and be there on your part--that really did not exist on this occasion...

 

[Nettles]

Stef, if you can, try shooting earlier or later in the day. A low sun can make a dramatic difference to just about any scene. What Pete says above is very true: "Landscapes generally need the right kind of light in the right places..."

Look around for something that might add interest to the shot. Experiment with different apertures to extend the range of focus -- what looks sharp.

Nice to see a sky without jet trails!

By the way, your sky isn't clipped. And you could use software to lift the land's apparent exposure, but leave the sky as it is.

----------

Edit: I've had a look at this image and there's a lot of noise and compression in it. It may have been shot at a higher ISO setting. (And your software may not have saved it at highest quality JPEG compression by default. I've never understood why some programs still do this.) But maybe you can try working on the original again.

 

[NancyMoranG]

As others have stated, the lighting is tough. Can you go back when the sun possibly could be lighting up your hills and fencing (?)
If the rising/setting sun was behind you, this would be completely different. (Newb advice)

 

[FeatherMonkey]

Thanks everyone...

Was certainly challenging have to admit I kind of gave up on composition, when encountering the exposure problem.

I have fixed the original to link better but I did think I saw some noise why I asked, but iso was probably to low. A better idea of what I started with.. As for composition, I was struggling to get anything close, so shot blander just trying to dial in.
Raw no pp not even base curve.

I suspect the nd filter is a factor that would of made this a little less challenging I'd even tried using a program mode just to get some hints even that struggled.Clipped Highlights

I just couldn't get close this probably highlights what most of the pics ended up doing. Clipped and blown

I suspect the light was just too challenging for me in the end, think I'll practice on an easier view. I'm sure there is a pic up there when I can beat the exposure problems.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Shooting into the sun invariably produces a large dynamic range but quite low local contrast. Also you are looking at specular reflections and shadow detail so little colour information as well. It can be done with great effect but it usual requires thought and a series of exposures, it also requires a visualisation based on experience as the results you will see are seldom the ones you imagine.
I think your first example is the best and really gives a good idea of the results that are optimal in the conditions. I have an example that I will post as "Broken Skies" in a separate thread with a brief explanation of how I captured it.

 

[FeatherMonkey]

Thankyou for that Tim adds up a little more would never of thought of exposure stacking. Also for your thread broken skies makes more sense. I'll have to take a few more baby steps before getting to that point but I now see how that could of worked for me.