Sun blown out in photo

[Parker219]

Of course I couldnt save the sun, but at least I made it where I dont squint when I look at the pic. I also tonned down the yellows and cloned out the bikers wearing red. Worth the edit?

Original: View attachment 21388

Edit:

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Opinions are not right or wrong they are simply someone's personal view on something.

I have plenty of experience with HDR, your jumping to conclusions.

Again all i did was state my opinion that the OP should not worry about trying to make the sun not look blown out. It's an opinion is no true or not no right or wrong about its simply an opinion.

I'm just fine if you disagree with me on my opinion. Without different opinions the wold would be boring.

Agree to disagree.

You're almost correct on that account.

You could get away with "agree to disagree" if we were talking about something abstract or theoretical. However, in this case, we're not. Feel free to have an opinion of whatever floats your boat, just understand that unless your opinion is based on fact or recognized principles, you're going to get skewered here.

Your stated opinion that the OP shouldn't worry about a blown out sun is completely and utterly incorrect to the point of humor, as the entire point of HDR is to expand the stock dynamic range of your camera so you don't get clipped highlights and shadows!

So, hate to break it to you "guru", but the OP most certainly needs to worry about his blown out sun. Thanks for playing.

 

[Steve5D]

Of course I couldnt save the sun, but at least I made it where I dont squint when I look at the pic. I also tonned down the yellows and cloned out the bikers wearing red. Worth the edit?

Original: View attachment 21388

Edit: View attachment 21387

I prefer the original. The original has some "pop" to it, while the edit is very muted and flat.

And, since the sun is blown out in both of them, I'd go with the original.

As for cloning out the bike riders, you could do that in the original, as well.

The bottom line here is that you should, at the end of the day, go with what you like. Some folks here would have you believe that any opinion differing from their own is "wrong", and that you should only consider what they have to say. Of course, that's silly, as the very essence of varying opinions is that they're different. Photography is art, and art is subjective and, as such, opinions will be plentiful...

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Photography is art, and art is subjective and, as such, opinions will be plentiful...

Lord knows there's plenty of areas in photography that are completely subjective and open to endless debate.

However, in specialized techniques like HDR, where there is one main reason for using it, to boost DR, there's much less room for opinions that contradict the purpose of the technique.

One could also argue that shooting at f/22 to isolate the subject from the background is the way to go. It's an opinion, and it's incorrect. No different.

Also FTR, I'm pretty sure those of us who love a good debate place quite a bit of value in opinions based on fact and principle...much less so those based on...well...nothing.

Thanks for playing, Steve.

 

[Steve5D]

Photography is art, and art is subjective and, as such, opinions will be plentiful...

Lord knows there's plenty of areas in photography that are completely subjective and open to endless debate.

However, in specialized techniques like HDR, where there is one main reason for using it, to boost DR, there's much less room for opinions that contradict the purpose of the technique.

One could also argue that shooting at f/22 to isolate the subject from the background is the way to go. It's an opinion, and it's incorrect. No different.

Also FTR, I'm pretty sure those of us who love a good debate place quite a bit of value in opinions based on fact and principle...much less so those based on...well...nothing.

Thanks for playing, Steve.

You say so much and, in the process, actually say so little.

What would constitute a proper dynamic range for the sun? What does a properly exposed sun look like? Consider only the sun, and nothing else. Outside of photos taken with some pretty sophisticated gear, I've never seen a picture of the sun that wasn't what we would consider "blown out". Why? Because it's the freaking sun, that's why. I've never seen one taken with a Nikon or Canon DSLR by Joe-Six-Pack.

While there may be one may reason to use HDR, there's certainly not only one reason. Some may like the overall effect it has on an image. Some may do it to represent the entire dynamic range. Some may do it because they like an overcooked look to the overall image. HDR, like anything else, is subjective. That's why some pople go for that over-the-top overcooked look, and some go for that subtle effect.

Neither is wrong.

Yes, the main purpose of HDR is to present a full dynamic range, but some things just aren't going to be captured like that. I'm not saying it could never happen with the sun, I'm just saying I've never seen it. If the OP had shot another dozen exposures, the likelihood is that the sun would still be blown out.

Feel free to illustrate otherwise. If it can be done, I'll acknowledge that. Thus far, I've never seen it...

 

[jamesbjenkins]

.........

Not sure where a point by point response followed by a concise thesis statement with examples and a brief conclusion constitutes "saying so little", but OK. Guess I'm still in grad school mode where I'm talking to people a lot smarter than me, sorry.

- At the risk of opening that ugly can of worms...tonemapping, AKA cooking an image, is not HDR, it's tonemapping. Fusing exposures, whether via software like photomatix or manually via layer masks, is HDR. There's nothing inferior or wrong with tonemapping, but it is not HDR.

- If you want to properly expose for the sun, spot meter a single exposure for the sun and mask it in to your main bracketed set. It takes some extra time, but the results are much more pleasing than a giant ball of pure 255 white in the middle of an image, IMO.

Was that brief enough, Steve?

 

[Steve5D]

- At the risk of opening that ugly can of worms...tonemapping, AKA cooking an image, is not HDR, it's tonemapping. Fusing exposures, whether via software like photomatix or manually via layer masks, is HDR. There's nothing inferior or wrong with tonemapping, but it is not HDR.

You're saying that a wildly overcooked image can't be HDR?

That's silly; of course it can. Multiple images combined, and then overcooked, can most certainly be HDR. Whether it's pleasing or not is subjective, but not whether or not it's HDR...

- If you want to properly expose for the sun, spot meter a single exposure for the sun and mask it in to your main bracketed set. It takes some extra time, but the results are much more pleasing than a giant ball of pure 255 white in the middle of an image, IMO.

Show me. You seem to really have a handle on it, so perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide an example of a photo of the sun that's not blown out.

I would try but, since I contend it's not reasonably possible, it would be a waste of time.

Since you're of a different opinion, though, perhaps you could provide an example of what you're describing...

Was that brief enough, Steve?

Well, sure, it's brief.

It really doesn't support your position, though.

Show me a photo of the sun that's not blown out...

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Shall I do that from my phone in the middle of my work day?

And I didn't say that tonemapping can never be HDR, I said they're not the same thing. Tonemapping is a method of achieving an HDR image. Too many people, mostly total amateurs, think the cartoony, Trey Ratcliff style tonemapped image IS HDR. Does that makes sense?

I MUCH prefer the exposure fusion, or manually masked, method, but that point is completely subjective obviously.

 

[480sparky]

..........Show me a photo of the sun that's not blown out...

Easy Peasy. VND and a polarizer.

Think it's fake? Check the EXIF then. That's how stupendously easy it is to image the sun.





Still think it's fake? There's websites that have real-time sunspot data.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Sparky FTW. :thumbup:

 

[Steve5D]

..........Show me a photo of the sun that's not blown out...

Easy Peasy. VND and a polarizer.

Think it's fake? Check the EXIF then. That's how stupendously easy it is to image the sun.





Still think it's fake? There's websites that have real-time sunspot data.

And it looks far more like the moon than the sun, wouldn't you agree?

It's just a white disc.

Looking at the image the OP posted, how would you get that sun to be properly exposed, in the context of the rest of the image?

 

[480sparky]

And it looks far more like the moon than the sun, wouldn't you agree?....

Um, no..... not really. The moon is plastered with millions of years of impacts and volcanic activity. Craters, mares, rilles.....

.....It's just a white disc.......

No, it isn't. I see sunspots, as well as limb darkening that's common in solar imaging. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could image granulation as well.

...........Looking at the image the OP posted, how would you get that sun to be properly exposed, in the context of the rest of the image?

Shoot a frame with an 8-stop VND and a polarizer, ISO 100, 1/2000 @ f/22. Exposure is pretty consistent when shooting the sun.... it doesn't vary much in luminosity.

 

[Steve5D]

Shall I do that from my phone in the middle of my work day?

Whatever blows your skirt up.

Sparky's image, I suppose, shows what the sun looks like, but it's still just a white disc. There's nothing about it that says "sun"...

Tonemapping is a method of achieving an HDR image.

I think some of the more opinionated HDR fans here would vehemently disagree with you on that.

My understanding is that achieving an HDR image required multiple exposures. Is that incorrect?

I can tone map the bejeesus out of a single image, and it will never be an HDR image. It'll just be a tonemapped image...

Too many people, mostly total amateurs, think the cartoony, Trey Ratcliff style tonemapped image IS HDR. Does that makes sense?

Whether something is "cooked" or not is just a stylistic choice. If I put 15 images together, and cook the Hell out of it, it's HDR. It'll be a heavily cooked HDR, but it's still an HDR...

I MUCH prefer the exposure fusion, or manually masked, method, but that point is completely subjective obviously.

With HDR, I tend to prefer images that are cooked a bit. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. My mood varies...

 

[Steve5D]

Um, no..... not really. The moon is plastered with millions of years of impacts and volcanic activity. Craters, mares, rilles.....

I should've been more clear. The image you posted looks like a poorly exposed shot of the moon far more than it does the sun...

No, it isn't. I see sunspots, as well as limb darkening that's common in solar imaging. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could image granulation as well.

Okay, but with an HDR image of a field, I really don't think "solar imaging" is what the photographer would be going for, do you?

As for the sunspots, I've seen sensors which are so dirty they look like that...

Shoot a frame with an 8-stop VND and a polarizer, ISO 100, 1/2000 @ f/22. Exposure is pretty consistent when shooting the sun.... it doesn't vary much in luminosity.

Okay, now you're talkin' in my good ear.

Could you provide an example of what you're talking about?

 

[480sparky]

I should've been more clear. The image you posted looks like a poorly exposed shot of the moon far more than it does the sun...

I think you need new glasses then.

.......Okay, now you're talkin' in my good ear.

Could you provide an example of what you're talking about?

I don't understand what you're asking for..... the sun is always the same brightness. So exposing it would be pretty consistent.

Unless, of course, I wait for the sun to set. Then I'm in for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong exposure.