DSLR Question

Had my Canon 1100D for just over 12 months now. Getting to grips with it indoors but I’m having trouble with landscape photography and blown out white sky on sunny days.

Now I’m wondering if I need a filter a polorizing or ND Grad Filter.
would like my sky’s to be blue not white.

Also any reccomend a tripod for £30 will get a fancy one when I can afford it.

Try manual mode. Set your ISO to 100 and aperture to F8 or 11. Then adjust your shutter speed, the brighter it is the faster it will have to be. Play around and you will figure it out.

You should be able to get the results you want without a CP or ND filter.

Having said that CP will give you richer colours/darker blue sky/Better cloud definition. It will also go some way to removing reflections should you wish to do so.

ND filter will reduce the light going into the lens but I can’t see why would not be able to do this just using the camera settings.

(EDIT pardon the repeat of seavers, we were typing at the same time)

Could be all sorts of things. Do you have an example, with your camera settings? ISO too high, shutter speed to slow, aperture too large…

A grad filter might be the answer if there’s a really bright sky and dark ground, but you should be able to get going with good exposure. Also, shooting in raw will allow you to pull back the bright spots and push up the dark spots, assuming they’re not blown/crushed. As I said, an example of your problem would enable folk to identify if there’s something wildly amiss in the first instance…

I don’t think a grad filter is going to sort out bright skies in daytime – it’s just too bright for them to make a difference! A polariser certainly makes a difference. I think I shot this one with a polariser:

California and Yosemite-13.jpg by Kit Carruthers[/url], on Flickr

But as above, you want to have a low ISO, and high shutter and/or f number. You don’t need a tripod for daytime photos in bright light, only once shutter speeds are low in low light/night or you’re using something like a 10-stop ND filter for long exposures.

Tripod-wise, this was my first tripod: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CamLink-Camlink-TP2500-Tripod/dp/B000TCSMUO/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1437090075&sr=8-4&keywords=camlink+tripod

Bought for about £35 at the time from Jessops. Had very few problems with it, although now use something a little more sophisticated (and smaller, and lighter), but at £10 on Amazon you’ll not go far wrong!

https://flic.kr/p/pgTmMB this is my very first one last year. Trying to make the sky and plane stand out a bit better.
So basically low iso 100/200 F8 or above and fast shutter speed.

What will a CP and ND filter do for me. Hoping to get some decent scenary shots in Rhodes.

If you don’t want to use full manual, just try adjusting the exposure compensation. ie set it to -1 stop.
That will help avoid blown out sky. It may make the foreground a bit dark, but you can brighten that in Photoshop etc afterwards.

Also for sunny days, usually best to keep the sun behind you.

Haven’t got Photoshop. Is it needed?

Trying to make the sky and plane stand out a bit better.

Well, these are a bit different. To be honest, there’s not a great deal you can do differently with your camera, which leaves you with playing around in post (crop some of the surplus, distracting background out, maybe add a little vignette to darken the edges and draw the eye in; use a brush to up the exposure/whites on the plane; use a grad tool to bring the sky down). The overall exposure is about right, though you may get away with pushing it up a little. The white balance is too cool on the Thomas Cook (1737). A physical ND grad would leave you with, probably, the tail being ‘sliced’ off by the lower exposure. Personally, I’d rather make adjustments in post than work with the physical constraints of a graduated filter.

As Craig said, shooting into the sun is always going to give you problems. Not just from a compositional exposure point of view, but your colour and contrast will suffer badly from the reflected light in the lens.

Haven’t got Photoshop. Is it needed?

I’d say so, though Lightroom is more of a developing tool. Here’s a very quick redux of one of your shots. Could have been much nicer if I’d had a raw file instead of a 3MB JPEG!

PS you’ve an oil/dust spot on your sensor. Right side, about 1/4 of the way down at the edge.

Pardon if all that is a bit rushed, it’s a bit late here.

I think the problem with above is I was trying to capture the sun setting and also the plane had just landed.
Very first image. Shot in jpeg, I’ll try some more when I get chance. Shoot in Raw now.

Yeah noticed that Mark turned into a bigger black splodge. Got my mate clean it he is more delicate than me.

One thing I’m finding difficult is I don’t use my camera often enough. Have the 18-55 kit lens, 55-250 telephoto lens which replaced the Sigma used on above photo. And a 50mm lens. Struggle to get out and shoot as I’m uninspired.

Struggle to get out and shoot as I’m uninspired.

I’d recommend putting the 50mm on and going for a wander around town. Give yourself a mini-project, like ‘capture something old’ or think of a story you’d like to tell in pictures. What would you want to get from photography?

A circular polarizer will reduce reflections in non-metallic objects (and will reduce the exposure slightly) but it won’t change the contrast between sky and land. If you want to do that you either need an ND grad or do it in post-production. If you use an ND grad you’ll need a filter system so you can adjust it’s vertical position, and you’ll probably need several “darknesses” of filter for different levels of light. The 18-55mm kit lens is probably front focusing so that will cause a problem with both the ND grad and polarizer too.

Your best option is probably to shoot in RAW and do it in post-production. It’s easier to get detail out of shadows than highlights so it’s best to expose for the sky and bring the foreground back. If you don’t have Photoshop you should be able to use Digital Photo Professional that came with the camera.

It might also be worth checking out High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography – a lot of the stuff online is overdone and grey looking but it is possible to get more natural looking results…

but it won’t change the contrast between sky and land

yes it will.

The sky isn’t polarised so will always look the same brightness regardless of the polarisers orientation (it’s always going to block out a fair amount of the light). The ground is polarised so you can align the filter to allow almost all the light through.

If you don’t want to use full manual, just try adjusting the exposure compensation. ie set it to -1 stop.
That will help avoid blown out sky. It may make the foreground a bit dark, but you can brighten that in Photoshop etc afterwards.

Also for sunny days, usually best to keep the sun behind you.

^ +1

First think that hit me when I saw yr plane pic was that hazy low light that was coming from the side of the shot.

A polarizer may reduce the glare on your subjects, and often make them stand out more. I have a circular polariser which has proven very useful at airshows (telephoto) as I can”t always be sure of finding a shooting location with the sun behind me, but it does reduce the light entering the lens so be sure to setup for speed. Wide-angle use of a polariser is a whole different ball game.

*edit nowadays I shoot mostly compact for landscapes, and, as someone mentioned – ‘HDR’, if used sensitively, can be your friend for challenging situations. Does yr DSLR have that function?

On the subject of Rhodes – for good pictures you will need to get up early as the sky gets very dusty and flat quite quickly. I’ve got very few landscape pictures in Greece that I’m happy with. Mostly sunsets and sunrises. Also there is always a bloody electric wire in the way.

yes it will.

The sky isn’t polarised so will always look the same brightness regardless of the polarisers orientation (it’s always going to block out a fair amount of the light). The ground is polarised so you can align the filter to allow almost all the light through.

Generally trying to keep it simple but I’ve never found using a polarizer to be much use in sorting out large contrasts. The sky (or rather the particles in it) can very much be polarized though….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_sky_model

A polariser will have most effect on the sky at 90 degrees to the sun. And the effect can be massive.

Mmmmmmm you can get good results using a polarizer but the conditions do need to be right. If you have a wide-angle lens you have to be careful the effect is evenly spread (using one on my 10-22mm is…..interesting), but they’re great for getting reflections out of water.

Think I’m going to have to eat my hat on the contrast between land and sky thing though….grrrr
“polarizers will make skies appear deeper blue, will reduce glare and reflections off of water and other surfaces, and will reduce the contrast between land and sky.”

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm

I think the problem with above is I was trying to capture the sun setting and also the plane had just landed

Tough subject as you have a moving subject and a substantial contrast between exposure requirements for land/subject and sky.

If I was that fussed about bagging the shot I would probably go with one of these two methods:

1 Expose for the plane, then take a second frame exposing for the sunset (ideally without the plane) then composite the two frames in Photoshop

2. Shoot the scene in one frame using exposure comp and then in Ps make a mask for the plane/ground and use a levels adjustment layer to get the balance right for each. Shoot in RAW. I’d use aperture (nearly always do) or shutter priority and centre-weighted average metering ymmv

*afterthought – Funny things sunsets, I often find that the sunset/sky itself is the better focal point and the foreground/land is better in shadow/silhouette, yet other times the actually light/reflected light [/i]from the setting sun lends a quality to the land/subject which puts exposure/focus concerns there rather than the sky so much, (as long as the sky isn’t completely blownout)

Got me thinking about a grad filter, but moving subjects with a grad filter usually a no-no

The sky isn’t polarised so will always look the same brightness regardless of the polarisers orientation (it’s always going to block out a fair amount of the light). The ground is polarised so you can align the filter to allow almost all the light through.

Ooh. This is a bit backwards. The sky is full of scattered light (i.e reflected from bits of dust etc) so it is polarised, in lots of directions, so the filter will stop the parts of the light appropriately polarised, as mentioned above, predominantly at 90 degrees to the sun. You can easily check this out through your viewfinder v

Shoot RAW if it’s an option on your camera or otherwise bracket your shots: under expose -1 stop, expose correctly and over expose +1 stop. Then assemble in post with photoshop / lightroom etc…

This will give you cleanest ‘pro’ result.

If you can shoot RAW you’re set yet still try and expose for the medium grey tone within the frame. You will still require a computer + Lightroom / Photoshop type software to turn it into a final design. Rely on the histogram rather than the preview image o the back of the camera. It’s very easy to practice and repeat, just step outside and move the camera about whilst seeing the differences in the histogram. The end result may look flat and bit dull in camera but will pop with far more pixel information once you get it on your computer for editing.

🙂

I’ll have a bash then when we get some decent weather. I need to get out and use it more. I just find myself stuck for inspiration.
Got the 50mm lensand enjoy the bokeh effect. The 55-250 is for Manchester Airport aircraft shots.

And kit lens landscapes usually. Want to take it out on the mtb with me but scared of smashing it up.

It’s quite normal not to get an accurate exposure on both sky and land, because they’re really two different things and require different exposures. Which is why filters have always been traditionally used in landscape photography. Nowadays, you can also get away with a a bit of Photoshop. Either by applying a graduated filter effect in Photoshop, or taking two photos at different exposures and merging them. Shooting in RAW will help, giving greater control over exposures in Photoshop.

Take a few photos w different exposures. Choose the one which JUST avoids having blown out highlights. Adjust the “shadows” or equivalent slider in your software of choice. Job done, in most cases.

I don’t think a grad filter is going to sort out bright skies in daytime – it’s just too bright for them to make a difference! A polariser certainly makes a difference. I think I shot this one with a polariser:

Now I’ll start this by saying my experience is in video not stills work. I sometimes use a linear polariser and a 0.9 ND grad. That combo really sorts out bright skies!
I’ve tried a 1.2 ND grad but found that just a bit dark

I also use camera setups to help sometimes as well. Can you change the gamma response on a dslr??

My version, no filters needed. (ND would be tough with a moving subject and I don’t think a polariser would help those shots)

1. Shoot RAW
2. Expose so the brightest part isn’t over exposed
3. Develop RAW in Lightroom (try it free for a month see how it goes)
3a lift the shadows with the “shadows slider” or
3b use the exposure slider to get the plane correct. Get the sky back with the virtual neutral density filter.

Here is my standard dynamic range shot using this method (3b)

As shot

dynamic range RAW (1 of 1) by John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

Post processed

Barton Hills 2 by John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

jpg post processed

dynamic range jpg (1 of 1) by John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

jpg post processed

Essentially unusable.

Post processed

What a difference. Those shots are a nice example of the difference in processing potential of raw and JPG.

There is a far simpler technique if you don’t want to faff about with raw processing.

Point the camera mostly at the sky, half press the button so it meters for the sky, then whilst keeping it half pressed move the camera to get more ground in and take the picture.

This won’t do the same as the raw processing but it might allow you to get what you want. It only takes a second to do. It’s the same as exposure compensation but quicker.

Well managed to get blue skies and various sunset shots. Using manual mode. But they need touching up with post processing as above. Nowdo I get Lightroom or elements. Bearing in mind I’m a beginner?

Two very different things. I’d wager Lightroom will be what you’re looking for.

An aside.

Am really jealous of peoples’ ability on this thread. 🙂

Well managed to get blue skies and various sunset shots. Using manual mode. But they need touching up with post processing as above. Nowdo I get Lightroom or elements. Bearing in mind I’m a beginner?

Try both for free for a month

But IMHO its lightroom if you shoot RAW. Worth it as it allows selective adjustments in RAW conversion.

There is a far simpler technique if you don’t want to faff about with raw processing.

You’re just metering for the sky. The foreground is still going to be underexposed, so you’ll still have to “faff” around with processing.

It’s the same as exposure compensation but quicker.

In a way, but not really. EC will alway under/over-exposed to a specific value. Spot metering is going to be (probably) different every time.

Now do I get Lightroom or elements. Bearing in mind I’m a beginner?

I’d say Lightroom. It’s a dedicated digital darkroom for developing photographs. Elements/Photoshop is an image editing software for putting high heels on badgers etc.. Yes, PS has the tools to do what LR does, but LR is, essentially, much simpler and has a workflow intuitive to photo development. It’s also a very, very good system for storing and cataloging your files/photos.

You’re just metering for the sky. The foreground is still going to be underexposed

Yes, but this may be the desired effect. The op didn’t specify whether or not he wanted to keep detail in both the sky and landscape. Just giving him and easy thing to try to see if it works for him.

I’ll go for Lightroom then. Need to replace the screen on my HTC m8 but that can wait and completely off topic.

Any links to the free trial?

It’s just spot metering. You described spot metering as though it is the same as EC, which it isn’t.

The op didn’t specify whether or not he wanted to keep detail in both the sky and landscape.

He did. He wanted to use a graduated ND to bring down the highlights in the sky while keeping other subject matter, like the foreground or things in it, like airplanes, adequately exposed.

Trying to make the sky and plane stand out a bit better.

Any links to the free trial?

https://creative.adobe.com/products/download/lightroom?promoid=KSPGB

It’s just spot metering.

If you want to have a pedant fest then no, it’s not spot metering at all, that is a different thing. But my contribution is made so enjoy your picture taking and I will see you on the next thread 🙂

The sky is full of scattered light (i.e reflected from bits of dust etc) so it is polarised, in lots of directions,

If we’re being really pedantic then all electromagnetic radiation (inc light) is polarised. Whether or not a specific polarising filter makes much difference will depend on the relative variation of the polarisation and what affect the filtering has.

Polarising filters are a bit hit and miss ime. It was brilliant back in the days of film, but only a subtle impact on my digital cam.

@molgrips. Out of interest are you using circular polarising filters on your digital cams or the ones from you film days.

Film filters were linear polarised and do not work on digital.

I find I get really strong results with my polarising filters.

Yes ff. I had an extra comma in there.