Would a filter have helped?

kenglade

I'm attaching a couple of pix that I think lack sufficient definition. Would a filter have helped make a better visual line of delineation between the mountaintop and sky/clouds? If so, which filter. Same question for the dog pix. Parts of which are blown.

I'm using Capture NX2 and/or PSE 6, but I haven't ben able to find anything in either that would kep in this situation.
http://kenglade.smugmug.com/photos/515764664_KiLXF-L.jpg[IMG]http:[/img]

C&C and advice appreciated.

kenglade

Sorry. I screwed up using the image imbed. Let me try again.

kenglade

OK. That's one. Here's the other. Apologies for the inconvenience.

ziggy53

I only see one image, of the village and mountain. I do believe that a polarizer might have helped since you were shooting at a large angle with respect to the sun. Polarizer filters work best, and are most dramatic in their effect, when they are used close to 90 degrees off axis from the sunlight.:

http://www.offrench.net/photos/articles/polarizing_filter.php
http://www.great-landscape-photography.com/polarizing-filter.html

If you shot in RAW you might try 2 different exposures along with 2 layers, one layer for the foreground and another for the mountains and sky, and use selective processing on the separate layers to promote the best features of each portion of the image. Some masking would also be required.

A graduated/split ND filter is sometimes used for similar images to allow more control over the captured image but I'm not a fan of them and I don't think it would be appropriate in this case.

A UV/haze filter might also have been used for a minor improvement in the mountains.

ziggy53

For the dog image the scene looks to have a very broad dynamic range, possibly more than the camera could capture and especially so if you shot JPG.

If you shot RAW, and if you used a camera with a highlight extension mode, you might be able to recover some of the lost highlights and lost detail.

It would have been better to have used either a reflector or a fill light to reduce the dynamic range of the scene prior to capture.

As a for instance, this image was shot in fairly bright daylight with nearly overhead and side light (sunlight in this case.) I used a combination of fill flash and FP mode to both control the ambient light and reduce the overall dynamic range (just a snapshot but somewhat improved over a typical snapshot):



Useful EXIF:

Model - Canon EOS 40D
ExposureTime - 1/800 seconds
FNumber - 7.10
ISOSpeedRatings - 400
Flash - Flash fired, Compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 17 mm
ExposureMode - Manual
White Balance - Auto

kenglade

Thanks, Ziggy. I'm planning to take a week at the beach next week where the sun also will be bright and maybe some haze. I think I'll try out a polarizer just to see how it works.

Photoskipper

kenglade wrote:

Thanks, Ziggy. I'm planning to take a week at the beach next week where the sun also will be bright and maybe some haze. I think I'll try out a polarizer just to see how it works.

Remember to get the circlar polarizer so that you can adjust the effect till the sky is really blue and the green is more saturated.

Can also consider to reduce the exposure by 1/3 to 1 steps to get more detail.

kenglade

Strangely enought, I was digging in my closet after these posts and I found a Tiffen circular polarizer. I'll run some test shots on it. Thanks for the tip.

kenglade

Ziggy

Thought you might want to see the results of my extensive testing: two snaps from my balcony, the first with an 812 filter which also was in the closet and the circular polarizer. I'm impressed with the 812 even if I can't remember why I bought it. The CP will take a little more work to get the aperture right.




Shot with D300 at f/11 on a 28-80 (haven't figured out how to include the EXIF info yet)



Shot at

kenglade

For some reason I was unable to add this: Both shot in RAW saved as JPG with the D300 and both at f/11