I would expose for the rocks and lose the sky and it's clouds. You can always redo the sky in Photoshop or Elements..
The filter that might save the shot would be a graduated neutral density filter, probably in a strength of ND4 (2 stops) or ND8 (3 stops)..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
I'm fairly sure that the screw-on filters are split 50/50..
However, you can get a filter holder which attaches to the lens. Then you buy rectangular filters which slot into the holder. With a graduated ND filter, you just move it so that it is positioned according to the scene you are photographing..
Without using filters, one solution is to take two images, one exposed for the foreground and one for the sky. You can then "blend" the two in your image editing program. There are many tutorials on specific steps to achieve this..
Another way is to make different extractions from the same RAW file and blend in Photoshop, as example below..
Original.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Blend.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Thoran wrote:.
Hi, I'm a relatively inexperience novice when it comes tophotography, but have been focusing on learning all the manualcontrols (or at least semi-manual controls) on my Panasonic FZ-5before I step up into the world of DSLRs. Living, in the PacificNorthwest, much of my shots are outdoors taken along hikes in thecascades..
Where I run into problems is when I start getting the (oftenovercast) sky into the mix. If I meter for the mountains and ground,then the sky is always overexposed, and if I meter for the sky, therest of the shot is under exposed. I understand that this is to beexpected given the limits in dynamic range in the camera. I'm sureyou know what I'm talking about, but just to be safe I've attached aspecific example. What could I have done to make this better (i.e.keep the sky from being overexposed but without underexposing therest of the shot)? Would a circular polarizer help or does that justwork with the blue sky and would still leave the clouds over-exposed?.
From my reading, it sounds like a graduated ND filter would help aswell, but this raises another question: Is a graduated ND filteralways split 50/50 or can you get them so that, say, only the top 25%is dark? I'd hate to have to cut out part of the way I'd normallyframe the shot just to get the filter to line up with the sky..
Again, forgive me, as I'm a novice and haven't even really looked ata filter before. I also realize that what I'm asking may not be apossibility on the FZ5 - these are just more general questions tohelp prepare me for a future upgrade (perhaps just in time for thenext hiking season). Thanks!..
Try HDR, the FZ5 does exposure bracketing, shouldn't be a problem..
Thoran wrote:.
Hi, I'm a relatively inexperience novice when it comes tophotography, but have been focusing on learning all the manualcontrols (or at least semi-manual controls) on my Panasonic FZ-5before I step up into the world of DSLRs. Living, in the PacificNorthwest, much of my shots are outdoors taken along hikes in thecascades..
Where I run into problems is when I start getting the (oftenovercast) sky into the mix. If I meter for the mountains and ground,then the sky is always overexposed, and if I meter for the sky, therest of the shot is under exposed. I understand that this is to beexpected given the limits in dynamic range in the camera. I'm sureyou know what I'm talking about, but just to be safe I've attached aspecific example. What could I have done to make this better (i.e.keep the sky from being overexposed but without underexposing therest of the shot)? Would a circular polarizer help or does that justwork with the blue sky and would still leave the clouds over-exposed?.
From my reading, it sounds like a graduated ND filter would help aswell, but this raises another question: Is a graduated ND filteralways split 50/50 or can you get them so that, say, only the top 25%is dark? I'd hate to have to cut out part of the way I'd normallyframe the shot just to get the filter to line up with the sky..
Again, forgive me, as I'm a novice and haven't even really looked ata filter before. I also realize that what I'm asking may not be apossibility on the FZ5 - these are just more general questions tohelp prepare me for a future upgrade (perhaps just in time for thenext hiking season). Thanks!.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
Along with being a photo novice, I am definitely a post processing novice as well. Using some of the HDR-specific software out there, is it very hard to get a natural looking HDR image? It seems that a good chunk of the HDR examples I've seen out there have very extreme colors that look much more like artistic interpretations than 'as the eye saw it' kind of shots..
How would overall image quality compare between an HDR image and a single shot taken using a properly adjusted filter setup?..
Thoran wrote:.
Along with being a photo novice, I am definitely a post processingnovice as well. Using some of the HDR-specific software out there,is it very hard to get a natural looking HDR image?.
It's very easy. You don't even need specific software, Photoshop / gimp is plenty enough if you know what you are doing...
If you want to take a photograph of what is actually in front of the lens... well, that's easy enough to do..
And here, there was a blank white sky, right?.
So you succeeded..
Serious phtographers wait for the light. That's one of the reasons why photography is hard..
For those who want to construct a picture using to change reality, there are options..
For the shot you displayed, retouching in some program like Photoshop Elements is probably easiest..
If you have the equipment and plan ahead, lug a tripod with you and take multiple exposures and let software replace God..
About filters if it was a sunny day, a polarizer works wonders to make the sky darker and make clouds stand out..
As for neutral density filters... the Cokin sytle where you can slide the filter up and down in a frame, so that it only affects the part of the shot you want is the best bet..
But generally these are straight lines between light and dark; sometimes a sharp difference and sometimes a blurry, feathered difference. But you require a straight horizon, and your shot would be a problem because of the various peaks and valleys..
BAK..
BAK wrote:.
And here, there was a blank white sky, right?.
Clearly this has nothing to do with the DR of the tinyass sensor of the Panasonic FZ5...
Thoran wrote:.
Along with being a photo novice, I am definitely a post processingnovice as well. Using some of the HDR-specific software out there,is it very hard to get a natural looking HDR image? It seems that agood chunk of the HDR examples I've seen out there have very extremecolors that look much more like artistic interpretations than 'as theeye saw it' kind of shots..
How would overall image quality compare between an HDR image and asingle shot taken using a properly adjusted filter setup?.
HDR does a better job but you can get a decent looking image with most image editors. This is a quick and dirty with Photoshop, but Elements or Paint Shop Pro would give a similar output. You can mute the colors as much as you want selectively. I would probably replace the sky rather than color it like I said it is a real quick and dirty..
To directly answer your question HDR gives you more dynamic range than the sensor is capable of regardless of whether you use a filter..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..