Uneven lighting...what to do?

[Carol]

What can I do to fix a shot like this...or avoid taking a shot like this in the future?

This is the Rocky Glen Falls in the White Mountains.

Time of day...late afternoon...just late enough to notice a slight drop in daylight. Sun is in the west, I am facing south.

All the highlights are blown in the sky. However, the heavy tree cover to the right makes some of the features a bit dark. Bill has suggested in the past that I try using a powerful flash (budget hasn't permitted yet...lol). Would that help?



SOC Original

Processed:
Cropped and color-corrected.
Because the right-third is the darkest, I added a graduated filter to block off the left and center third of the picture. I dropped the exposure to -0.60, and kicked up the blue sat a wee bit.

Thoughts? Am I on the right track?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think those trees are too far away to light with flash, so what you did was probably about as good as could be done. Bear in mind that film (and digital) has only so much latitude, and the typical scene like this has more than it can encompass. A graduated ND filter is a good choice. Another is something we've discussed before, HDR. HDR gets a bum rap, because it is often overused and clearly visible as a contrived image. But it can be done with subtlety. You just need a tripod and two (or more) exposures, one for the highlights and one for the shadows.

Another option is to wait for a better time. One reason many landscape photographers only shoot at dawn and dusk is because there isn't much dynamic range. Their shots may require long seconds or even minutes (and yes, a tripod), but they could capture the dynamic range present, sometimes even with slide film like Velvia, which has very little latitude.

When all else fails, we do what the old pros did - pick your poison. Blow out the highlights or muddy up the shadows. Which do you prefer? Don't forget, you can always bracket; digital is cheap, shoot lots.

I like your processed shot very much, by the way.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Flash wouldn't do much here. On camera just lacks the reach and peters out past 30, 40 feet in my experience.

Problem is, the more you bring out the shadows, the more you lose the highlights, and vice versa. Bill's HDR suggestions probably the best for a case like this as it'll balance an optimized high, low and medium exposure.

 

[Carol]

I forgot about HDR

Thanks for the pointers, I'm definitely going back for another shoot...this is a good place to do tripod work...it doesn't involve hiking for miles or climbing several hundred feet in elevation.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Finding the right time of day for perfect light is tough. I heard a story about a photographer who was hired to shoot a famous cathedral. He showed up every day for weeks but never took a single shot. Finally he announced the light was perfect, and that he'd be back in a year to take the picture.

Me, I'm not that patient.

 

[jks9199]

Just reminded me of a question I've had for a bit...

Lots of the photography I learned was for photographing crash scenes... With film, one thing we learned was to "paint with light." Say the scene is 150 feet long. Most flashes are useless for that, even separate lights. But... with care, on film, you could use a flash to light the 1st 30 feet or so, and expose the film. Don't advance, move the flash to cover the next 30 feet or so (overlap a little, but not much), and so on until you've taken a multiple exposure picture covering the whole scene. The idea is that each time you move the flash, it kind of "overwrites" the unlit areas...

But I can't figure a realistic way to do this digitally? Is it possible? Is there another approach that'd do the same thing? Or is it just call the Evidence Eradicators (AKA fire department) and borrow some of their flood lights to be able to light the whole scene adequately?

 

[Carol]

Just reminded me of a question I've had for a bit...

Lots of the photography I learned was for photographing crash scenes... With film, one thing we learned was to "paint with light." Say the scene is 150 feet long. Most flashes are useless for that, even separate lights. But... with care, on film, you could use a flash to light the 1st 30 feet or so, and expose the film. Don't advance, move the flash to cover the next 30 feet or so (overlap a little, but not much), and so on until you've taken a multiple exposure picture covering the whole scene. The idea is that each time you move the flash, it kind of "overwrites" the unlit areas...

But I can't figure a realistic way to do this digitally? Is it possible? Is there another approach that'd do the same thing? Or is it just call the Evidence Eradicators (AKA fire department) and borrow some of their flood lights to be able to light the whole scene adequately?

Aye, there is. It requires a good (DSLR) camera, but it can be done.

These folks can explain it better than I can:
http://crimescenephotography.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to the entry entitled:

Friday, June 5, 2009
Mini-Tutorial: Crime Scene Photography
Painting With Light

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Aye, there is. It requires a good (DSLR) camera, but it can be done.

These folks can explain it better than I can:
http://crimescenephotography.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to the entry entitled:

Friday, June 5, 2009
Mini-Tutorial: Crime Scene Photography
Painting With Light

Cool resource!

 

[joeleitz]

Your image looks SO MUCH better! Yes, definitely you're on the right track!
Did you use Photoshop to fix it?

What can I do to fix a shot like this...or avoid taking a shot like this in the future?

This is the Rocky Glen Falls in the White Mountains.

Time of day...late afternoon...just late enough to notice a slight drop in daylight. Sun is in the west, I am facing south.

All the highlights are blown in the sky. However, the heavy tree cover to the right makes some of the features a bit dark. Bill has suggested in the past that I try using a powerful flash (budget hasn't permitted yet...lol). Would that help?



SOC Original

http://www.enemakit.com/​

Processed:
Cropped and color-corrected.
Because the right-third is the darkest, I added a graduated filter to block off the left and center
third of the picture. I dropped the exposure to -0.60, and kicked up the blue sat a wee bit.

Thoughts? Am I on the right track?

 

[Carol]

Your image looks SO MUCH better! Yes, definitely you're on the right track!
Did you use Photoshop to fix it?

Thanks Joe! I've been working with a older copy of Corel PhotoPaint. Photoshop is a bit out of my reach at the moment, so I'm trying to teach myself different processing skills while I save for a copy.

 

[jks9199]

You might look at GIMP, Carol. It's freeware... and seems to be a pretty powerful image editor. More powerful than I really know how to use, in fact!