Winter Evening in February . . . HELP how or what would you do to make these better?

[Kathy O]

Practicing with a new lens that I got over the holidays a 35mm 1.8 prime lens.

I really get so frustrated shooting at this time of evening, (it really doesn't matter what lens I use) it was around 5:30 the sun was just going down, beautiful evening with a temp of 56 degrees out. Every time I try to capture that glow of the sky I am disappointed, it looks good on the camera but when I get home it is washed out. I do realize that editing in lightroom (I have lightroom 5) will help but I want a better photo out of the camera.

I have been shooting manual for about a year now -- it is very frustrating at times. Any suggestions would be great as I am trying to learn both shooting at sunset and manual. Please do not judge photos on composition and subject matter, I want suggestions on how to get the lighting better. Thank you for your help.

The first photo is straight out of the camera except for a few cloning spots and cropping.

Nikon 7100
raw
35mm
f/5.6
1/160 sec
ISO 400
White Balance - Shade
tripod
timer
exposure delay mode



second photo straight out of the camera
Beautiful sunset -- blah color (I do know editing it in lightroom would make it better) my main concern is the washed out sky, I want to get a better photo coming out of my camera.

35mm
f/5.6
ISO 100
White balance - shade
tripod
timer
exposure delay mode

[Brownbear]

Hi Kim,

With scenes with beautiful clouds and skies I've found that a slightly lower exposure helps to bring out the brilliant colours, even if it means underexposing the foreground a touch. And interestingly enough a daylight WB has worked well for me in the past for the colours.

[Kathy O]

Hi Kim,

With scenes with beautiful clouds and skies I've found that a slightly lower exposure helps to bring out the brilliant colours, even if it means underexposing the foreground a touch. And interestingly enough a daylight WB has worked well for me in the past for the colours.

Thank you for your advice
Kathy

[DanK]

Kathy,

There is nothing wrong with your capture. It's just that at that moment, the scene was low in contrast and saturation, even though you have a good dynamic range--the histogram spans pretty much the whole range.

I don't know if you allow edits of your images, and I can take this down if you want, but I did two very quick edits to give it some pop. First, I applied this curve:



This does two things. It boosts contrast (the S-curve), and it brightens the midtones (the area above the straight line). Then I did something I almost never do--I gave it a substantial boost in saturation to bring out the color in the wood. (Normally, I use vibrance moderately and rarely touch saturation, because it is a heavy-handed adjustment.) Here is the result from just those two adjustments:



I think it has a bunch more pop.

'Getting it right in camera' means getting the proper exposure, depth of field, etc. It does not mean that the processing will be what you want. All images are processed, but if you leave it to the camera to do the processing, it has no idea what the results look like.

I hope this helps.

Dan

[Kathy O]

Kathy,

There is nothing wrong with your capture. It's just that at that moment, the scene was low in contrast and saturation, even though you have a good dynamic range--the histogram spans pretty much the whole range.

I don't know if you allow edits of your images, and I can take this down if you want, but I did two very quick edits to give it some pop. First, I applied this curve:



This does two things. It boosts contrast (the S-curve), and it brightens the midtones (the area above the straight line). Then I did something I almost never do--I gave it a substantial boost in saturation to bring out the color in the wood. (Normally, I use vibrance moderately and rarely touch saturation, because it is a heavy-handed adjustment.) Here is the result from just those two adjustments:



I think it has a bunch more pop.

'Getting it right in camera' means getting the proper exposure, depth of field, etc. It does not mean that the processing will be what you want. All images are processed, but if you leave it to the camera to do the processing, it has no idea what the results look like.

I hope this helps.

Dan

Thank you Dan, I appreciate your input

[Shadowman]

I'd suggest shooting in RAW +jpeg just so you can compare both images and get the "why does the jpeg/lcd image look better than what I see later on my monitor", jpegs are optimized for viewing and unless custom editing is turned off; images on screen will tend to have edits applied.

Kathy,

If you aren't using LR to convert the images, which program are you using?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Kathy,

As someone that takes loads of sunsets/sunrises from subtle as your No 2 to full on into a blazing sun just above the horizon I'll tell you how I tackle things. Not to say this is the best way but one I have found works for me with respect to capturing the best I can in camera, prior to PP.

Firstly, retain ISO as low as you can, it will help if you have to recover shadows.

Secondly, unless you want to spend, and have time available, simply set WB to Daylight.

Thirdly, exposure I base on what I know I can pull back/recover with the RAW file in PP and it is always the red channel that hits the right side of the histogram first so monitor this and the blinkies.

I always allow a certain amount of clipping of the highlights and if I was taking your No 2 shot would allow the yellow area to just clip.

If shooting into a bright sun (although brightness can vary considerably with haze and cloud) I will expose so that the area just around the sun has just clipped (and the sun of course has clipped), this can most easily be confirmed with the blinkies.

As for your two images above, you have done about the best you can in camera.

Grahame

[Manfred M]

Kathy - the raw material is there, you simply have to coax it out. Your first image is back-lit and much of the detail is in shadow. In the second image the sky needs a bit more pop and the field needs to be brightened up a bit.

As others have said, your camera is not capable of doing this so it has to be done in post. These shots have been processed in Adobe Camera RAW and then run through some filters using Nik Colour Efex 2 Pro. Even without access to the RAW files, there is data there that can be used to bring out the details the camera captured.

[selig1656]

Interesting to see the editing suggested on pic #1 , the pop is a positive enhancement, personally I would look at sharpness in both. Get the most out of a prime lenses, this takes time to find that zone of excellence.

[Kathy O]

I'd suggest shooting in RAW +jpeg just so you can compare both images and get the "why does the jpeg/lcd image look better than what I see later on my monitor", jpegs are optimized for viewing and unless custom editing is turned off; images on screen will tend to have edits applied.

Kathy,

If you aren't using LR to convert the images, which program are you using?

John,
I am using Lightroom to convert images.
Thanks for your input

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy,

As someone that takes loads of sunsets/sunrises from subtle as your No 2 to full on into a blazing sun just above the horizon I'll tell you how I tackle things. Not to say this is the best way but one I have found works for me with respect to capturing the best I can in camera, prior to PP.

Firstly, retain ISO as low as you can, it will help if you have to recover shadows.

Secondly, unless you want to spend, and have time available, simply set WB to Daylight.

Thirdly, exposure I base on what I know I can pull back/recover with the RAW file in PP and it is always the red channel that hits the right side of the histogram first so monitor this and the blinkies.

I always allow a certain amount of clipping of the highlights and if I was taking your No 2 shot would allow the yellow area to just clip.

If shooting into a bright sun (although brightness can vary considerably with haze and cloud) I will expose so that the area just around the sun has just clipped (and the sun of course has clipped), this can most easily be confirmed with the blinkies.

As for your two images above, you have done about the best you can in camera.

Grahame

Thank you Grahame for all your advice

[Shadowman]

John,
I am using Lightroom to convert images.
Thanks for your input

Kathy,

I believe the only picture control that LR brings into Nikon images is WB, all other PCs such as contrast, sharpening etc. are ignored and have to be reapplied using LR presets. As you were shooting with WB shade, that would be the only applied controls embedded in the RAW file during conversion.

[dje]

Kathy the others have covered it well but could I just say that you need to change your mindset a bit when you are shooting raw. In-camera jpegs have contrast, sharpening, brightness, saturation and hue adjustments applied by the internal processor with the amounts determined by the Picture Control option selected. The preview screen also reflects these adjustments when you are shooting raw. But as John said, these picture control settings are not carried through in the raw file. So it is all up to you and your software as the raw processor! Also, I believe the white point is set conservatively for in camera processing which means you can get better dynamic range from the raw file.

The bottom line is that it's to be expected that the raw file before processing will often seem washed out. You shouldn't feel "guilty" about fixing it up in pp. I know where you are coming from though as I have had similar feelings myself !

Nice images by the way.

Dave

[Brownbear]

Hi Kathy,

I just wanted to say that I answered your question on the sky very specifically but that I agree with all the wonderful advice you've received. When I first joined this forum I didn't even know what post-processing was, and photographed jpeg only. Indeed it is wonderful to have a jpeg out of the camera picture perfect, but it is even more wonderful to have a raw image of the same file and to have free artistic reign for your images. I forgot to say that these are both lovely images, beautifully composed.

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy,

I just wanted to say that I answered your question on the sky very specifically but that I agree with all the wonderful advice you've received. When I first joined this forum I didn't even know what post-processing was, and photographed jpeg only. Indeed it is wonderful to have a jpeg out of the camera picture perfect, but it is even more wonderful to have a raw image of the same file and to have free artistic reign for your images. I forgot to say that these are both lovely images, beautifully composed.

Thank you Christina. I have no problem with post-processing in fact I probably like to do it a little to much (I am a pretty artistic person) my goal is to get better exposure when shooting so that I get the best possible photo coming out of my camera in the raw mode so that when I go to post process I can get creative if I want to, not because I have to, to fix the photo . . . does that make sense?? It's a process and I really learn a lot from posts like this. Thank you for your input.

Kathy

[Kathy O]

Kathy the others have covered it well but could I just say that you need to change your mindset a bit when you are shooting raw. In-camera jpegs have contrast, sharpening, brightness, saturation and hue adjustments applied by the internal processor with the amounts determined by the Picture Control option selected. The preview screen also reflects these adjustments when you are shooting raw. But as John said, these picture control settings are not carried through in the raw file. So it is all up to you and your software as the raw processor! Also, I believe the white point is set conservatively for in camera processing which means you can get better dynamic range from the raw file.

The bottom line is that it's to be expected that the raw file before processing will often seem washed out. You shouldn't feel "guilty" about fixing it up in pp. I know where you are coming from though as I have had similar feelings myself !

Nice images by the way.

Dave

Thank you so much for the advice and the compliment.
Kathy

[Brownbear]

Hi Kathy,

Your goal in my mind is absolutely the best way, and I expect shared by most every member of this forum, including me.

After reading the posts in this thread I just wanted to make sure that I didn't give the impression that I thought having the camera post process the images was the best means for everyone and every type of image/need. Simply because it took me a while to learn this and why. I'm just starting to explore my artistic side and overwhelmed by all the possibilities

Thank you Christina. I have no problem with post-processing in fact I probably like to do it a little to much (I am a pretty artistic person) my goal is to get better exposure when shooting so that I get the best possible photo coming out of my camera in the raw mode so that when I go to post process I can get creative if I want to, not because I have to, to fix the photo . . . does that make sense?? It's a process and I really learn a lot from posts like this. Thank you for your input.

Kathy

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy,

Your goal in my mind is absolutely the best way, and I expect shared by most every member of this forum, including me.

After reading the posts in this thread I just wanted to make sure that I didn't give the impression that I thought having the camera post process the images was the best means for everyone and every type of image/need. Simply because it took me a while to learn this and why. I'm just starting to explore my artistic side and overwhelmed by all the possibilities

Christina,
I did not get that impression at all. I appreciate you help.