Hang on tight! We're going for a ride...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

[mknittle]

Well captured Alan, looks like after the ride we are going for a swim?

[AlwaysOnAuto]

You've got that right Mark.
They were dropping them off off-shore and they'd then get a tow back in from a jet ski.

[Shadowman]

Nice one.

[Wavelength]

Very nice

[Jim A]

Great memory, am sure to be cherished, Alan. Is that you getting in ? Am sure that there is more that can be achieved to lift it, if that is what you want?

[AlwaysOnAuto]

No Jim, I'm behind the camera taking the picture. I don't fly, in helicopters or airplanes so no memories for me.
I had a circular polarizer on the lens, that's why it looks a little on the dark side. Won't make that mistake again.

[DanK]

I had a circular polarizer on the lens, that's why it looks a little on the dark side. Won't make that mistake again.

I don't think so. In an image like this, I would expect the darkening from a polarizer to be fairly uniform, apart from reflections. I think the problem is that the difference in brightness between the copter on the one hand and the sky and building on the other is very large (you can see this in the histogram), and the camera metered to avoid blowing out the sky. (Did you use an averaging metering of some kind?) The result is that the copter is too dark to show detail. There isn't a simple way to handle this in a single shot; you either have to bracket and combine images or adjust in post. For example, I did an extremely quick and sloppy edit to brighten the copter:

[AlwaysOnAuto]

The A7ii was on multi meter mode, so I assume (I know, I know) that is avg'ing done by the camera.
The image in the viewfinder is pretty dark with the filter on so focusing (manually) wasn't as easy as it would have been without it.
This is one of the sharpest shots I was able to get. Others weren't so good.

[DanK]

Alan,

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The issue isn't that the camera did the averaging. The issue is that you have areas in the photo that are dramatically different in brightness. Here's the histogram of your shot, before editing:



What you see is a small peak at the left, showing a bunch of pixels at or near complete black. That's parts of the copter and the wet suit. Then you have some pixels across the entire range, which a huge number near the right--that is, very bright. That's mostly the sky and the light concrete of the building. The whole thing exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor, although apparently not by much.

One option is to try to fit the entire span into one image. That's what your exposure does, which is why I guess you were using some kind of averaging. Given the dynamic range, that means that the lightest areas are nearly clipping (it looks like a tiny bit did clip), and the dark areas are very dark and beginning to clip. Had you spot metered on the man, he and the dark areas of the copter would have been better exposed, but the sky would have been blown out. If you don't want to blow out the sky in a situation like this, you have two choices: leave the copter too dark, or lighten it in post. After all, the copter wasn't going to stand still enough for you to bracket the shot.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Dan - I appreciate the input. I'll admit, I was in a hurry to get the shot as they were not waiting around for me to get the picture. This is also a major complaint from my family when taking photos of them. Always taking too long.
Here's the shot straight out of the camera. I only have rudimentary software for post processing, but I did try to get the histo to look a little 'better' than 'as shot'.

[IzzieK]

Very good that you did a wider shot for later crop. Now we see what you were working on. Good job on the edit of Dan and explaining the histogram.