Dark Sunrise

[joebranko]

I know this is under exposed....but I like the dark reds that I captured here and decided to post it to get your comments. Thanks.

[xpatUSA]

Nice mood, Joe. Can't comment about the exposure - no EXIF courtesy of FlickR ...

[Tom Barry]

I agree with Ted.

[Wavelength]

Since heading mentions Sun, i was expecting sun to be fully visible;it is nice; yet i feel a vertical frame (than squarish)with full sun and one silhouetted tree and that reflection on water surface could give a stronger composition?

[joebranko]

Nice mood, Joe. Can't comment about the exposure - no EXIF courtesy of FlickR ...

Thanks Tex. Here is the EXIF.:
:. ISO 100, 77mm, f 32, 1/100"
I must admit when I snapped this I was not aiming on capturing this ambiance. Is was just underexposed, and I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots, but decided to raise the shadows and have another look. I liked the ambiance but did not do much more post.

[joebranko]

I agree with Ted.

Thanks Tom

[joebranko]

Thanks Nandakumar. You are probably right. I did not look at that but will have another look.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks Tex. Here is the EXIF.:
:. ISO 100, 77mm, f 32, 1/100"
I must admit when I snapped this I was not aiming on capturing this ambiance. It was just underexposed, and I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots, but decided to raise the shadows and have another look. I liked the ambiance but did not do much more post.

Thanks Joe. Please call me Ted.

So with 77mm and with a possible crop or a distant shot, the sun was perhaps lower than it looks?

Even so, if the metering was in Auto with no EC -or maybe in Auto with your EC- it thought that the lighting value was extremely bright at almost 17 EV (calculated from the aperture/shutter settings) -so certainly under-exposed, I must agree.

I'd estimate the scene's actual lighting value as 12 to 14 EV so maybe f-11 or 16 would have done it -said he wisely after the fact, LOL.

Pardon my pedantry ...

[joebranko]

Thanks Joe. Please call me Ted.

So with 77mm and with a possible crop or a distant shot, the sun was perhaps lower than it looks?

Even so, if the metering was in Auto with no EC -or maybe in Auto with your EC- it thought that the lighting value was extremely bright at almost 17 EV (calculated from the aperture/shutter settings) -so certainly under-exposed. I'd estimate the scene's actual lighting value as 12 to 14 EV so maybe f-11 or 16 would have done it -said he wisely after the fact.

Pardon my pedantry ...

Thanks Ted. Sorry for the misnomer; just clumsy fingers on a small keyboard.
When I took the shot I was trying for a sunburst around the edge of the tree, hence the f32 aperture. I appreciate the detailed analysis: it is a learning opportunity for me

[xpatUSA]

Thanks Ted. Sorry for the misnomer; just clumsy fingers on a small keyboard.

Appropriate, though. I am after all a natchurlized Texan. Been here so long, ah cain't hardly speak good English.

When I took the shot I was trying for a sunburst around the edge of the tree, hence the f32 aperture.

I did wonder about that ...

I appreciate the detailed analysis: it is a learning opportunity for me

Thanks, you are most welcome!

[William W]

. . . Here is the EXIF: ISO 100, 77mm, f 32, 1/100"
I must admit when I snapped this I was not aiming on capturing this ambiance. Is was just underexposed, and I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots, but decided to raise the shadows and have another look. I liked the ambiance but did not do much more post.

Does that mean:

A) I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots of other scenes

or

B) I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots of that scene, shot within the exposure bracket I made

If the answer is not "B", then my advice is to make "B" a protocol when shooting these type of scenes.

WW

[moroccanimager]

I think exposure and what's successful really depends on what the intention is. As photographers we don't have to represent the conditions but we need to know how to do so when we want to. Personally I like the tone and colour and the 'underexposure'. You could try to develop more of these to make a set. The tough part becomes creating enough interest in shadow areas, so what works for one image doesn't necessarily transpose to other scenes, if only it was that easy. Often it depends on the foliage and density. I'm nudging slightly in the direction of a crop. Might be worth a play here. NandaKumar's vertical suggestion could be a starting point.

[xpatUSA]

Does that mean:

A) I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots of other scenes

or

B) I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots of that scene, shot within the exposure bracket I made

If the answer is not "B", then my advice is to make "B" a protocol when shooting these type of scenes.

WW

Or:

-C) use Partial Spot Metering -just kidding, Bill, recalling a recent thread discussion ...

[William W]

I think exposure and what's successful really depends on what the intention is. . . .

Agree.

I think the word "exposure" is used in Photographic Discussion to mean, typically, one of two things: one is what generally would be considered "Correct Exposure", and that is generally as would be read by a meter; the other is the exposure which was actually used, in this case as per the EXIF provided.

I understood the opening post to mean "I know this is under exposed [to what most would consider the 'correct exposure' as read by a meter]...but I like the dark reds that I captured here and decided to post it to get your comments

WW

[William W]

Or: -C) use Partial Spot Metering

Sinister. My brain hurts.

Have a great weekend.

Bill

[xpatUSA]

I think the word "exposure" is used in Photographic Discussion to mean, typically, one of two things: one is what generally would be considered "Correct Exposure", and that is generally as would be read by [the dumb] meter; the other is the exposure which was actually used, in this case as per the EXIF provided.<>

Absolutely, Bill. We seem to be on the same page.

Pardon the edit and the snip.

I try hard to use a qualifier with the said word. Otherwise several meanings and therefore several misinterpretations become possible. When no qualifier is given, I assume that it means the amount of light in lux-seconds that impinged upon the long suffering sensor. Others have been known to judge over- or under- "exposure" by how bright or dark a processed image is on-screen or in print.

[proseak]

Very nice - thanks.

[joebranko]

Does that mean:

A) I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots of other scenes

or

B) I was tempted to just move on to looking at other shots of that scene, shot within the exposure bracket I made

If the answer is not "B", then my advice is to make "B" a protocol when shooting these type of scenes.

WW

Thanks Bill. So ,I went on to look at other shots of the scene with other exposures, which I had taken, not bracketed, but adjusted after viewing the first shot. So I guess my answer was close to (B) but not quite. I have only used bracketing when I have a high dynamic range and want to use the HDR function in Lightroom.

[joebranko]

Thanks Darren, I am looking at cropping as per Nandakumar's suggestion.

[joebranko]

Very nice - thanks.

Thank you Peter,