help ignorant D70 owner

When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is
too dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out
aqua. Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not
doing the right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is
it white balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.

"Wolfgang Schmittenhammer" wrote in message
m...
When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is too
dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out aqua.
Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not doing the
right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is it white
balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.


DSL cameras tend to underexpose a bit to prevent washout. IMO the photo
that you think is too dark looks right on the money. A polarizing filter
might help, and I've seen people use photoshop to combine perfect exposures
of every part of a scene.

Digital cameras tend to photograph scenes much like slide film, so you don't
have a lot of leeway from the dark part of a scene to lighter parts.
Experiment a lot, and shooting RAW might help as you'll have more control
over the image after it's been taken. You will, of course, need the RAW
plugins for Photoshop or the Nikon software.

Sheldon wrote:
"Wolfgang Schmittenhammer" wrote in message
m...

When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is too
dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out aqua.
Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not doing the
right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is it white
balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.



DSL cameras tend to underexpose a bit to prevent washout. IMO the photo
that you think is too dark looks right on the money. A polarizing filter
might help, and I've seen people use photoshop to combine perfect exposures
of every part of a scene.

Digital cameras tend to photograph scenes much like slide film, so you don't
have a lot of leeway from the dark part of a scene to lighter parts.
Experiment a lot, and shooting RAW might help as you'll have more control
over the image after it's been taken. You will, of course, need the RAW
plugins for Photoshop or the Nikon software.


Thanks...Dave M.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:50:55 GMT, Wolfgang Schmittenhammer
wrote:

When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is
too dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out
aqua. Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not
doing the right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is
it white balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.


Most cameras have problems capturing the entire range of sky and ground
shadow... I've learned to take several pics of the same scene at different
settings, and mix the best parts together in the computer...

Your lower pic is pretty good, it only needs a bit of lightening in the forest
area if anything...

BTW lots of dust bunnies there!

The bottom shot looks like the "correct" exposure to me...if you want
something
different, how about using a graduated ND filter?

"Wolfgang Schmittenhammer" wrote in message
m...
When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is too
dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out aqua.
Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not doing the
right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is it white
balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.

In article ,
Sheldon wrote:

"Wolfgang Schmittenhammer" wrote in message
m...
When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is too
dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out aqua.
Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not doing the
right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is it white
balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.


DSL cameras tend to underexpose a bit to prevent washout. IMO the photo
that you think is too dark looks right on the money. A polarizing filter
might help, and I've seen people use photoshop to combine perfect exposures
of every part of a scene.

Definitely try using a circular polarizer. I've been amazed at
how much more clarity my outdoor shots have since I started using
one. You can find many example photos illustrating the effects
of using a polarizer he

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam...polarizer.html

To put it simply, the sky is a lot brighter than the ground, so if the
sky is exposed properly the ground will be underexposed, and if the
ground is exposed properly the sky will be overexposed. The most common
way to compensate for this is the circular polarizer (which emphasizes
the blue of the sky) or graduated neutral density filters (which darken
half the picture).

You can also experiment with exposures that are in between the ideal
for sky and ground.

I generally just expose for the sky and shoot in camera raw. The
underexposed ground preserves details that might otherwise be burned
out. I can bring these details out in editing later. The reason I don't
expose for the ground is the sky is very dififcult to bring back the
way you want it; you lose too much detail.

Sometimes, though, you just want to point and shoot. In that event, I
use an averaged reading and adjust everything later.

Wolfgang Schmittenhammer wrote:
When I take a picture Nikon D70 (auto white balance, have also tried
sunny mode) with (especially) a deep blue sky, either the landscape is
too dark (underexposed) and the sky comes out the right color, or the
landscape seems to be correctly exposed, but the sky is a washed out
aqua. Tried to adjust in Photoshop 7, but didn't work, maybe just not
doing the right thing.. Any help appreciated, see link to photo.. Is
it white balance, filter, or neither???? Thanks, Dave M.


I experience the same thing. I think it's inherent in shots with high
contrast, e.g. bright sky highlights and deep shadows. The scene simply
exceeds the dynamic range capability of the sensor.

The reason you get the aqua color ( I sometimes even get a
greenish-yellow - extreme case) is that nominally the r-g-b color spread
for a typical sky is r, +40g, +80b, for example 170r, 210g, 250b. As
you overexpose, you drive the sky to say 190r, 230g, 270b. Obviously,
though, the blue clips at 255, driving the color toward aqua, then
green-yellow. On a cloudy day, with predominantly grey skies (r=g=b),
you simply clip all the colors at 255 and blow out all of the cloud
detail to white.

Many people have given good suggestions above. Try them and see what
works for you. Remember, this is a lifelong learning experience, and
photography is a series of compromises.

One thing I have adopted as a way of getting the best chance of a
useable shot is to bracket. I've set up my D70 for half step
bracketing, continuous shutter, and a -.5 step exposure bias. This way
I just frame and shoot, holding the shutter release button until 3 shots
have clicked off, and I have a -1.0, a -.5, and a 0.0 stop biased set.
I usually check the -1.0 ev biased shot on the LCD, in highlight mode
(sometimes in histogram mode), and if the -1.0 shot also has a lot of
blown highlights, I will often flick the exposure bias thumbwheel 3
clicks to the right, and shot another series, at -2.5, -2.0, and -1.5.
When I need to do that, I'm automatically aware that my chances of
getting a stunning shot are nil, but at least I've given myself the best
chance of being able to salvage something through post-processing.

Obviously you need a big CF Card to do this extensively, and if you
shoot RAW, you might find memory too limiting. I am just starting to
experiment with RAW.

One final thought: You could try to set the contrast to 'low' in the
menu system. This might or might not help. You should be able to pack
more dynamic range into a shot, but whether you lose too much in the
shadows is what you need to decide for your style of shooting and your
preferences.

Mike

cjcampbell wrote:

To put it simply, the sky is a lot brighter than the ground, so if the
sky is exposed properly the ground will be underexposed, and if the
ground is exposed properly the sky will be overexposed. The most common
way to compensate for this is the circular polarizer (which emphasizes
the blue of the sky) or graduated neutral density filters (which darken
half the picture).

You can also experiment with exposures that are in between the ideal
for sky and ground.

I generally just expose for the sky and shoot in camera raw. The
underexposed ground preserves details that might otherwise be burned
out. I can bring these details out in editing later. The reason I don't
expose for the ground is the sky is very dififcult to bring back the
way you want it; you lose too much detail.

You may be right about the sky losing color but theoretically there is
more detail in an overexposed image (as long as it isn't actually blown
out indicated by the histogram and blinking highlight on the LCD) and
it's for sure that brightening an underexposed image brings a lot more
noise and posterization. However that posterization in still relatively
dark tree shadows isn't as noticeable as it would be in a sky that was
brightened in PS. Also darkening a sky in PS, you usually have to go
really far with it and mask off the ground, but ultimately that gets
more detail, though I think that's correct it may be hard to get that
even dark blue sky versus the ugly aqua those sample images show. I'm
curious if this is true even shooting RAW.

And yes, shooting RAW is very helpful here. Most likely just tuning down
the contrast & other adjustments will recover a scene like this without
having to merge exposures. Here's an image where the jpeg was horribly
under and overexposed but converting the RAW image I got decent shadow
detail and protected the highlights and deep blue sky:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritty/2005-10-29-mission&PG=3&PIC=15
here's the blown jpeg:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritty/2005-10-29-mission/jpeg
black shadows & white sky.


Sometimes, though, you just want to point and shoot. In that event, I
use an averaged reading and adjust everything later.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

Mike G. wrote:

One final thought: You could try to set the contrast to 'low' in the
menu system. This might or might not help. You should be able to pack
more dynamic range into a shot, but whether you lose too much in the
shadows is what you need to decide for your style of shooting and your
preferences.

It's always easier to increase contrast in post processing but that
means you might end up having to post-process most of your images. I
shoot in RAW plus basic JPEG (I wish it had a RAW+fine) and the basic
jpegs are all right there ready to review with enhanced contrast which
is usually perfect. Then I sort & chose several best shots from the
shoot & only save the RAW files for those, and only bother to convert
RAW if I'm actually printing or if it needs more adjustment but the
basic jpegs are fine for on-screen review and reducing for web. Often
the WB comes out unsatisfactory and the RAW files are great for
balancing that out!