BlueTsunami said:
mrkgoo? Whats the general technique when it comes to balancing the light levels between sky and land so you get wonderful shots like that?
With me its either the sky is more prominent or houses and other structures (landscape too) stand out. I need to get that in between.
My secret? Circular polariser. With it, it can darken polarised light (ie sky light 90 degrees from the direction of the sun) to the point where you can get a much more balanced exposure between sky and land - which incidentally makes greens greener. As far as I know it's not an easy thing to do in post production (well, maybe it is these days - I dunno - I avoid PP for the most part, at least for now).
Other than that, without one, you have to hit the middle ground between exposing for sky or land. You can save some highlight and/or shadow details in post, I believe (in fact the new iPhoto08, aperture, and I'm sure the adobe programs, have sliders for just that) - but you can;t save shots that simply don't have the information there. So it's shooting RAW, and finding a good balance, or using a polariser. Both techniques will have their pros and cons. Edit: Oh yeah, HDR(high dynamic range) is also an option, I guess. Where you take multiple exposures and merge them into one via photoshop or other software.
Also, pay attention to light - If the sun shines directly on your subject as opposed to backlighting can minimise large light differences. Well - that's all I can offer in my amateur opinion. I'm sure some more experienced people can offer some more tips.
Anyway, just an example of circular polariser shots I took:
Polariser 'on minimum':
Same shot with polariser 'on maximum' (rotated for maximum effect):
Note, you lose some light from using the polariser, so shutterspeeds will be about 1-2 stops slower. Also note that since the sky isn't evenly polarised, on extreme wide angle shots, the sky may go from light to dark in one shot.
Also would like to reiterate: Some people always talk about photography capturing what is there, and any toying with the image or adding effects is 'cheating' - but really, ALL photography is 'cheating' then. Photographs actually don't capture reality. Everything is just however it is perceived. Your eyes and brain will see something different to certain setup with a camera. For example, your eyes have a fixed field of view (supposedly around 50 mm equivalent). So any lens that is not 'normal' will already be 'seeing' something different. Also, your eyes have a much wider dynamic range than digital sensors - a reason why you can never capture as 'brilliant' a scene as you see it. The way I see it, good photographers accept that photography isn't about capturing reality, but using the situation to make an image, as they perceive it.
