Tricking the light. When is a photo not a photo?

Sunrise / sunsets often don't look as colourful on a photo as you remember them.
All you have done is exposed it to look like it was to your eyes (or would have imagined it to have looked like :) )

If you wanted to lift the shadows (which I don't think is needed, I like it as it is) use the 5X1 bracket on the G80 and process it with Affinity or Fusion (or anything else that will, but those two I find the quickest) that way you won't have the noise you found.
 
Phil V said:
Not at all reliant on editing. It’s photography
Click to expand...
Editing. Is perhaps the wrong word,
It implies changing the image.
Processing is perhaps nearer the mark.
As it suggest bringing out what was captured.
As in developing and printing in wet photography.

Jpeg capture is like taking your films to be processed by the local chemist.
Raw is like doing it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Editing. Is perhaps the wrong word,
It implies changing the image.ñq
Processing is perhaps nearer the mark.
As it suggest bringing out what was captured.
As in developing and printing in wet photography.

Jpeg capture is like taking your films to be processed by the local chemist.
Raw is like doing it yourself.
Click to expand...
Editing has become the commonly used term for processing - what used to be done in the darkroom. It used to mean (still does for me) selecting which pictures to process and print/publish. It's a lost battle trying to correct it.
 
Crotal Bell said:
it just felt a bit naughty to take an 8pm shot when there was a fair bit of light and turn it into a night sky,
Click to expand...
At risk of falling into a quagmire of photographic genres and definitions, at a some level there is a distinction between photographs of "things as they are" and "things as one sees them". For example, no one wants a creative medical x-ray. We want our medical x-rays to be an accurate representation of the skeleton and we might hope that journalistic, documentary and wildlife photos are accurate representations of the scene at the time although framing, cropping, depth of field, focal length etc are used to "tell a story". Outside of those genres photographers generally want to show a scene as it was in the photographer's mind's eye; or as the photographer might like it to appear in an ideal world; or to express an emotional connection.

The upshot is it's your photo, as long as it meets its intended purpose do what you want. Sometimes, especially if looking for feedback, it might be helpful to state what the intended purpose is.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Editing has become the commonly used term for processing - what used to be done in the darkroom. It used to mean (still does for me) selecting which pictures to process and print/publish. It's a lost battle trying to correct it.
Click to expand...
Processing and Editing are both used pretty much interchangeably by many, with PP perhaps the most used.
Editing implies selecting and changing in some way.
I only use editing when I mean editing.

All images are processed
Either by the firmware in camera, or, as in post processing. or both.
 
Last edited:
You say this is dusk but it is not that occurs much later after the sun has gone down and is the darkest stage of twilight. This is just before sunset and maybe an hour before dusk depending on the conditions.
If you have one shoot alongside the latest smartphone and see what it does to scene like this with its AI processing.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Editing. Is perhaps the wrong word,
It implies changing the image.
Processing is perhaps nearer the mark.
As it suggest bringing out what was captured.
As in developing and printing in wet photography.

Jpeg capture is like taking your films to be processed by the local chemist.
Raw is like doing it yourself.
Click to expand...
My post was meant as ‘this isn’t processing or editing as it’s what came out of the camera based on time honoured photography techniques.

The OP has a mistaken belief that he’s created something that wouldn’t be seen in the real world, ergo it’s somehow ‘not real’, whereas he’s just exposed for the sky. Which is something perfectly ’normal’ IMHO
 
Sangoma said:
Sunrise / sunsets often don't look as colourful on a photo as you remember them.
All you have done is exposed it to look like it was to your eyes (or would have imagined it to have looked like :) )

If you wanted to lift the shadows (which I don't think is needed, I like it as it is) use the 5X1 bracket on the G80 and process it with Affinity or Fusion (or anything else that will, but those two I find the quickest) that way you won't have the noise you found.
Click to expand...
Just shows how experience counts, as I really can't see noise when I look at it. You can see more when you look at it than I can.
 
Phil V said:
My post was meant as ‘this isn’t processing or editing as it’s what came out of the camera based on time honoured photography techniques.

The OP has a mistaken belief that he’s created something that wouldn’t be seen in the real world, ergo it’s somehow ‘not real’, whereas he’s just exposed for the sky. Which is something perfectly ’normal’ IMHO
Click to expand...
Aha I see your point and yes, I was concerned it was somehow false. You're right, I dropped the Exp Comp for the sun before taking the shot, moreover than doing a lot of post edit.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Just shows how experience counts, as I really can't see noise when I look at it. You can see more when you look at it than I can.
Click to expand...
No, I can't see any, in fact I didn't look :)
I though that was what you meant when you said "Yes I tried that, sadly the lifted areas looked grainy and needed contrast which just took them down again. It seemed better to compose the dark scene.", sorry :)
 
Sangoma said:
No, I can't see any, in fact I didn't look :)
I though that was what you meant when you said "Yes I tried that, sadly the lifted areas looked grainy and needed contrast which just took them down again. It seemed better to compose the dark scene.", sorry :)
Click to expand...
Ah I see. Basically I experimented with upping the shadows but it looked noisy, so the shot from the camera worked out nicer, although I did drop the highlights a bit and add some saturation.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Ah I see. Basically I experimented with upping the shadows but it looked noisy, so the shot from the camera worked out nicer, although I did drop the highlights a bit and add some saturation.
Click to expand...
That is where using a 5X1 exposure bracket on the G80 (or even 7X1 if you want to get even more detail at the extremes) and then merging them helps.
You can then adjust highlights, shadows and mids as you like.
Though, as as I said, I like your shot as it is.
 
Sangoma said:
That is where using a 5X1 exposure bracket on the G80 (or even 7X1 if you want to get even more detail at the extremes) and then merging them helps.
You can then adjust highlights, shadows and mids as you like.
Though, as as I said, I like your shot as it is.
Click to expand...
I suppose as a beginner, this shoot was like cooking a new dish for the first time. It gave me a taste, and I liked it, now I can experiment with different ingrdients.

Must get out at sunset more often.
 
If your camera can automatically bracket shots, it should shoot 3 or 5 shots at different exposure settings. TBH, I wouldn't bother with OVER exposing but would try up to 2 or 3 stops in 1/2 stop increments of underexposure to see what results YOU (the client!) want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top