Morning walk c+c

squareballoon

I don't usually take landscape shots but I wanted to practice my exposure this morning. I'd just had a mini exposure workshop with my brother in law who's a photographer in Austin. I walk this route pretty much everyday with the dog. c&c on anything please. taken with my 70-200 2.8 iso 100 for all with varying shutter speeds

bullpost

First two are lovely - though you've got some burnt highlights and flare happening because of the strong sun.

Next two don't do a whole lot for me. I've taken loads like these , which look nice at the time but don't make for an interesting image.

Last one is lovely, probably slightly overexposed and you might want to clone out the blue bag or whatever on the left side.

squareballoon

thanks for the C&C. I agree about the middle two. They do nothing for me either but if I'd taken a shot like that before i would have probably overexposed the sky so it's progress, just not interesting progress yet.
With the first two, how would I have taken it without blowing the sky? I metered for the grass. If I had metered for the sky would I not have underexposed everything else?
The grey thing in the last is a pigeon but agree that it looks out of place.

Thecageyone

Strangely, the middle 2 are my favourites, maybe because they're better exposed? And I like mountains Too much blue in the 2nd mountain shot though with no detail, nice cloud formation would have made it more interesting. but you can't do much about nature.

I would actually have preferred if you didn't block the gate in the first shot, if you'd gotten down lower and to the right a bit. There is potential for a lovely shot, the light was there.

bullpost

You can use a lens hood to help reduce flare but you probably didnt need to shoot the sky as part of this - In fact try cropping it out .

I'd have looked for an angle where the sky wasn't incuded.
With as big a difference in exposure between the sky and rest its always going to be a compromised shot.

No expert but my tuppence worth.

squareballoon wrote: »

With the first two, how would I have taken it without blowing the sky? I metered for the grass. If I had metered for the sky would I not have underexposed everything else?

Thecageyone

Or an ND Grad filter, or ND filter + slower exposure for the foreground.

charybdis

squareballoon wrote: »

thanks for the C&C. I agree about the middle two. They do nothing for me either but if I'd taken a shot like that before i would have probably overexposed the sky so it's progress, just not interesting progress yet.
With the first two, how would I have taken it without blowing the sky? I metered for the grass. If I had metered for the sky would I not have underexposed everything else?
The grey thing in the last is a pigeon but agree that it looks out of place.

I think the blown highlights and veiling flare suit the images, it makes them more atmospheric. I don't think blown highlights are really a problem unless they occupy a large contiguous area or have distinctly unpleasant transitions (which usually only happens when someone think the "recovery" slider is a panacea). If you're trying to learn about controlling exposure you'll have to accept that you can't always hold detail in all areas of an image and will have to make compromises based on how you want to expose the key tones in your photographs. There are ways you can rein in all highlight and shadow areas to midtones but usually at the expense of the gestalt of the image. Exposure, like sharpness, is a tool of expression, not a technical pursuit in itself.

The tones of the leaves, mountain, and sky in the third shot are great.

squareballoon

thanks everyone. I'm a bit of a sunflare / backlighting junkie so I'm not sure I'll ever completely eliminate a blown sky in those circumstances.