File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
i think it's made out of pure awesome.
c&c greatly appreciated (as long as it's not "sunsets suck")
>> Anonymous
sunsets suck
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
how the hell do you underexpose a sunset?
>> ac
>>42115
Spot-meter on the big ball of Hydrogen-fueled nuclear hell?
>> Anonymous
>>42115
I underexpose suns/sunsets often. I like the surreal effect. (Not OP, BTW.)
>> elf_man
Still, I think this has a bit too much black, although I do like the underexposed style.
>> Anonymous
grats. worlds first colorless sunset.
>> Anonymous
if ansel adams came over here he'd still get torn apart
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>42157
Someone rang?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>42157

Rough critique is what makes a good photographer great. I personally like the OP photo, but it's still a tad udark for me. Too much black in the bottom detracts from the photo, if only OP had zoomed up a little more. Either way, it looks very cool
>> Anonymous
>>42158
is that a bad scan? I seem to recall the original picture looking slightly more amazing than that one.

Also on a related note, I've seen a picture from that exact same spot taken years later by some copycat who figured out the GPS coordinates, and this pic still wins
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here.
>>42115
it's underexposed because my 400D always does that when I shot into the sun (av mode) and I couldn't be bothered to do it manually.

>>42162
any suggestion on what to crop out? because I really like the sky as it is right now. cutting off the lower part would move the sun further to the bottom right corner and i dont think that is a good spot for it.


here is another shot of the same day. slightly less underexposed. is this any better?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2007:04:20 08:41:15Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias1.3 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width632Image Height961RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>42173
meter on something else and exposure lock?
>> Anonymous
>>42195
Didn't you hear him?! HE CAN'T BE BOTHERED!
>> ac
>>42158
1. Looks a little underexposed on the right side. You should work on that.
2. What the hell did you shoot this at? f/64? You don't need to have *everything* in the shot in sharp focus. You need to master depth of field or you'll never make it in the photography game.
3. "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" --Robert Capa. You took this picture from way, way the hell back. Maybe get a little closer in?
4. Taking pictures of mountains like that is a little touristy. I mean, where's the skill? It's gonna look nice, yeah, but it's not something nobody else could do. Put a little effort into it.
5. The horizon is right in the middle of the frame. Rule of Thirds!

All in all, it's not a *bad* shot for a n00b. Keep working at it and you could be pretty good some day!
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>42173
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>42212

Oops it posted without my reply. The way you have it composed in the OP shot is fine, and I wouldn't cut it ALL out, but crop some off the bottom to take off the black. It might help. Don't cut it totally off; there are still some advantages to having the black at the bottom, but you don't want it to overwhelm your subject.. which is the sky. I'd say try taking off about half the black, then see what happens. I'm cropping it with a piece of paper right now, looks like it'll be okay.
>> Anonymous
>>42203
Dude, Ansel Adams shot at f/64 all the time. The only problems I see with the shot are the contrast and the underexposed area.
>> ac
>>42467
Yes. I know. He, in fact, founded a group called F/64.

It was a joke. Read>>42157
>> Anonymous
>>42203
OMG I can't believe I fucking fell for that. The whole time I was thinking, "WTF, this guy's work looks comparable to Ansel Adams." I guess the lack of contrast is just because of the digital medium.
>> Anonymous
F64 would kill your sharpness, Diffraction at f22 is noticeable, F64 would be even worse..
>> Anonymous
You shoot in AV mode? Please, learn to use your 400D properly.
It's way too underexposed.. and the subject is boring as crap.

Shoot in manual, always.
>> Anonymous
>>42475
> Shoot in manual, always.
LOL, GTFO, you don't know anything.
>> Anonymous
>>42477
I meter/shoot in equivalent exposure mode on my Canon Rebel 2000. (The "P" dial setting) Then I just crank it up or down to get the aperture/shutter speed I want, and the camera maintains the stop I want.
>> Anonymous
>>42477
As a general rule, "shoot in manual, always" is a good one. Av and Tv are for fixing problems and correcting the aperture/shutter faster than a human can, like if there's blinking or otherwise fast-changing light.

Not>>42475, who really was being a little dicky. One has no clue the circumstances around the shot; for some reason he might be a totally learned photographer and have made a purposeful decision to shoot in Av. Also, it doesn't matter how a photograph came to be; it is artistically worth what it is worth. Hell, Ansel Adams very well might sometime occaison use a DSLR with Av set on the smallest aperture available today if he were alive. The only thing we can be sure of is that it -would- be set on the smallest aperture available.
>> ac
>>42474
Not if you're shooting with a large-format view camera, like Ansel Adams did. There are film sizes other than 35mm, you know.
>> ac
>>42506
I almost always shoot Av when available. It lets me set the camera to give me the depth of field I want, and I frankly don't care about the shutter speed other than glancing to make sure it's fast enough to avoid camera shake. If it's under or overexposed, I twiddle the EV dial until I get what I want.

Av gives me all of the control of manual, but with less hassle. Which means I can take pictures faster. Which means I get shots I'd otherwise miss while futzing with the shutter speed.
>> Anonymous
>>42522
Meh, differences in technique, I guess. I do maintain, though, that full manual is better:

1. It assumes that you trust your metering to work out.

2. Lighting doesn't change that quickly in most situations. -1 will still be -1 for quite a long time outdoors, and permanantly indoors.

3. They'll be multiple gradations of light that will meter the same way. If, say, 1/300th of a second reads at -1/3, there are plenty of situations where 1/250th will look different but meter the same. This is especially true at the farther ends.

4. How is futzing with the exposure dial different than futzing with the shutter speed? And so long as one is careful, as moving physically and chronologically into areas of different light, to adjust the shutter speed according to conditions, then one won't miss any shots. It might be a bit lighter or darker than what one would've exposed it to, had he the time, but if it's so far off, then push/pull processing or adjusting light values in Photoshop will fix it, easily. I've missed shots for many reasons, but never because I was futzing, unless I was careless with my settings. Then it's the fault of me as a photographer, and not something to be held against manual mode.
>> Anonymous
Oi if you can't be bothered to take the photo manually why the fuck are you bothered to share it with us.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>42477

I think you're confused. Manual is the ONLY way to shoot, IMO. It gives the most control for the best effect. hands down. Everything i shoot is done on manual, except for the focus.
>> ac
>>42529
>How is futzing with the exposure dial different than futzing with the shutter speed?
It's not. That's my point.

The hardest part of getting a good picture is finding a good subject and composing the shot. Choosing exposure is pretty much mechanical most of the time--you usually want to get as much of the scene within the camera's dynamic range as possible, and modern meters are really good at doing that. If you want to shift the histogram around, the EV comp dial works just as well as the shutter dial. If you don't want to shift the histogram around, you can ignore it and let the camera deal with it on its own.
>> ac
>>42533
All of the pictures I've posted here (except one, which I was really iffy about myself) were quite well received. And guess what: All of the pictures I've posted here were taken either in fully automatic mode or Av/Tv mode.

(I'm counting the ones I posted that I took with my fully-manual TLR from the 50s. I handled the metering on that by basically metering with my little pocket digital camera, then transferring the settings over to the TLR after adjusting for the different aperture and shutter speed ranges)

You are Anonymous. There's no way to tell if you've posted anything at all. So, put up or shut up.
>> ac
>>42546
Why don't you manually focus? It gives you more control over exactly what point you want to focus on...
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>42553

i've got enough focus points and options on my camera, there's no need. I also shoot and move so quickly that it'd take me too much time. Depending on the subject, i'll switch to auto focus, but most of the time I start at one spot, focus, move slightly, refocus, etcetc so i'm shooting like a roll of 36 in about 2 minutes. Just the way i photograph
>> Anonymous
>>42549
>It's not. That's my point.

So why futz with the exposure dial over the shutter speed dial?

>Choosing exposure is pretty much mechanical most of the time--you usually want to get as much of the scene within the camera's dynamic range as possible, and modern meters are really good at doing that.

While I agree that "the hardest part of getting a good picture is finding a good subject and composing the shot," photography is exactly what its name means: writing with light. The light, that is, the exposure, is the key thing. It's not the hardest, but it is the most important.

Hence, choosing exposure is not mechanical. Like I said, they'll be multiple light values that will meter the same. You want digital (as in, digital versus analogue, not as in, digital versus film)? Try something that reduces a value as complex as "amount of light" to a scale measured in thirds. That's just the beginning, too. Converting a light meter reading to the proper exposure value is anything but mechanical. Auto-exposure options don't have experience or intuition. They're designed for the "usual," as you said, which is, in the practice of most photographers, anything but.

>If you want to shift the histogram around, the EV comp dial works just as well as the shutter dial. If you don't want to shift the histogram around, you can ignore it and let the camera deal with it on its own.

I never use a histogram live while I'm shooting, and only rarely check it, and only out of curiosity, after the fact. It tells nothing that a light meter reading doesn't, just in an even less precise form. If you're using "histogram" as an abbreviation for "what the histogram shows" as a synonym for "exposure," then see the next section.

>you can ignore it and let the camera deal with it on its own.

You've yet to make an argument as to why it is better for the camera to deal with it than the photographer.
>> ac
>>42561
>So why futz with the exposure dial over the shutter speed dial?
Because 90% of the time, I don't need to futz with the exposure dial, but if I were doing it in full manual mode, I'd have to futz with the shutter speed dial 90% of the time.

>Try something that reduces a value as complex as "amount of light" to a scale measured in thirds.
I don't know what cameras you're using. For the cameras I use, the manual controls let me set things in third-stops, but the automatic control isn't restricted to that. E.g., I seem to remember shooting something at 1/90th of a second today because I let the camera choose, but it won't let me manually select 1/90th.

>Auto-exposure options don't have experience or intuition
Actually, matrix metering basically amounts to programmed in photographic experience. And, like I said, when the camera picks the wrong exposure, changing the EV is exactly equivalent to changing the shutter speed.

>You've yet to make an argument as to why it is better for the camera to deal with it than the photographer.
For me, the camera usually gets it right. I shoot a lot in situations that change quickly. Letting the camera take care of the shutter speed means I can get the composition I want before the composition I want stops being an option.
>> ac
Oh, and I was using "histogram" as an abbreviation for "what the histogram shows". But I find it helpful to check histograms in complicated lighting situations so I can see what, if anything, is getting clipped on each end of my sensor's exposure latitude. Usually I can just eyeball it when chimping, but for shots where I have enough time to make sure everything's exactly right, I use the histogram to make sure I'm making it as bright as possible without clipping anything to white.
>> ac
>>42560
I've got enough metering options on my camera, there's no need. I also shoot and move so quickly that it'd take me too much time. Depending on the subject, I'll switch to manual exposure, but most of the time I start at one spot, meter, move slightly, re-meter, etcetc so I'm shooting like a 128M compactflash card's worth of pictures in about 2 minutes. Just the way I photograph.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>42569

??
>> Anonymous
I can't believe you people are actually arguing about this.. How hard is it to understand that there are different situations, that there are different approaches to the same situations, that there are different requirements.