Sydney Sunset/Storm

[Toddyh]

Grabbed a couple of quick shots of the sunset before the storms that hit the other night from my front porch. First one using the 'sunset' setting on the camera. 2nd is full manual mode.
Which do you think works better?
Personally I like the manual shot better as I think the storm clouds look better.

[sejac]

Todd, we could start a good discussion here on camera settings and so on.

Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "full manual mode". To me, shooting Manual means I set the f-stop and shutter speed.

I think I'm right in saying that as photographers gain experience in their art/craft, they worry less about in-camera settings. They don't want to let the camera make decisions for them, but would rather take control at the computer in PP (Post Processing)

I have my camera set just about permanently to "Flash" setting, as distinct from daylight, cloudy and so on. As I always shoot "Raw", I know that my shots will be pretty close for most conditions, and final tweeking can be done later.

That is not to say you shouldn't get the camera settings as correct as possible when shooting. There is no excuse for poor camera technique, and PP is not there to cover up slackness when shooting. But cameras are not perfect, and some tweaking is nearly always required. I'm not just talking snap-shots.

And I know some will say: "Charles, if you get it right in-camera, you can shoot jpegs (as distinct from using Raw) and everything will be fine." This works for many people as they are happy with their results. Good on them. I don't do it that way, maybe because a lot of the shooting I do tends to be under weird lighting conditions. I'm just warning you!!

In fact, a shot like your would benefit from combining to shots with two different settings. In shot #1, go for getting maximum detail/drama from the clouds and sky. I imagine a fairly fast shutter speed. In shot #2 go for foreground detail. Shot #2 would require a slower shutter speed and would blow out the sky, but no problem, as you would use the sky from #1. Of course, to get 2 shots like this, a tripod would be an absolute necessity.

I know you didn't ask for such a rant Todd. Hope it gets you thinking maybe. I hope other join in with their ideas.

[Toddyh]

Haha wow what a reply. Just to clarify by 'full manual' I mean manual selection of iso, shutter, f plus manual focus. That's how I shot the second photo.
The first photo was the first time I have used the auto 'sunset' setting on my camera. Not stoked with it.

[Alan]

Hi Todd,

I agree with Charles about taking a couple of shots at different exposures and blending them later.

We certainly could start a discussion here - so why not

I'm a bit different to Charles in that I let the camera make a lot of decisions for me, (I paid a lot of money for it to do that). So on my Nikons, I set it to P - Program - (sadly I was told that it doesn't stand for Perfect )

BUT, For bird Photography with my 300mm lens, I find f/7.1 works for me so, I set the camera to A - Aperture Priority - (not Auto), and work the ISO, Shutter Speed and Exposure Compensation around that.

However, I then have the option to over-ride exposure after checking the histogram and 'highlight blinking' - as well as boosting ISO, eg if I see the shutter speed is too low. As Charles says, "cameras are not perfect, and some tweaking is nearly always required. I'm not just talking snap-shots."

I'm even now being tempted to select Auto ISO as I get even more slack.

But also for my Bird Photography, (which I take more seriously), I have a couple of Presets/User Settings on the camera dial that I can call up straight away depending on the conditions. eg Bird in Flight.

As to Colour Temperature, I was always under the impression that if you shot in RAW, it made no difference as to what you set the camera WB to as you could always adjust it later. I just leave it at Auto and only ever have to make slight adjustments in PP

A quick Google found these discussions

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YJta

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread4893.htm

the gist of which was....

'I have always understood (although I might be wrong) that a RAW capture is just that - the data recorded at the time the shutter was opened. The camera metadata is also included, and a 'snaphot' jpeg review image for viewing. Whatever settings you make to the camera, the RAW file is still just the RAW data. For example shooting in RAW with 'monochrome' set will produce a colour RAW (as the camera saw it). WB only changes an image file when you shoot in JPEG. Just because you load a RAW to Photoshop (or whatever) and see something different, doesn't mean it actually is different. It isn't - the whole point of RAW is that the data stays the same (as shot). You are simply manipulating how it looks. If you shot a landscape on a cloudy day, you might switch the camera WB to 'cloudy' which will change the WB for a JPEG. But if you shot it in RAW it would just record exactly what it saw - the sensor doesn't know it's cloudy! Photoshop might apply any WB setting to your loaded RAW file so it looks like you intended. But that isn't the same as the data actually being changed - which it isn't.'

Now back to your photos They are just thumbnails on my screen, and even clicking on them doesn't make them much bigger, which doesn't do them justice. Not sure how you are uploading? Or maybe it's just a problem at my end - see what others say?

Nice light - sunsets are like that

To me there is too much black foreground - it's over 50% of the shots when the sky is the subject.

The poles and wires also detract a bit - but I know that's how it was at that instant in time. Cloning them out is an option, but too hard and time consuming I'd suggest.

So, to finally answer your question - I also prefer the manual version (and you didn't even post it in 'Pick it to Pieces' - you get value for money here Todd )

[Toddyh]

Thanks for the info and comments Alan. Much appreciated.
Both of these were shot in jpg and just an opportune moment from the front porch. If it ever happens again I might try RAW and see how I go.

[Isac]

2 good essays there chaps. If I were Todd, I'd feel pretty chuffed. Todd, they're pretty good togs these two and I hate to admit it but they've taught me a thing or two - and I thought I knew it all
Back to your photos, I think the dark parts under the sunset, need to be seen and crop off the bottom section. It's only my take on it and only a 57kb image, otherwise I would have erased the power lines !

[Toddyh]

Thanks Isac. I actually can't do this as I only have Lightroom. Not full PS. But I do like what you have done here.

[Alan]

A fence! and posts! and poles!

Super work ISAC. Todd, you have struck a gold mine here

[P Plates]

I prefer the manual one but hard to really see in the original post as the image was too small. I shoot in manual most of the time and for this sort of scene would definitely bracket different exposures and blend them in PP as suggested above. I know cameras are clever but personally I prefer the results I get in manual. I do however, like Alan, shoot in Aperture Priority when photographing birds as they can move into different light so quickly - far more quickly than I can change settings.

[Toddyh]

Thanks P Plates. I've just bought myself a 500mm cheapie with a fixed aperture (f8) for this exact reason. I will have a play around with it. If and see how I go.

[Isac]

Thanks Toddyh. I think Lightroom will do this easily, have a Google search for a tutorial and see what comes up.
Here's one that might help. Lightroom

[Toddyh]

Thanks Isac. I was referring to not being able to merge 2 photos. That fill light is a handy tip though.

[Isac]

That's OK Toddyh. I'm always misinterpreting stuff. I'm pleased that the link didn't go to waste.

[bill jolley]

I'm not all that good on the techs but I prefer to use manual But when taking wildlife Ap setting is very good to use. In my sports (cycling) shots speed works best for me I also like shooting in RAW I think what I'm trying to say is that what ever settings we use , it is what pleases the individual that matters Bill