Sunset with more than silhouettes

[rampokker]

Hello. For the past week I've been trying to take a photo at sunset with detail instead of black silhouettes in the foreground.
I manage to get the grass and trees green like I want it but then my sunset is blown out (white) if I get the sunset nice the grass and trees are dark. I've read a previous thread "Long shutter speed and White Balance" and saw someone talking about a ND filter, will this help me achieve this? I sort of managed it by taking the 3 shots at different exposure and merging them to HDR, but I am not crazy about the HDR look, it doesn't look real. Here is my HDR "sample", to show you what I'm trying to achieve.

Hole 7 at Sunset | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thanks in advance for any advice

[dcclark]

Right, a graduated neutral density filter is probably your best bet. Put the shaded part across the sky, and the unshaded part across the grass/tree area. Then, try to get the sky exposed right and see how the grass and trees look.

Note that ND is not the same as Graduated ND (GND). ND filters are one solid "shade", whereas GND are half shaded and half clear, which allows you to remove light from the bright part, and hopefully expose the darker part right.

I agree that I don't like the HDR "sample" because of those halos... I'd try to get it right in the camera with filters.

[Krusty79]

I just purchased a Lee 2-stop soft graduated ND filter for the reasons you described above. I don't want to have to go the HDR route every time there is an image with a large dynamic range. The HDR software seems to have problems with halos.

Calumet / Lee Filters 4x6 Graduated .6 ND Resin Filter, Soft Split - LE5136 - LE5136

[Michael_2010]

I'm also losing my enthusiasm for HDR. It works for special effects, but there is an artificial quality about the end product. Still a big fan of bracketing exposures, because that gives you more options at your desk and can see the big picture. Gotta break down and get some graduated ND filters.

[BCampbell]

If you have multiple exposures -- either from RAW or by bracketing your shots -- you can post process a graduated ND filter. Use editing software with layers (Photoshop/GIMP), layer your separate exposures, add a mask and use a gradient fill. This is easier to do by exposing two images from RAW because they'll already be perfectly aligned, but it's not advisable to use two images with more than one stop of exposure difference.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

If you have multiple exposures -- either from RAW or by bracketing your shots -- you can post process a graduated ND filter. Use editing software with layers (Photoshop/GIMP), layer your separate exposures, add a mask and use a gradient fill. This is easier to do by exposing two images from RAW because they'll already be perfectly aligned, but it's not advisable to use two images with more than one stop of exposure difference.

This can work well but just a word of caution. You still get the best quality image with a filter. This is simply because the filter modifies the original light versus modifying pre-recorded pixels after the fact. Using a filter to modify the existing light will pull out the maximum color depth. In post processing, you can only work with what's already been recorded. This means you may not see the colors you would've seen with the ND grad. This reduction in the color impact coupled with post processing degradation (large or slight depending on how intense the processing is) means the image quality will be affected to some degree. It can also add to the "artificial effect" that Michael mentioned.

There is no method that works perfectly 100% of the time and every situation is different. There are times when post-processing is the better method over an ND grad, such as a very uneven (mountains) horizon where an ND grad's transition zone will become very obvious. I've used both ND grads and post processing extensively. From my experience and in my opinion, ND grads still provide the best image quality. But I'm also a perfectionist (my wife uses the term "pain in the a*s but we won't go there! ) and I do sell prints so I also answer to the customer. Everyone has their own standard they must follow. Just my two cents.

Hope that helps!

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by navcom

This can work well but just a word of caution. You still get the best quality image with a filter. This reduction in the color impact coupled with post processing degradation (large or slight depending on how intense the processing is) means the image quality will be affected to some degree.

This is true. If the shot is bracketed you're pretty safe but if you're developing multiple exposures from RAW there are limits. As I said, I'm not comfortable going more than a stop or so (with bracketed exposures, you can go as far as you want), and even then it's better to pull down a bright sky than try to push up a dark foreground. "Pushing" (overexposing) in post tends to add noise; "pulling" actually reduces it. As long as you didn't completely blow out highlights, that is.

But this method is more of a "oh shi-" recovery if you're in a bind. I'd much rather bracket a shot or have the ND-grad filter.

There is no method that works perfectly 100% of the time and every situation is different. There are times when post-processing is the better method over an ND grad, such as a very uneven (mountains) horizon where an ND grad's transition zone will become very obvious.

That's actually a situation where a mix of the filter and some clever post processing will work well. As you said, there's no method that's best all teh time; it helps to have as many tools as possible in your box so you know what you can use when.

[Skoropada]

Some time ago I read about a program called Enfuse, that combines multiple exposures, but in a different way than HDR, creating real-looking images.

Enfuse - PanoTools.org Wiki

I believe it's worth trying it.

[GeronimoPrincess]

One thing that has helped me to get color in most of the picture is to not meter off the sun. I meter around it. To the immediate left/right/top/bottom.

[danbaileyphoto]

You're right, the HDR photo doesn't look "right" because it's not. The main issue that you're dealing with is the simple fact that the camera sensor does not have nearly the same latitude of contrast recognition as the human eye. It simply cannot see and discern the extremely broad range of tones that your eye can detect. Your eye has about 32 stops of brightness, whereas a modern digital sensor has about 12 stops MAX of recognition.

HDR will always look a little unnatural. You're better off using the graduated ND filters.