Fall sky in morning

[NDWIndTwins]

Hi, I'm new to this forum, so I hope I get everything in here that you need. I've been reading some of the other critiques and tutorials and think there will be a lot I can learn.

Anyway, I took this picture on a beautiful fall morning when the sunrise made the sky turn gorgeous shades of pink. I have fiddled with this photo some in Elements, but not a lot. I left it a bit dark because I wanted to impart the feel of very early morning, but I'm afraid that it is too dark. There is frost on the field, I"m not sure if that comes through. Viewing this large at my flickr site might help. Comments on how to make this photo really show the stunning color and suggest the cool frosty air would be appreciated. Thank you.

Fall sunrise on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Canon Rebel XTi
10/09/09
55 mm
f 4.0
ISO 400
exp. 1/60
Tripod stabilized, flash fired

[NDWIndTwins]

Sorry, I tried to put the picture in the post - hopefully it will work this time.

[YorkieCrazy]

that is a great shot. I think it would be better if it were a little bit lighter, but hey I'm just new too, so what do I know.

[mpf777]

Nice colors in the sky and overall it is a nice image. I think if the ground, trees and bushes were lighter or if they were darker like a silhouette it would work a little better.

Mike

[Eduard]

The colors are amazing. I also think a slightly lighter foreground would strengthen the image. You might want to consider a graduated neutral density filter next time. You might want to check out this link. I really like the frame!

[NDWIndTwins]

Thank you all for looking and commenting. Sounds like the consensus is that I need the foreground lighter. I'm not very skilled with PS Elements, can I lighten just that part and keep the sky the same?

I have a neutral density filter, but not graduated. In a situation like this I would have been afraid that it would block enough more light to make the picture even darker. I looked at your link - the graduated one could have been used to keep the foreground lighter and the sky the same. Interesting. Of course, at this point even if I had that filter I wouldn't have known to use it!

Thank you again.

[navcom]

It's not hard to increase the fill light on a photo. Only problem is that if the foreground is too dark, you will increase noise proportional to your increase in brightness. I fiddled with your shot a bit in Photoshop and attached the results. You can see that there is a bit of noise in the foreground. Also keep in mind that this was a quick attempt so the sky bled a bit. This would have been a great shot for an ND grad.

A couple other things to watch regarding landscapes...Always use a tripod if at all possible and keep your ISO as low as you can. For most cameras, this is ISO 100. Also, watch your aperture. At f/4, you have an extremely narrow depth of field which means much of the image can be out of focus.

It's really easy as a new photographer to forget about how important aperture really is to your photos. This was one thing I struggled with when I was starting out. You become fixated a bit on shutter speed and forget about the rest of the equation. You think to yourself, "low light, therefore really wide aperture".

In reality, for almost all landscape photography, shutter speed is irrelevant...especially since you should be using a tripod if possible. Aperture controls depth of field...an extremely important element in landscape photography. For this reason it should be the first thing you think about setting. The other important element in landscapes is sharpness and image quality. Low ISO plays a part in this but aperture again plays a role as well. Too small an aperture (f16 and smaller) and you get diffraction, which makes your image slightly fuzzy. Too large (larger than say f/7 or so) and you start to get other quality issues. For landscapes, something between f/8 and f/13 works best. This is where you start your thinking. It's not always the case, but you should have a good reason for departing from these such as a composition with moving objects that requires a faster shutter speed or extreme DOF situations that require a really small aperture. For 90-95% of the compositions, f/8-f/13 will work the best.

Hope that helps!

[NDWIndTwins]

Wow, navcom, that's a big difference, particularly in the field and tree colors. I think I might not lighten it *quite* so much as it doesn't look as much like morning, but something in between.

I did use a tripod, but my ISO was probably too high. I thought because it was dark I needed a higher ISO, but I see what you mean - if it's on a tripod I can have a long exposure with a lower ISO. And yes, I am only barely learning to play with aperture.

This is a great mini-lesson in landscape photography, thank you so much! Unfortunately I don't know when I'll have a sunrise again like this, but there are plenty of other beautiful views I can work on.

Um... what do you mean "This would have been a great shot for an ND grad."? I am from ND (probably obvious from my user name) - do you have a connection there or are you referring to something else altogether?

Thanks again, I do appreciate it.

[navcom]

LOL! My fault...I should've elaborated a bit more on the "ND grad". I was referring to a graduated neutral density filter. For more info on what they are, you can do a search on the forum and get tons of results. They are basically a filter you can slide in front of your lens on a holder. The filter is half clear and then gradually becomes darker. You position the darker part over the bright sky to "push back" it's overpowering brightness. It's a way to control high dynamic range in a scene. In your photo's case, it would darken the sky allowing for a longer exposure to brighten up the foreground without overexposing the sky.

My sister is a graduate of the University of North Dakota from their engineering program. She will get a kick out of my vagueness.

I lightened your photo a bit more than it should be but I wanted to give you the idea of what's possible (and what's not).

[Mr. Clipit]

The halo effect above the trees is bothering me a little - perhaps its an effect of over-sharpening? Look at just above the line between the trees and sky: the sky is brighter just along that edge.