My over-exposed sunset - how to fix it?

[Rattail]

Maybe this is not the right place to post this, but I think that it is - this is where the critics come. So please tell me where I went wrong? also: what can i do to rectify the matter now. (I can't get to the location again).

In my defense: I was pushed for time and could not wait for the sun to go down further.



Details:
Sony A100 DSLR
Focal length 26mm
ISO 100
Exposure - 1/320sec at f11


This photo is unedited. I prefer not to edit photos - except for the odd little adjustment.

Thanks

[JFSanders]

Neutral density filter, preferably one that can be adjusted up and down to line up with the horizon.

Can't fix something that isn't there. All your information is gone in the blown portion. Sorry.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by Rattail

Maybe this is not the right place to post this, but I think that it is - this is where the critics come. So please tell me where I went wrong? also: what can i do to rectify the matter now. (I can't get to the location again).

I think this is better in one of the technique forums, since you know it has an obvious (glaring!) weakness and want to discuss how to avoid it in future. Since you are not so keen on post-processing I've put it in the Landscape section although, if you willing to fire up a decent image editor, that opens a lot more options for taking such pictures in future (even if not to do much with this one).

Wulf

[Aperture Nine]

Most of the image data is gone. There is not much to do.

My advice is to get a tripod and not to take pictures of the sunset alone. Take pictures of whatever you feel like during the Golden Hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_(photography)) where the light is unique and soft.

I took some fabulous photos of boats in a harbor on a day where the sunrise what the motive. The sunset gave me some nice mainstream sunrise photos and a lot of wonderful pictures of boats in calm water... in a soooft light.

[Rattail]

Thanks folk. Pity the image cannot be saved.

Lesson learnt: take my time next time.


b.t.w. What does a neutral density filter do?

[jsanders]

wikipedia says the following:

An ideal neutral density filter reduces light of all wavelengths or colors equally. The purpose of standard photographic neutral density filters is to allow the photographer greater flexibility to change the aperture or exposure time, allowing for more control, particularly in extreme circumstances

[Rattail]

So can one actually see the impact whilst shooting? I had some or other polarising filter YEARS back (1984) and couldn't see any difference.

[GEli]

Originally Posted by Rattail

So can one actually see the impact whilst shooting? I had some or other polarising filter YEARS back (1984) and couldn't see any difference.

Polarizing filters will only show a strong effect if you have a good deal of incorrectly polarized light to remove from your resultant image. Otherwise they do little other than act as 1/3rd stop ND filters.

As for what an ND filter does, it removes a bunch of the light traveling towards your sensor. You will definitely see the effect when shooting. In fact, with a strong ND filter (anything above about 5 stops, depending on lighting conditions obviously), you won't see anything in the viewfinder at all! With really strong filters or poor lighting conditions you'll often have to set up your shot, tighten the head on your tripod up and then screw the filter on while carefully avoiding changing your focus distance. It's tricky but the results are often gorgeous, particularly if you're shooting turbulent water (which will turn into a wonderful misty cloud with good long exposures).

[Rattail]

If I understand you correctly: there's a difference between the ND and polarising filters? And a ND is better to have than the polarising. Do I understand correctly?

[GEli]

Originally Posted by Rattail

If I understand you correctly: there's a difference between the ND and polarising filters? And a ND is better to have than the polarising. Do I understand correctly?

Not quite. You're right in saying that they're different - polarizing filters remove incorrectly polarized light, while the ND filter removes a certain amount of all visible light. Neither is intrinsically better than the other, though. For the purposes described in this thread an ND filter is the type of filter that's needed. A circular polarizing filter is still a pretty standard filter to has that you'll probably end up wanting eventually too, especially if you do a lot of landscapes.