The Sky over Sentosa

[All Blue]

I have just collected my camera. So I went nearby and found a pretty afternoon sky over the Island. What a great way to exercise my camera.

[liionel]

wow nice saturated colors, did you use cpl or any pp work?

[lastboltnut]

Hi, I think the cloud on the right is overexposed...and the littler bit of water below is neither here or there, why not crop it away? The Cable Car Tower is too slanted, will you consider adjusting the lens distortion? Just my personal opinion. Hope you don't mind.

[All Blue]

Originally Posted by liionel wow nice saturated colors, did you use cpl or any pp work?

yes, with cpl but at this angle, it didn't have much effect.

[All Blue]

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Hi, I think the cloud on the right is overexposed...and the littler bit of water below is neither here or there, why not crop it away? The Cable Car Tower is too slanted, will you consider adjusting the lens distortion? Just my personal opinion. Hope you don't mind.

The sun was on the right side, that's why it's over. If i'd f-stop to the right then the rest will be too dark plus I don't know PS well. As for the bottom, I've crop away actually as it was all construction and messy anyway. The slanting is to give a clue that it was wide angle(kek-kek). I didn't have my tripod otherwise I would do pano.

Anyway, I just want to share this so that in case you are at Vivo City. Try go the the roof, you may want to catch a glimse of the sky like this and enjoy what we have here.

[lastboltnut]

Thanks for the clarification.

Just a note for you, in digital photography, expose the highlight properly is more important, as digital formats tents to hold better details in the dark which can be brought back easier than the other way round.

Thanks for sharing the view.

Originally Posted by All Blue The sun was on the right side, that's why it's over. If i'd f-stop to the right then the rest will be too dark plus I don't know PS well. As for the bottom, I've crop away actually as it was all construction and messy anyway. The slanting is to give a clue that it was wide angle(kek-kek). I didn't have my tripod otherwise I would do pano. Anyway, I just want to share this so that in case you are at Vivo City. Try go the the roof, you may want to catch a glimse of the sky like this and enjoy what we have here.

[All Blue]

Ya, thanks for your valuable comments. It's good to hear from the ground in order to learn. I may try to bring it down further.
As many would know that it's good to include a foreground to hightlight the pic but in this case the front isn't contributing that's why I've taken it out.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Thanks for the clarification. Just a note for you, in digital photography, expose the highlight properly is more important, as digital formats tents to hold better details in the dark which can be brought back easier than the other way round. Thanks for sharing the view.

Contrary to what you said, there is actually more headroom in the highlights than there is in the shadows, even for digital.

The problem with bringing up an underexposed photo is the noise that will be rendered, even if you bring it up when processing RAW.

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by calebk Contrary to what you said, there is actually more headroom in the highlights than there is in the shadows, even for digital. The problem with bringing up an underexposed photo is the noise that will be rendered, even if you bring it up when processing RAW.

....since when was this the case, my understanding has always been that shadow detail is always retained much better in digital as compared to highlight detail

which is why certain systems tend to underexpose slightly
and also why a underexposed picture is more likely to be saved than an overexposed picture

[lastboltnut]

Hi calebk,

I read books that says:

For film "expose for shadow, develop for shadow"

For digital, "expose for highlight and process for shadow".

Haven't heard of the other way round. Here is a link.

I understand that if the shadow is really dark, then it will be noisy to bring back the details, but at least the details are back....but for highlight, once blown, all are gone, not even noisy details. This is compared in two cases where highlight/shadow is clipped with the same amount.

Also, I do not encourage bring back really dark shadow till the extent of very discernable noise, but to a level were noise is acceptable, but details are discernable. If the Dynamic Range is really that great, a HDR is encouraged, if not buy a Fuji S3/5 Pro loh

Originally Posted by calebk Contrary to what you said, there is actually more headroom in the highlights than there is in the shadows, even for digital. The problem with bringing up an underexposed photo is the noise that will be rendered, even if you bring it up when processing RAW.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by night86mare ....since when was this the case, my understanding has always been that shadow detail is always retained much better in digital as compared to highlight detail which is why certain systems tend to underexpose slightly and also why a underexposed picture is more likely to be saved than an overexposed picture

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Hi calebk, I read books that says: For film "expose for shadow, develop for shadow" For digital, "expose for highlight and process for shadow". Haven't heard of the other way round. Here is a link. I understand that if the shadow is really dark, then it will be noisy to bring back the details, but at least the details are back....but for highlight, once blown, all are gone, not even noisy details. This is compared in two cases where highlight/shadow is clipped with the same amount. Also, I do not encourage bring back really dark shadow till the extent of very discernable noise, but to a level were noise is acceptable, but details are discernable. If the Dynamic Range is really that great, a HDR is encouraged, if not buy a Fuji S3/5 Pro loh

Thanks for the info guys.

Actually I can't remember where I read what I wrote in my previous post, but I remember reading it somewhere on CS.

[lastboltnut]

Its ok, just a discussion to find out more about photography...good to share and discuss.

Originally Posted by calebk Thanks for the info guys. Actually I can't remember where I read what I wrote in my previous post, but I remember reading it somewhere on CS.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Its ok, just a discussion to find out more about photography...good to share and discuss.

I have found an article regarding overexposure for best signal to noise ratio. It is found here.

[night86mare]

i quote:

Quote: The simple lesson to be learned from this is to bias your exposures so that the histogram is snugged up to the right, but not to the point that the highlights are blown. This can usually be seen by the flashing alert on most camera review screens. Just back off so that the flashing stops.

this is vastly different from "overexposing", which encompasses the fact that you would actually make part of the histogram move out of the range.. details would therefore be lost.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by night86mare i quote: this is vastly different from "overexposing", which encompasses the fact that you would actually make part of the histogram move out of the range.. details would therefore be lost.

It is not actually overexposing per se, but rather biasing your histogram to the right to get the best S/N ratio. He actually emphasizes on making sure you don't blow the highlights when performing this, and you can only perform this by shooting RAW, then bringing the picture back down in a RAW converter.

[blackandwhite]

if you have a narrow histogram then you should bias it to the right but not to the extend of over-exposing the highlights, and you can bring down the overall exposure at pp stage. if you bias the histogram to the left but increase the overall exposure during pp, the shadow part would be much noisier than the first case. reason being the signal/noise ratio is higher for highlight as compare to shadow.

for the case of a wide histogram, it is basically about your choice of clipping the highlights or shadow. you can't do anything at pp stage for the data that is non-existent.

[bighead]

I think searching the internet or books on the "zone system" might help ...... I am still learning from what it but I find it very useful ...

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by calebk It is not actually overexposing per se, but rather biasing your histogram to the right to get the best S/N ratio. He actually emphasizes on making sure you don't blow the highlights when performing this, and you can only perform this by shooting RAW, then bringing the picture back down in a RAW converter.

yep, i usually do that unknowingly, the picture also looks better on my lcd preview

i made that response, because i thought you were talking about why overexposure is good (look at the original discussion). seems like you are sharing, sorry for the misunderstanding. and thanks for sharing. it is a very interesting article

[calebk]

Originally Posted by night86mare yep, i usually do that unknowingly, the picture also looks better on my lcd preview i made that response, because i thought you were talking about why overexposure is good (look at the original discussion). seems like you are sharing, sorry for the misunderstanding. and thanks for sharing. it is a very interesting article

Naw don't worry bout it.

[All Blue]

so is my exposure correct or not? i don't think i have the best of both worlds here.
i can only choose one(i.e. 75% in).