UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2684 times:
F9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
Nice shot. But the bottom is too dark and the far wing is too sharp.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
Thanks for the input!
Consider this...
Quite a few of my shots came out like this, with the top of the aircraft well lit and the belly very (too) dark. I was rather disappointed because it was my first time out with my new 100-400L and 350D. Although the metering on the 350D IMO is much better than the 300D, I think my problem may have been time of day.
I purposefully went towards the end of the day because I figured that with the sun low in the sky it would light the entire side of the aircraft from the west (the A/c were landing South to North). However the result was what you see above on most of my photos (dark belly, bright top). The sun was bright and unobstructed.
////
1. Why did the bottom of the plane expose so dark and the top so vivid and bright when the sun was shining directly from the side?
2. Is this a known phenomenon?
////
I find that when there is snow on the ground the aircraft exposes perfectly on all sides because of the amount of reflected light from the ground.
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2432 times:
Hey,
I had a quick fiddle with the contrast and saturation etc. I came to this:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4): Quite a few of my shots came out like this, with the top of the aircraft well lit and the belly very (too) dark. I was rather disappointed because it was my first time out with my new 100-400L and 350D. Although the metering on the 350D IMO is much better than the 300D, I think my problem may have been time of day.
The equipment doesn't always make good photos. Spend a little bit more time in the post processing side of things.
Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Justin. Do you have CS2 mate? If so, then use the Shadow/highlight function. It's a Godsend!!!! Keep your values relatively low though, say below 20, to reduce the risk of noise/grain.
Spencer.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Quoting Spencer (Reply 7): Justin. Do you have CS2 mate? If so, then use the Shadow/highlight function. It's a Godsend!!!! Keep your values relatively low though, say below 20, to reduce the risk of noise/grain.
Spencer.
Spence,
Nope I don't! I'm still using PS7. I may have to source a copy of CS2 from someome!
Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
Sorry Justin, I mistakenly addressed that to you when in fact it was meant for JD/Flyfisher1976! Oops!
PS. I suppose that actually goes for anyone though. Shadow/highlight is an awesome tool.
Spencer.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2369 times:
Quoting Spencer (Reply 9): Sorry Justin, I mistakenly addressed that to you when in fact it was meant for JD/Flyfisher1976! Oops!
PS. I suppose that actually goes for anyone though. Shadow/highlight is an awesome tool.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2343 times:
Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 5): I agree with Q330, crop is fine but it is way too dark underneath, the saturation is a bit heavy too.
Thanks for the tip!
Quoting Jkw777 (Reply 6): The equipment doesn't always make good photos.quote]
I don't believe I ever tried to blame the equipment:
[quote=Q330,reply=3]I think my problem may have been time of day.
Quoting Jkw777 (Reply 6): Spend a little bit more time in the post processing side of things.
I use Fergul's workflow for every photo that I process, so I'm not sure how much more time I'm supposed to spend. The problem with this photo could be corrected, I just needed some tips on how.
Quoting Jkw777 (Reply 6): I had a quick fiddle with the contrast and saturation etc. I came to this:
Awesome! Not sure what I did wrong here, but this looks so much better! Maybe you could clue me in, so I can apply this technique to the rest of my photos from that day. Thanks!
I'm going to remove the original from the queque and add the one that you "fiddled with" above.
Fiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2348 times:
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 1): Sorry for the plugs Danny, when I saw this shot I asked, TUL?
Hahahaha! Thanks Matt. Those WN TUL shots need all the help they can get.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2168 times:
Justin,
Thanks for your assistance with the photo. The version you edited got accepted!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
