Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2962 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
Its not just contrast, the photo is under-exposed slightly as well, probably by about 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop. If you look at the histogram of the photo, you'll see its skewed to the left. Under conditions like this, try dialing in about +1/3 of exposure compensation, but check the histogram at the time to make sure you aren't blowing out the whites. If you shift the levels to create a more even histogram and then increase the contrast slightly, this is what you'll end up with. The lighting is typical overcast-Manchester but it might be salvagable from the original frame.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3077 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
Quoting Linco22 (Reply 3): I'll be back next summer and the sun better be out!
Don't wait for the summer - the best light for photography is from now to March. Having said that, in cloudy conditions you may be pretty stuffed, but the low lighting really enhances most images, in my opinion.
Let's face it, it is going to be a lottery whatever time of year you have a trip scheduled. You have my complete sympathy .
On the issue of in-camera exposure compensation, I would favour not purposely overexposing, and just leave the work to be done in editing. I think the danger of overexposing highlights outweighs getting a brighter original. But that's a very personal viewpoint. The RAW shooters will have a different comment at this point.
I would have to agree that the light on the original image you posted is just too flat, so the photo does need a 'kick' in editing. But even then acceptance is not guaranteed.