More realistic skies

[amatula]

Hi,

I appreciate the help I received regarding image sharpness. My other issue has been skies... does anyone have any suggestions on having skies more realistic. Would a polarizer filter fix the issue?

Thank you in advance for your assistance! 🙂

Annie

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how do they know.  How can they tell?  By, I swear?  

Reality and illusion have become interchangeable.  It happened while most of you were sleeping!

---

This one is a JPEG straight out of the camera.  I was shooting in-camera HDR shots and forget to reset to RAW.  The clouds were stunnning looking.

Canon 6D. EF 50 f/1.8 STM, ISO-100, F/8, 1/800 sec

That is almost exactly how I remember the clouds looking that day.  Sometimes, we can get lucky. 

If the rocks on beach look familiar, like a shot of a seagull that I posted a while back, it is not the same beach.  However, the two shots were taken on opposite shores of Long Island Sound.  The beach was taken in New Haven, Connecticut, along the north shore.  The seagull was taken along the north shoreline of Long Island.

[jrhoffman75]

Amateur activities I would guess personal integrity is counted on. For Major worldwide contests it is policed:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/wolf-wildlife-photographer-award-stripped

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/01/11/first-place-not-in-the-bag-national-geographic-photo-co...

[ebiggs1]

"... he is now "99.9%" sure it is a tame wolf, ..."

Wow, almost 100% sure !

"The response he received, although sympathetic, explained that cropping the bag out, or leaving it in shot would have had ‘no impact either way’."

Sounds like NatGeo.  I meet several of there photographers while I was working over the years.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... he is now "99.9%" sure it is a tame wolf, ..."

Wow, almost 100% sure !

"The response he received, although sympathetic, explained that cropping the bag out, or leaving it in shot would have had ‘no impact either way’."

Sounds like NatGeo.  I meet several of there photographers while I was working over the years.

---

You have to remember that there is a BIG difference between "documentary photography" (or "photojournalism") and "art photography" (or "fine-art photography").  

In one category, what you depict MUST be reality.  In the other, you can be as creative as you want and even depict images which would be physically impossible.

[amatula]

"Dual ISO would have fixed that sky without more exposures than one or any copy paste. Require a Canon with Magic Lantern."

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your reply!

Where do I find out more about this? Sounds exciting!

Thank you, Annie

[amatula]

What camera did you use? My sky issues occur predominantly when the sun is shining bright...
(BTW, not related, I was born in New Haven; in CO now)

[Peter]

You have to search for it and also read about the risks 😉

[ebiggs1]

"Require a Canon with Magic Lantern."

Stay away from ML.  It can have serious consequences and Canon won't fix them if it damages your camera.

[ebiggs1]

"In one category, what you depict MUST be reality.  In the other, you can be as creative as you want ..."

Of all people that should not be condemning post editing in any form, is an astro-photographer.  Plus, if you think all those photos Nat Geo uses in its magazines and other pubs are not heavily edited, I do have a bridge to sell you, too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@amatula wrote:
What camera did you use? My sky issues occur predominantly when the sun is shining bright...
(BTW, not related, I was born in New Haven; in CO now)

---

Two trips through the West Rock tunnel within the past month.