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]

---

@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)

---

Who?  Me?  I used a Canon 6D. EF 50 f/1.8 STM, ISO-100, F/8, 1/800 sec. I did use a CPL filter on the lens.

I became curious when I saw an exit off of the highway called "Lighthouse Road", so I followed it.  This is what I found at the end of the road.  This shot was taken the same day.

Canon 6D. EF 50 f/1.8 STM, ISO-100, F/8, 1/320 sec

[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.

[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]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"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! 

---

The two National Geo photographers my wife and I went to hear speak last spring were averse even to cropping. I don't know whether they were representative, but there it is.

BTW, it's "sauce", not "good". The slogan doesn't mean to imply that things end well for either the goose or the gander.

[ebiggs1]

"BTW, it's "sauce", not "good"."

Whatever, the poit is made.  Do you really think they don't crop?  Do you really think that?

Do as I say don't, do as I do.  That one better?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"BTW, it's "sauce", not "good"."

Whatever, the poit is made.  Do you really think they don't crop?  Do you really think that?

Do as I say don't, do as I do.  That one better?

---

How could I say no? The position of the comma (though I guess it should have been a semicolon) is hilarious. 

[ebiggs1]

Oh, good lord, Biggs the Fat (fingers)!

"The position of the comma (though I guess it should have been a semicolon) is hilarious."

Do as I say, don't do as I do.  That one better?   

[TCampbell]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The two National Geo photographers my wife and I went to hear speak last spring were averse even to cropping. I don't know whether they were representative, but there it is.

---

My understanding about "cropping" is that if the cropping is used to change the viewer's understanding of what's going on in the photo, then it's considered misleading and inappropriate.  For example... if you take a photo of workers planting a field, that's one thing... but if it turns out the "workers" were, in fact, forced-labor and armed guards were there to watch them but the image was cropped to cleverly eliminate any suggestion of the forced-labor aspect, then that would completely change the meaning and/or interpretation of the image and that would be dishonest.

But if the image is merely being cropped for composition, framing, etc. and the crop in no way alters the subject-matter or interpretation, then it's my understanding that the crop is acceptable.