how to capture alpenglow?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

forestgnome

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
2,625
Reaction score
600
Location
..Madison, NH
What are your standard procedures for alpenglow? Filters? Which ones? Any comments appreciated.

Happy Trails :)
 
Alpen Glow is simply either the first rays of the sun hitting the high peaks before the valleys, or bright light reflecting off clouds onto the peaks before sunrise. Either way, you have a very bright object surrounded by often dark/unlit areas. So that sets up what I suspect is part of the difficulty...as it is a VERY tough exposure!

Additionally, in this case, light is color, color is light...the spot meter on the alpenglow part of the scene will see the light and want you to expose for it. However, to see the color in the light, you often have to underexpose by a stop or so in my finding.

But, that adds another problem highlighted in the first paragraph, if you inderexpose for the alpenglow, you lose all the detail in the rest of the scene. So there are only two ways to fix this. One, compositionally, zoom in or include mostly alpenglow in the scene and have the dark surroundings only to add depth and drama, or two, filter.

I find that alpenglow/snow needs about a one stop split ND filter to correct, while alpenglow/rock/vegitation needs as much as three stops to even out. Simply position the filter with the split at the bottom of the alpenglow and hope for the best.

Hope that helps, experimentation is key in this area...
 
Yes, definately. Thanks. My vision is for only a line of singular trees which will be sillouetted in the foreground, so underexposing won't involve sacrifice. I'll meter on the alpenglow and bracket the exposures. I really need to start using the ND. Thanks much. Stay warm up there!

Happy Trails :)
 
Digital Sandwich

Another way to approach scenes with a wide dynamic range is to make a digital "sandwich" from two images shot of the same scene that have been exposed for the foreground and background, then using a mask with a gradient to hold back the highlights in the "overexposed" area.

There is an excellent description of this technique at
Fred Miranda's site.

In case it isn't obvious, this technique doesn't work very well if there is noticeable motion within the image, but there is some wiggle room depending on what exactly is moving, how quickly the successive exposures are made, and how "artistic" you want the final image to be.
 
chipc said:
Tim's suggestion sounds like what I read in the Times this past summer on HDR (high dynamic range) photography??


You may have to have an on-line subscription to read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/technology/03basics.html?ex=1312257600&en=65c5ddf0f463f1c4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

THis is one of the photographers they linked to in the article:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kros/sets/72057594073655609/

HDR is a bit different, as it is a method of 'optimizing' the exposure on a pixel by pixel basis, all done on the computers discretion. What Tim is advocating is taking 2 shots and blending them by hand, typically in big chunks or over half the scene. They tend to look much more realistic than HDR 'photos'

While I always advocate getting the exposure right 'in camera' this is a good technique. However, I tried it out a while back before I had a 3 stop GND, and came out with this from near ball crag...

http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=104223&hl=
 
BorealChickadee said:
Wow! Do you have to have the real expensive level of photoshop to do that?

No actually, I've done it with elements. Instead of masking and gradients and everything, just layer the two images on top of each other, select the Eraser tool, set it to a low opacity and erase yourself to an instant blend. Not as precise as with the big photoshop, but certainly gets the job done!
 
w7xman said:
What Tim is advocating is taking 2 shots and blending them by hand, typically in big chunks or over half the scene. They tend to look much more realistic than HDR 'photos'

While I always advocate getting the exposure right 'in camera' this is a good technique. However, I tried it out a while back before I had a 3 stop GND, and came out with this from near ball crag...

http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=104223&hl=

Incredible!!! I have quite a few similar (sort of) pairs of shots, knowing that this could be done, just haven't learned to do it, due to intellectual laziness :eek: I properly exposed the sky in one shot, and likewise the foreground in another shot. I have Elements, and I've just been inspired to try to learn this technique. Thanks!!!

Happy Trails :)
 
forestnome said:
Incredible!!! I have quite a few similar (sort of) pairs of shots, knowing that this could be done, just haven't learned to do it, due to intellectual laziness :eek: I properly exposed the sky in one shot, and likewise the foreground in another shot. I have Elements, and I've just been inspired to try to learn this technique. Thanks!!!

Happy Trails :)

Let us know how it comes out!
 
That's a great looking shot. I agree. HDR that I have seen from friends or examples look like some bizarre Carribean dream but I guess it all depens on how you want to make it.

I wish I was bracketing 5 years ago when I hiked through the Alps. 80% of my shots were badly overexposed in the sky areas or direct sunlight areas.
 
Top