07-06-2010, 03:44 PM
Freestate - happy to share my general techniques, and don't worry, I didn't think you were saying all you need was a decent camera!
I'll try to be brief and feel free to ask if you need more detail or I'm unclear. Firthly, however, I use two essential pieces of equipment 9other than a cheap camera!): a tripod and a polarizing filter. The latter isn't absolutely essential but it helps make pictures pop especially if you point 90 degrees away from the sun and adjust it to bring out the sky's colours. The tripod is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
The biggest problem with taking shots at sunset or sunrise is there's too much contrast for the camera to capture useable light in both the dark and light areas at the same time whereas your eye can do this much better. One way to get around this, and it's what photographers have done for years, is to use a graduated neutral density filter. It's dark on top and clear at the bottom which darkens the sky but leaves the ground alone. I've used one at the summit and it worked well, but the one I have vignettes the beam so badly I end up with round pictures! What I tend to do instead is take three (sometimes more) bracketed images which are separated by two stops each (i.e., one normal exposure, one at -2 and one +2 at stops). For example, if the camera recommends a 1/60 sec exposure, I take one at that exposure, then one at 1/15 secs and another at 1/250 sec. This means you have 3 photos, and in that set you have one that captures the highlights and one that captures the dark areas. By the way, I often experiment with these settings, it's something you get to "feel" over time.
You can then combine these images in software. Many people use a technique called HDR (high dynamic range) which I do sometimes, but the software I use also allows you to "blend" or "fuse" these images and it's what I prefer to do as it helps reduce noise. It's actually very similar to techniques we use in astronomy imaging where several images are stacked on top of each other to reduce noise.
The software I use is called photomatix (about $90 unless you have a .edu mail address). HDR can make pictures look extremely unrealistic unless you're careful while blending makes them look very natural. Incidentally, there is free HDR software out there (e.g., , I don't know if the free packages do "blending" as well though, but with practise you can use HDR to produce images that are as natural looking as blending.
So, basically, all I do is combine underexposed and overexposed images to make them look more like what your eye actually sees. I think the most important thing in processing is to do as little as you can get away with otherwise you start making the results look unnatural.
If you want to go the traditional way (and if you can get a graduated filter, I recommend doing so), then set your camera to spot metering (i.e., it calculates the exposure time based on a small spot on the image rather than use the whole image to work out the exposure time), place the spot close to where the sun is or has just set and use that exposure time. Basically you want to expose for the brightest part of the sky (but not the sun itself).
I use f/5.6 to f/8.0 for the aperture - it helps get most things in focus at the same time while not ending up with a ridiculously long exposure. I also use the lowest ISO I can get away with (100 or 200 generally).
As for composition, this is something I used to be very bad at but am learning all the time. Two essentials I think - never place the horizon in the middle of the picture and never place the main subject of the photo in the middle of the shot. sometimes you can't avoid it but it makes a huge difference if you follow those rules. Oh, and make sure the horizon is straight! Nothing detracts from a landscape photo more than a sloping horizon!
If you're keen, I found Scott Kelby's three books, "The Digital Photography Book" vols 1, 2 & 3 excellent. In fact it's when things really clicked for me. Another book that has really helped is "Landscape Photography" by Tim Fitzharris. Lots of arty talk in it, but it's superb when it comes to techniques and composition, it really helped me improve.
Freestate - if I were you I'd just go out and experiment, you'll soon get a feel for things. You mention you have an SLR so if it's relatively modern it should allow you to set it up to auto-bracket exposure times so when you press the shutter it'll take 3 or 5 photos at different exposure times. You'll soon get a good idea of how exposure changes the details you see.
Oh, one more tip - since you'll be shooting in low light using a long exposure, use a cable release, remote shutter release or set the camera to take a delayed shot (you press the shutter release and it will take a photo 2, 5 or 10 secs later). You don't want to be touching the camera when the pictures are taken as you'll blur the shot.
I apologise, there's a lot here and if you're anything like I was 18 months or so ago, it will have gone straight over your head! Feel free to ask away (email if you want) and I can cover things in a little more detail and a little more slowly! I really do recommend Scott Kelby's books though, especially the first two volumes.
I'll try to be brief and feel free to ask if you need more detail or I'm unclear. Firthly, however, I use two essential pieces of equipment 9other than a cheap camera!): a tripod and a polarizing filter. The latter isn't absolutely essential but it helps make pictures pop especially if you point 90 degrees away from the sun and adjust it to bring out the sky's colours. The tripod is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
The biggest problem with taking shots at sunset or sunrise is there's too much contrast for the camera to capture useable light in both the dark and light areas at the same time whereas your eye can do this much better. One way to get around this, and it's what photographers have done for years, is to use a graduated neutral density filter. It's dark on top and clear at the bottom which darkens the sky but leaves the ground alone. I've used one at the summit and it worked well, but the one I have vignettes the beam so badly I end up with round pictures! What I tend to do instead is take three (sometimes more) bracketed images which are separated by two stops each (i.e., one normal exposure, one at -2 and one +2 at stops). For example, if the camera recommends a 1/60 sec exposure, I take one at that exposure, then one at 1/15 secs and another at 1/250 sec. This means you have 3 photos, and in that set you have one that captures the highlights and one that captures the dark areas. By the way, I often experiment with these settings, it's something you get to "feel" over time.
You can then combine these images in software. Many people use a technique called HDR (high dynamic range) which I do sometimes, but the software I use also allows you to "blend" or "fuse" these images and it's what I prefer to do as it helps reduce noise. It's actually very similar to techniques we use in astronomy imaging where several images are stacked on top of each other to reduce noise.
The software I use is called photomatix (about $90 unless you have a .edu mail address). HDR can make pictures look extremely unrealistic unless you're careful while blending makes them look very natural. Incidentally, there is free HDR software out there (e.g., , I don't know if the free packages do "blending" as well though, but with practise you can use HDR to produce images that are as natural looking as blending.
So, basically, all I do is combine underexposed and overexposed images to make them look more like what your eye actually sees. I think the most important thing in processing is to do as little as you can get away with otherwise you start making the results look unnatural.
If you want to go the traditional way (and if you can get a graduated filter, I recommend doing so), then set your camera to spot metering (i.e., it calculates the exposure time based on a small spot on the image rather than use the whole image to work out the exposure time), place the spot close to where the sun is or has just set and use that exposure time. Basically you want to expose for the brightest part of the sky (but not the sun itself).
I use f/5.6 to f/8.0 for the aperture - it helps get most things in focus at the same time while not ending up with a ridiculously long exposure. I also use the lowest ISO I can get away with (100 or 200 generally).
As for composition, this is something I used to be very bad at but am learning all the time. Two essentials I think - never place the horizon in the middle of the picture and never place the main subject of the photo in the middle of the shot. sometimes you can't avoid it but it makes a huge difference if you follow those rules. Oh, and make sure the horizon is straight! Nothing detracts from a landscape photo more than a sloping horizon!
If you're keen, I found Scott Kelby's three books, "The Digital Photography Book" vols 1, 2 & 3 excellent. In fact it's when things really clicked for me. Another book that has really helped is "Landscape Photography" by Tim Fitzharris. Lots of arty talk in it, but it's superb when it comes to techniques and composition, it really helped me improve.
Freestate - if I were you I'd just go out and experiment, you'll soon get a feel for things. You mention you have an SLR so if it's relatively modern it should allow you to set it up to auto-bracket exposure times so when you press the shutter it'll take 3 or 5 photos at different exposure times. You'll soon get a good idea of how exposure changes the details you see.
Oh, one more tip - since you'll be shooting in low light using a long exposure, use a cable release, remote shutter release or set the camera to take a delayed shot (you press the shutter release and it will take a photo 2, 5 or 10 secs later). You don't want to be touching the camera when the pictures are taken as you'll blur the shot.
I apologise, there's a lot here and if you're anything like I was 18 months or so ago, it will have gone straight over your head! Feel free to ask away (email if you want) and I can cover things in a little more detail and a little more slowly! I really do recommend Scott Kelby's books though, especially the first two volumes.