# Sun blown out in photo



## 1hdr4u (Sep 25, 2012)

How can I make it so the sun doesn't look blown out in my HDR shots such as the one I have displayed here? Should I lower the aperture or lower my bracketed shots or both? Thanks for any advise.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 25, 2012)

The sun is the highlight so shoot for the highlight. Very fast shutter speed.


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 25, 2012)

Bynx said:


> The sun is the highlight so shoot for the highlight. Very fast shutter speed.



Yes that you'll expose for the sun but everything else would be complexly dark. 



1hdr4u said:


> How can I make it so the sun doesn't look blown out in my HDR shots such as the one I have displayed here? Should I lower the aperture or lower my bracketed shots or both? Thanks for any advise.



Well for an HDR you would need to take a LOT more different exposures enough to bridge the gap between a properly exposed sun and a properly exposed foreground. 

In my opinion you don't want the sun to be properly exposed. Having it blown out makes it look real. Your image already looks way to over processed.


----------



## vipgraphx (Sep 26, 2012)

take enough exposures and learn how to mask in your better looking sun photos into your tonemapped version using photoshop.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 26, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > The sun is the highlight so shoot for the highlight. Very fast shutter speed.
> ...



In an HDR forum you really didnt say that did you???????


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 26, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Bynx said:
> ...



 I was referring to that single image.  

Ether way an image would not look right if the sun was properly exposed.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 26, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...



In an HDR forum we are talking about multiple images.
As for your next statement, well thats your opinion. And of course, you are speaking for all images with the sun in them. tsk tsk tsk. Some light Guru.

This is a really good image that would even be spectacular had you shot a few more much underexposed shots for that bright sun filled area. You might not use all the exposures, but enough to make it perfect.


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 26, 2012)

Bynx said:


> This is a really good image that would even be spectacular had you shot a few more much underexposed shots for that bright sun filled area. You might not use all the exposures, but enough to make it perfect.



If the intent was to make an image that looks cartoony then sure it's great. If the intent was to make an image that looks material then it fails.


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 26, 2012)

Bingo!


----------



## CaboWabo (Sep 26, 2012)

Listen to Vip and Bynx they have helped me so much with things they are a big help lots of the times you can combine both of their ideas to come up with one helluva shot


----------



## Bynx (Sep 27, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> Bingo!



B - I - N - G - O   and Bingo was his name-o. Ya I know that song too. With your lack of knowledge you really arent contributing much here and only agreeing with bad advice.


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 27, 2012)

Bynx said:


> B - I - N - G - O   and Bingo was his name-o. Ya I know that song too. With your lack of knowledge you really arent contributing much here and only agreeing with bad advice.



Dude you really need to chill out. You seem to get great pleasure at belittling people online. If thats what you have to do to feel good i think it's rather sad. All I have done is state my opinion. You have a differing opinion and that's fine.  But you need to remember its just an opinion.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 27, 2012)

Consider for a moment when you give an opinion. The main thing is if its true or not. Just guessing at something or agreeing with a spammer and being totally wrong is not doing anyone any favors. Especially if someone doesnt know any better and believes you. In the case of this photo the OP wants to know how to get more detail in the blown out highlighted area of the sun. It seems that VIP and myself are the only ones who have offered a solution, based on experience, which you say isnt possible or not worth trying. Encourage someone to at least try it before giving up. The final doesnt have to look cartoony at all. But thats up to the OP to determine. You obviously dont have much experience with HDR and thats ok. If the OP had taken a few more underexposed shots, it wouldnt have affected the foreground since it would be totally black anyway. Only the highlighted area would be affected. When detail was achieved there it could be added to the other images to create something which the OP has asked for.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 27, 2012)

OP- Do you want to put in the thread the original shots? Maybe one of us can do something with it.


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 27, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Consider for a moment when you give an opinion. The main thing is if its true or not....You obviously dont have much experience with HDR



Opinions are not right or wrong they are simply someone's personal view on something. 

I have plenty of experience with HDR, your jumping to conclusions. 

Again all i did was state my opinion that the OP should not worry about trying to make the sun not look blown out.  It's an opinion is no true or not no right or wrong about its simply an opinion. 

I'm just fine if you disagree with me on my opinion.  Without different opinions the wold would be boring. 

Agree to disagree.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 27, 2012)

Of course I couldnt save the sun, but at least I made it where I dont squint when I look at the pic. I also tonned down the yellows and cloned out the bikers wearing red. Worth the edit?

Original: View attachment 21388

Edit:


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 27, 2012)

Light Guru said:
			
		

> Opinions are not right or wrong they are simply someone's personal view on something.
> 
> I have plenty of experience with HDR, your jumping to conclusions.
> 
> ...



You're almost correct on that account.

You could get away with "agree to disagree" if we were talking about something abstract or theoretical. However, in this case, we're not. Feel free to have an opinion of whatever floats your boat, just understand that unless your opinion is based on fact or recognized principles, you're going to get skewered here.

Your stated opinion that the OP shouldn't worry about a blown out sun is completely and utterly incorrect to the point of humor, as the entire point of HDR is to expand the stock dynamic range of your camera so you don't get clipped highlights and shadows! 

So, hate to break it to you "guru", but the OP most certainly needs to worry about his blown out sun. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 27, 2012)

Parker219 said:


> Of course I couldnt save the sun, but at least I made it where I dont squint when I look at the pic. I also tonned down the yellows and cloned out the bikers wearing red. Worth the edit?
> 
> Original: View attachment 21388
> 
> Edit: View attachment 21387




I prefer the original. The original has some "pop" to it, while the edit is very muted and flat. 

And, since the sun is blown out in both of them, I'd go with the original.

As for cloning out the bike riders, you could do that in the original, as well.

The bottom line here is that you should, at the end of the day, go with what _you _like. Some folks here would have you believe that any opinion differing from their own is "wrong", and that you should only consider what they have to say. Of course, that's silly, as the very essence of varying opinions is that they're different. Photography is art, and art is subjective and, as such, opinions will be plentiful...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> Photography is art, and art is subjective and, as such, opinions will be plentiful...



Lord knows there's plenty of areas in photography that are completely subjective and open to endless debate.

However, in specialized techniques like HDR, where there is one main reason for using it, to boost DR, there's much less room for opinions that contradict the purpose of the technique.

One could also argue that shooting at f/22 to isolate the subject from the background is the way to go. It's an opinion, and it's incorrect. No different.

Also FTR, I'm pretty sure those of us who love a good debate place quite a bit of value in opinions based on fact and principle...much less so those based on...well...nothing.

Thanks for playing, Steve.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 27, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You say so much and, in the process, actually say so little.

What would constitute a proper dynamic range for the sun? What does a properly exposed sun look like? Consider _only _the sun, and _nothing _else. Outside of photos taken with some pretty sophisticated gear, I've _never _seen a picture of the sun that wasn't what we would consider "blown out". Why? Because it's the freaking _sun_, that's why. I've never seen one taken with a Nikon or Canon DSLR by Joe-Six-Pack.

While there may be one may reason to use HDR, there's certainly not only one reason. Some may like the overall effect it has on an image. Some may do it to represent the entire dynamic range. Some may do it because they like an overcooked look to the overall image. HDR, like anything else, is subjective. That's why some pople go for that over-the-top overcooked look, and some go for that subtle effect. 

Neither is wrong.

Yes, the _main _purpose of HDR is to present a full dynamic range, but some things just aren't going to be captured like that. I'm not saying it could never happen with the sun, I'm just saying I've never seen it. If the OP had shot another dozen exposures, the likelihood is that the sun would _still _be blown out.

Feel free to illustrate otherwise. If it can be done, I'll acknowledge that. Thus far, I've never seen it...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> .........



Not sure where a point by point response followed by a concise thesis statement with examples and a brief conclusion constitutes "saying so little", but OK. Guess I'm still in grad school mode where I'm talking to people a lot smarter than me, sorry. 

- At the risk of opening that ugly can of worms...tonemapping, AKA cooking an image, is not HDR, it's tonemapping. Fusing exposures, whether via software like photomatix or manually via layer masks, is HDR. There's nothing inferior or wrong with tonemapping, but it is not HDR. 

- If you want to properly expose for the sun, spot meter a single exposure for the sun and mask it in to your main bracketed set. It takes some extra time, but the results are much more pleasing than a giant ball of pure 255 white in the middle of an image, IMO.

Was that brief enough, Steve?


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 27, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> - At the risk of opening that ugly can of worms...tonemapping, AKA cooking an image, is not HDR, it's tonemapping. Fusing exposures, whether via software like photomatix or manually via layer masks, is HDR. There's nothing inferior or wrong with tonemapping, but it is not HDR.



You're saying that a wildly overcooked image can't be HDR?

That's silly; of course it can. Multiple images combined, and then overcooked, can most certainly be HDR. Whether it's pleasing or not is subjective, but not whether or not it's HDR...



> - If you want to properly expose for the sun, spot meter a single exposure for the sun and mask it in to your main bracketed set. It takes some extra time, but the results are much more pleasing than a giant ball of pure 255 white in the middle of an image, IMO.



Show me. You seem to really have a handle on it, so perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide an example of a photo of the sun that's not blown out.

I would try but, since I contend it's not reasonably possible, it would be a waste of time.

Since you're of a different opinion, though, perhaps you could provide an example of what you're describing...



> Was that brief enough, Steve?



Well, sure, it's brief.

It really doesn't support your position, though.

Show me a photo of the sun that's not blown out...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 27, 2012)

Shall I do that from my phone in the middle of my work day?

And I didn't say that tonemapping can never be HDR, I said they're not the same thing. Tonemapping is a method of achieving an HDR image. Too many people, mostly total amateurs, think the cartoony, Trey Ratcliff style tonemapped image IS HDR. Does that makes sense? 

I MUCH prefer the exposure fusion, or manually masked, method, but that point is completely subjective obviously.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> ..........Show me a photo of the sun that's not blown out...




Easy Peasy.  VND and a polarizer.






Think it's fake?  Check the EXIF then.  That's how stupendously easy it is to image the sun.





Still think it's fake?  There's websites that have real-time sunspot data.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 27, 2012)

Sparky FTW. :thumbup:


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 27, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > ..........Show me a photo of the sun that's not blown out...
> ...



And it looks far more like the moon than the sun, wouldn't you agree?

It's just a white disc.

Looking at the image the OP posted, how would you get *that *sun to be properly exposed, in the context of the rest of the image?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> And it looks far more like the moon than the sun, wouldn't you agree?....



Um,  no..... not really.  The moon is plastered with millions of years of  impacts and volcanic activity.  Craters, mares, rilles.....



Steve5D said:


> .....It's just a white disc.......



No, it isn't.  I see sunspots, as well as limb darkening that's common in solar imaging.  If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could image granulation as well.



Steve5D said:


> ...........Looking at the image the OP posted, how would you get *that *sun to be properly exposed, in the context of the rest of the image?



Shoot a frame with an 8-stop VND and a polarizer, ISO 100, 1/2000 @ f/22.  Exposure is pretty consistent when shooting the sun.... it doesn't vary much in luminosity.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 27, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Shall I do that from my phone in the middle of my work day?



Whatever blows your skirt up.

Sparky's image, I suppose, shows what the sun looks like, but it's still just a white disc. There's nothing about it that says "sun"...



> Tonemapping is a method of achieving an HDR image.



I think some of the more opinionated HDR fans here would vehemently disagree with you on that.

My understanding is that achieving an HDR image required multiple exposures. Is that incorrect?

I can tone map the bejeesus out of a single image, and it will _never _be an HDR image. It'll just be a tonemapped image...



> Too many people, mostly total amateurs, think the cartoony, Trey Ratcliff style tonemapped image IS HDR. Does that makes sense?



Whether something is "cooked" or not is just a stylistic choice. If I put 15 images together, and cook the Hell out of it, it's HDR. It'll be a heavily cooked HDR, but it's s_till _an HDR... 



> I MUCH prefer the exposure fusion, or manually masked, method, but that point is completely subjective obviously.



With HDR, I tend to prefer images that are cooked a bit. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. My mood varies...


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 27, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Um,  no..... not really.  The moon is plastered with millions of years of  impacts and volcanic activity.  Craters, mares, rilles.....



I should've been more clear. The image you posted looks like a poorly exposed shot of the moon far more than it does the sun...



> No, it isn't.  I see sunspots, as well as limb darkening that's common in solar imaging.  If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could image granulation as well.



Okay, but with an HDR image of a field, I really don't think "solar imaging" is what the photographer would be going for, do you?

As for the sunspots, I've seen sensors which are so dirty they look like that...



> Shoot a frame with an 8-stop VND and a polarizer, ISO 100, 1/2000 @ f/22.  Exposure is pretty consistent when shooting the sun.... it doesn't vary much in luminosity.



Okay, now you're talkin' in my good ear.

Could you provide an example of what you're talking about?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> I should've been more clear. The image you posted looks like a poorly exposed shot of the moon far more than it does the sun...



I think you need new glasses then.




Steve5D said:


> .......Okay, now you're talkin' in my good ear.
> 
> Could you provide an example of what you're talking about?



I don't understand what you're asking for..... the sun is always the same brightness.  So exposing it would be pretty consistent.

Unless, of course, I wait for the sun to set. Then I'm in for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong exposure.


----------



## gwhiz (Sep 27, 2012)

Now I'm by no means an expert.  I just like to look at HDR photos and practice from time to time.  However, IMO the picture of a "properly exposed" sun posted by 480Sparky perfectly demonstrated Light Guru's initial point that you guys tore apart - putting that version of the sun into the OP's pic would be the most ridiculous looking image despite the fact that it would include every "perfect" exposure.  The sun does need to be a tad blown out to keep it looking like a setting/rising sun rather than a cloudy moonlit shot.  

My .02


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2012)

I merely posted the image to quell the "never seen a photo of the sun that's not totally blown out" camp.

Think about it....... they're all around if you just look.


----------



## Fred Berg (Sep 28, 2012)

No offence meant but the "properly exposed" shot of the sun has no context. I think it's reasonable to accept that the sun will be blown out when included in the vast majority of photos. I suppose that at dusk or dawn it may be possible to achieve a nice red orb, but otherwise it is going to lack form and detail and leave that part of the image where it appears totally bleached.

I prefer the original shot from the OP.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 28, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> In an HDR forum we are talking about multiple images.
> As for your next statement, well thats your opinion. And of course, you are speaking for all images with the sun in them. tsk tsk tsk. Some light Guru.
> 
> This is a really good image that would even be spectacular had you shot a few more much underexposed shots for that bright sun filled area. You might not use all the exposures, but enough to make it perfect.



What makes it a good image that could be spectacular ? its a road trees and sky, sky looks ok but rest is boring


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 28, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I should've been more clear. The image you posted looks like a poorly exposed shot of the moon far more than it does the sun...
> ...



Okay, if it's too difficult to do, then it's okay to say that...


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 28, 2012)

gwhiz said:


> ...putting that version of the sun into the OP's pic would be the most ridiculous looking image despite the fact that it would include every "perfect" exposure.  The sun does need to be a tad blown out to keep it looking like a setting/rising sun rather than a cloudy moonlit shot.



Exactly. 

The idea that HDR _must _present an image that is "perfect" is a silly concept, as no one can identify what "perfect" is...



480sparky said:


> I merely posted the image to quell the "never seen a photo of the sun that's not totally blown out" camp.
> 
> Think about it....... they're all around if you just look.



And now I have.

I've never seen a photos of a lot of things. The sun is nothing special...



Fred Berg said:


> No offence meant but the "properly exposed" shot of the sun has no context. I think it's reasonable to accept that the sun will be blown out when included in the vast majority of photos. I suppose that at dusk or dawn it may be possible to achieve a nice red orb, but otherwise it is going to lack form and detail and leave that part of the image where it appears totally bleached.
> 
> I prefer the original shot from the OP.



That.

A thousand times, that...


----------



## 1hdr4u (Sep 28, 2012)

I have been reading your comments folks and thanks for the tips and advise.


----------

