ND filters won't be of much value for still photos unless you are trying to get blurs like waterfall or river blurs. Without ND filters, your shutter speed will be very high in bright daylight. This can be an advantage for aerial photos as it freezes the motion helping to put everything in sharp focus. ND filters allow you to lower the shutter speed. For videos, that provides a satisfying amount of motion blur during camera or subject movement. Otherwise the video will have an unpleasant staccato effect (rapid still images that don't blend together well).Yes, good editor.
Is there a way to take a pic like this that does not need edited? Is manual settings the only way? Is there value in ND filters?
My pictures come washed out as well. I'll play with the settings you have suggested. Just started flying my Evo 2 8k so learning how to fly is getting easier to the point that now I can start playing with the camera settings...Thanks for the tips Rubik. I'll give them a try.
Don't set your expectation bar too high.
My pictures come washed out as well. I'll play with the settings you have suggested. Just started flying my Evo 2 8k so learning how to fly is getting easier to the point that now I can start playing with the camera settings...
What do you mean by ".. didn't clip the blacks..."?
Thank you, that explains it.Clipping the blacks is where you under expose to the point that the shadows are unrecoverable. If you under expose to the point to where if you try to lift the shadows in post they are nothing but noise or have lost all of their color then you have clipped the blacks.
The histogram shows I under exposed but kept it right above the point where the blacks (shadows) would have been unrecoverable which is why the ground still has color after post processing the image vs the unprocessed image where the ground is pitch black.
Thank you, that explains it.
My Evo-II 6K keeps showing me washed pics... I'll try and play with the EV settings to see if I can get the Histogram more balanced out...
Thanks, great shots!Here are some normal daylight images of downtown Tampa. I used the histogram to expose all of them. They are all F5.6, ISO100, 1/1000s shutter speed, daylight WB shot raw and post processed in Lightroom. To get the most out of pretty much any modern sensor you have to shoot raw and post process them. These to me look like something I could deliver to a commercial client. Plenty of color in the sky, proper contrast, and good lows.
I also recommend always shooting manual mode to get the most out of the sensor. Completely ignore the EV readout (it's wildly inaccurate) and just look at the histogram. ISO100, F5.6, and Daylight WB should get you started. Then just use the shutter speed to get the histogram to show a properly exposed image.
View attachment 10073View attachment 10074View attachment 10075View attachment 10076View attachment 10077View attachment 10078
Btw, always shoot in RAW... Not familiar with the LOG procedure.Thanks, great shots!
Using a Polarizing filter all the time (US Virgin Islands Tropics, with bright Sun) and never had an issue with the DJI Mavic 2 Pro pics. The Autel Evo-II (with polarizing filter) keeps giving me washed out pics all the time. Next time I'll try the settings you recommend.
Have attached here two (Mavic) pics.. but never seem to be able to get these vivid pics with my Autel Evo-II.
Thanks, great shots!
Using a Polarizing filter all the time (US Virgin Islands Tropics, with bright Sun) and never had an issue with the DJI Mavic 2 Pro pics. The Autel Evo-II (with polarizing filter) keeps giving me washed out pics all the time. Next time I'll try the settings you recommend.
Have attached here two (Mavic) pics.. but never seem to be able to get these vivid pics with my Autel Evo-II.
Btw, always shoot in RAW... Not familiar with the LOG procedure.
Stepped away from Lightroom v5, and am now using Luminar 4.
That's the reason I dropped out of Lightroom, found the yearly fee to be ridiculous. Don't mind a one-time buyers fee, but paying every year again?I tried Luminar but went back to Lightroom. Keep in mind Lightroom is famous for its accurate RAW rendition, there's a possibility that Luminar is not properly processing the RAW data. I am by no means a fan of paying the Adobe subscription fees (in fact its a pet peeve of mine), but I have yet to find another commercially viable product that works as good as Lightroom.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.