[shuttertalk]

Ok, here's another one for you post-processing whizzes. The bridge is obviously too dark -- it would have been nice to see some detail on it. Couple of questions:

Should I have exposed for the bridge? Would that have blown out the city/water/sky in the background?

Anyway, can selective post processing fix this, perhaps?

[Rufus]

Well, the pic lacks the latitude required to really improve it, and the file is obviously very compressed and reduced.
Working with what I have, I did manage some improvement, but it bloated the file to 300k, so I cant post it here! :/

[Petographer]

Shadow/highlight tool once again and Save for web Rufus.

[slejhamer]

Shadow/highlight tool once again and Save for web Rufus.

Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

[slejhamer]

Should I have exposed for the bridge? Would that have blown out the city/water/sky in the background?

You should try to expose for something middle gray - that's what your camera is looking for. In this case, spot metering the buildings in the distance might have been the best bet.

If you had a tripod, you could try two exposures - one for the sky so that the clouds didn't blow out, and another for the buildings (or even the bridge), and then blend them in PS. And even if you didn't have a tripod, you could shoot RAW and get as good an exposure as possible without blowing the highlights, then make two conversions with different exposure comp settings.

[gd]

I agree with Slej on that last one. For landscapes like this where the subject and background are obviously unable to be taken in one exposure, take two (or more) pics and merge em.


You'll get a better exposed shot, the trick will be if you're happy with knowing it's a fake.
heheh... it's not a very complicated trick

[Rufus]

Shadow/highlight tool once again and Save for web Rufus.

Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

Save 4 web!

Blimey, it's rather good innit?