Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: haze?  (Read 4889 times)

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
haze?
« on: February 20, 2005, 05:24:57 PM »

Here's another example of haze "making" an image:



Members of a CDF fire crew climb a hillside to fight a fire on the other side of the hill.

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
haze?
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2005, 09:40:22 PM »

Quote
Now THAT is a spectacular image, Jonathan!
I tried to sell that image to the local paper the day of the fire, but the photo editor wouldn't even look at it. He gave me some BS story about "our staff guy got some shots" (which I know was totally untrue) and they didn't even run a story on the fire. Such is life, I guess...

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
haze?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2005, 12:22:43 PM »

I just looked through the photos nniko posted for critique.  I was in Canyonlands/Dead Horse State Park in first week of Dec and had similar haze issues.

Is their either a shooting technique or filter etc. that will reduce the effect of the haze?  (I don't think so - but am just asking).  

I've expiremented a fair amount with sharpening (Photokit Sharpener Pro) and I don't see effective post processing techniques for anything but relatively mild haze.  For the most part heavy haze = noise and there's not much to be gained by trying to sharpen nosise. - but any suggestions are welcome.

Is there a time of year when the haze in this area tends to be least?
Logged

glenndavyphoto

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • http://www.glenndavy.com
haze?
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2005, 12:09:49 PM »

Skylight filters are supposed to eliminate some UV haze, but I've never found them to be that effective (don't use them now).  Personally (FWIW), I rather like the haze in if it's there in real life (which it will be, or you wouldn't be asking about it   ).  To me, as long as there's not a huge amount of sky present, I actually enjoy shots that have it in.  Example below:

:

Glenn

howard smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
haze?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2005, 05:39:39 PM »

"Skylight filters are supposed to eliminate some UV haze, but I've never found them to be that effective ... ."

In theory, yes, not not in practice.  Modern lenses and coating filter nearly all UV anyway.  Blue is scattered more than other colors (why the sky is blue) but all visible light is scallered to some extent and that is why haze is hard to deal with.  Infra red does a little better.
Logged

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
haze?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2005, 07:57:42 PM »



Here's the kind of shot I was refering to - maybe a bit would be OK, there there's too much here for my taste.  There's too much interesting background detail that's lost.  I've found a few shots of this with no haze, and it seems that you need some rain to get rid of it.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380
haze?
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2005, 02:48:06 AM »

Quote
I tried to sell that image to the local paper the day of the fire, but the photo editor wouldn't even look at it.
It is a spectacular shot in an arty way, but doesn't have the sensationalism of a real fire that most newspapers would be looking for; you know, real flames licking at a real house, about to destroy someone's dreams.
Logged

glenndavyphoto

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • http://www.glenndavy.com
haze?
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2005, 08:34:57 AM »

Yeah, newspapers are strictly "editorial" and aren't interested in anything abstract at all.  Try contacting a firefighter's association and see if they produce a calendar.  That's a more likely target for that sort of image.

djgarcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
    • http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
haze?
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2005, 06:45:23 PM »

Here's some haze for you, aka smog + dust, compliments of the Gobi desert, a lot of burning coal and millions of cars ...



DJ
Logged
Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
haze?
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2005, 01:20:12 PM »

Local contrast enhancement works wonders on mild haze. But for really heavy haze/fog, there's limits to what can be done in post to remove it.

glenndavyphoto

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • http://www.glenndavy.com
haze?
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2005, 07:13:21 PM »

Now THAT is a spectacular image, Jonathan!  My personal feeling is that I'd much rather work with haze than to try and eliminate it, but that may be strictly a personal feeling.

Yup, you have Rayleigh (gives you a blue sky), Mie (red sunrises/sunsets, plus some smog) and Non-Selective (usually clouds and some aerosols) scattering of light in the atmosphere, and every combination thereof.  All three are going on all the time, but it depends on where you are standing in relation to the sun as to the exact effect you see.  Trying to get rid of haze is nigh on impossible in the camera.  By increasing contrast in your PP, you can minimize it to some extent (as mentioned above), but you have to be careful that you don't end up with something that looks very unreal.  That's mostly why I prefer to work with it instead of against it  :: .

glenndavyphoto

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • http://www.glenndavy.com
haze?
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2005, 08:39:15 AM »

Quote
There's too much interesting background detail that's lost.  I've found a few shots of this with no haze, and it seems that you need some rain to get rid of it.

I see what you mean.  Yes, rain will take out most solid particulates so that's about what you would need.  What would happen if you cropped (in-camera) and took several shots rather than trying to get it "all-in-one"?  Exclude as much of the sky as absolutely possible since it is washing out on you anyway, and/or shoot early in the morning away from the sun so you at least have a darker (western) sky?  Might be worth experimenting with.
Pages: [1]   Go Up