blown out skies

chrisjohnson

I am hoping for some advice on the best technique to set a dslr to avoid the white sky effect.

I tend to set exposure by metering the foreground subject - eg landscape. This turns a blue sky white and loses the detail so it can't be recovered in post. The sky is hopelessly over-exposed. The foreground is good.

Since I started with DSLR I forgot old "rules" like sunny 16. In other words, set shutter speed close to the ISO of the film (125 for ISO 100, 250 for ISO 200, etc) and fix aperture to 16 on sunny days, 11 on bright overcast, etc. I do stick with other old rules like using the lowest ISO you can get away with - but maybe this is one I should forget? The old rules did seem to give decent results but modern cameras are dazzlingly more advanced and I should be doing much better.

I am actually quite lost on the best technique to use in the digital age and grateful for any tips or pointers.

colourbox

Typically you'd attach a graduated filter to the lens to tone down the bright sky.

run_kmc

I think you might be overthinking things in this instance.

Try this: Set your ISO to whatever you'd like (say, 100) and forget about it. Use aperture priority, pick an aperture you'd like (for whatever depth of field you'd like, no more thought required) and let the camera worry about the shutter speed and the rest of the exposure.

I try to only think when my camera can't figure things out on it's own, which really isn't all that often.

Awais Yaqub

Take two or three exposures one exposed for dark areas (foreground) and other for bright areas (sky etc) and overlap them in photoshop or HDR software (this is called exposure blending). Other way is to shoot in RAW and recover blown (white sky) highlights in raw converter, but this won't give best results in all situations especially when difference in highlights and shadows is significant, but raw carries enough data to make day and night difference, you got to experimenting.

Filters usually degrade picture quality and good ones are way to expensive (for me), so i am sticking to exposure blending technique and it works for me and many others.

chrisjohnson

Awais Yaqub wrote: »

Take two or three exposures one exposed for dark areas (foreground) and other for bright areas (sky etc) and overlap them in photoshop or HDR software (this is called exposure blending). Other way is to shoot in RAW and recover blown (white sky) highlights in raw converter, but this won't give best results in all situations especially when difference in highlights and shadows is significant, but raw carries enough data to make day and night difference, you got to experimenting.

Filters usually degrade picture quality and good ones are way to expensive (for me), so i am sticking to exposure blending technique and it works for me and many others.

I do use RAW but mostly not enough highlights are recovered - they are blown both in detail and color.

Using the camera on automatic gives a compromise with foreground under-exposed and skies better but still over-exposed - worst of both worlds. The auto mode seems designed for a sunny beach scene rather than a forest in the foreground, say.

Maybe there is no best technique and I should go for bracketing and start learning HDR. Can I then only shoot with a tripod? Is there software for merging hand-held shots?

Maybe I should try a graduated filter. I wonder which one to get? I suppose I probably need to spend more time in post to fix the stuff which is then unintentionally darkened. I stopped using filters years ago because they tended to reduce image quality and gave very artificial-looking results - maybe this technique is improved since.

Thanks for the ideas.

time2smile

Filters have come a long way, and the prices show for it. I would consider a CPL and a UV along with a Grad.

Post some examples of what you are shooting, someone will answer the call....

pathfinder

goldenballs wrote: »

I do use RAW but mostly not enough highlights are recovered - they are blown both in detail and color.

Using the camera on automatic gives a compromise with foreground under-exposed and skies better but still over-exposed - worst of both worlds. The auto mode seems designed for a sunny beach scene rather than a forest in the foreground, say.

Maybe there is no best technique and I should go for bracketing and start learning HDR. Can I then only shoot with a tripod? Is there software for merging hand-held shots?

Maybe I should try a graduated filter. I wonder which one to get? I suppose I probably need to spend more time in post to fix the stuff which is then unintentionally darkened. I stopped using filters years ago because they tended to reduce image quality and gave very artificial-looking results - maybe this technique is improved since.

Thanks for the ideas.

Shooting a forest scene with sunlit areas and shadowed areas involves large extremes of contrast, that are not manageable with filters of any sort.

HDR offers an alternative, and forest shots were one of the main reasons I began to use hdr more and more. HDR allows one to capture the variegated highlights and shadows in forest scenes, like this



Graduated NDs are quite useful for even horizons, but for forests, not so much!

I own and use several 4x6 in GNDs, but find myself blending exposures more and more, and filters ( other than polarizing ) less and less.

How would you handle this image with GNDs?

chrisjohnson

time2smile wrote: »

Filters have come a long way, and the prices show for it. I would consider a CPL and a UV along with a Grad.

Post some examples of what you are shooting, someone will answer the call....

ok. here is one.

http://christopherjohnson.smugmug.com/Other/dgrin/IMG2924/877250565_CcKxy-M.jpg

and another:

http://christopherjohnson.smugmug.com/Other/dgrin/IMG2923/877255642_gwHmq-M.jpg

I have lots more I am afraid

The sky was summer blue with fluffy white clouds and some haze.

angevin1

goldenballs wrote: »

I do use RAW but mostly not enough highlights are recovered - they are blown both in detail and color.

Using the camera on automatic gives a compromise with foreground under-exposed and skies better but still over-exposed - worst of both worlds. The auto mode seems designed for a sunny beach scene rather than a forest in the foreground, say.

Maybe there is no best technique and I should go for bracketing and start learning HDR. Can I then only shoot with a tripod? Is there software for merging hand-held shots?

Maybe I should try a graduated filter. I wonder which one to get? I suppose I probably need to spend more time in post to fix the stuff which is then unintentionally darkened. I stopped using filters years ago because they tended to reduce image quality and gave very artificial-looking results - maybe this technique is improved since.

Thanks for the ideas.

You have some very good questions here. And there are myriad ways to deal with them.

I think the biggest thing you do need to consider is using a tripod. If you find a scene that really draws you to it to the point of making a wall hanger out of it, then yes, use a tripod and take the time necessary to compose, set adjustments to DOF/exposure and take the shot or shots.

If you do long hikes like I do, you don't always have to have a tripod...you can use rocks, a fence, whatever to stabilize your camera. Doing so will make fast work if you need to take several shots for complete coverage of the exposure you're looking for.

Cheers,

Qarik

yeah..not much you can do except get a full frame sensor, shoot in RAW, and an ND filter.

The other thing you can do if you have a close dominating foreground subject (a rock or tree or bush) is to set up off camera lighting for that and expose for the background.

SimpsonBrothers

I was having the same problem, but found settings that work.

Set metering mode to Partial
Set white balance to shade (7000k)
Set shooting style to Landscape

Brings out the sky a bit more.

BeachBill

Welcome to the world of digital. I think the basic answer to your question is to expose for the highlights. You can bring out the detail from the shadows in post, but you can't get any details from blown pixels. Shooting in RAW gives a bit more exposure latitude as well.

I would also suggest a circular polarizer to help darken the sky in those outdoor nature shots.

For really difficult scenes with extreme dynamic range, bracket exposures (to get properly exposed highlights and shadows) and merge in post.

chrisjohnson

I have played about with this and seem to get the best results from using the centre-weighted light metering. I tend to use evaluative (default) on my 40D most of the time, or spot/partial for portraits. It seems in these extreme lighting cases that centre-weighted may be more accurate.

Taking normal photos I noticed the 40D on evaluative tending to under-expose - for my taste. This is easy to correct day-to-day - simply correct by 1/3 or 1/2 stop - but when lighting conditions are extreme I need a different technique.

I never used centre weighted metering before but it corresponds to the old fashioned TTL metering.

I notice that Canon have moved away from evaluative metering on 7D and 550D, relying instead on a default which takes all focus points as the base reference for light metering instead of the one you have selected. In the 1 series there is even an option for multiple spot metering which is probably even better and like having an old fashioned light meter. I never read about this on all the boards which is surprising as light metering is essential - so perhaps I am really on a wrong track.

My modified technique is:
1) fix aperture to 11 or 16 (AV priority) on ISO 100
2) set centre weighted metering
3) shoot on suggested shutter speed
4) if shutter speed too low for shake and no tripod then increase ISO
5) Check histogram for blown highlights and reduce exposure if needed.

At the end of the day I am probably asking a lot - too much - from my DSLR so the merging of different exposures is something I need to master next.

Is my new technique right? Shoot me down if you think I got it wrong before I "waste" a few weeks on HDR.

pathfinder

Everyone develops their preferred mode of metering and shooting - I tend to shoot in Manual mode for landscapes, and Av frequently for people. I use Evaluative metering to start, but really use the histogram displayed as three separate R,G,B, channels to check for no blown pixels in any channel. I then plug that exposure into my camera in Manual Mode and shoot with that unless the light changes. I can and do use spot metering as well, but mostly just follow the histogram. Do not depend on the jpg displayed on the back of your camera - it can mislead you. I do have "blinkies" turned on in my setup to display blown pixels on the LCD a well.

Getting the correct exposure is well and good, but there are frequently images that are beyond the dynamic range limits of our sensors, and which we cannot capture entirely within a single exposure, no matter how it is adjusted up or down. Shooting RAW gives us the largest potential dynamic range of our sensors, but is still inadequate at times. A series of 3 - 5 images from neutral, 3 stops + and 3 stops -. will capture those ranges almost always.

Those of us raised in the days of Kodachrome and B&W images, became adapted to those limits in print media. I think it takes some time for us to re adapt to the potentials of hdr images. But the day is coming when most of the images we see are not prints on the wall, but LCD displays with much larger dynamic ranges than paper will ever possess.

anonymouscuban

I have to ditto what Pathfinders has said.

There are some scenes that have too much dynamic range for a digital camera to handle. In these cases I simply set my D300 to fire off some bracketed exposures and snap off 3-5 shots, depending on the range of the scene. I use my histogram to make sure I got full coverage within the exposures. IOW, I make sure I have an exposure where my blacks are clipped and one where my highlights aren't blown. Then I blend in post.

For scenes that aren't too bad, I will meter on the sky and worry about pull details from the shodows in post. Or I will meter on my subject and then use the handy gradient filter tool in LR2. Just depends on the scene. BTW, I shoot in RAW which helps tremendously to recover stuff in post.