Help with blown sky

KcPhotography

Hi,

I have trouble at times with the sky being blown out and wondered what I am doing wrong or what I could do to improve it... I used no flash and was using a Canon 60D in manual mode. Here are some shots to show you....

BinaryFx

What exposure metering pattern are you using? My guess is that you are setting the exposure bias on the subject, as the people are of primary importance.

http://www.photoreview.com.au/guides/pocket-guides/digital-slr/Exposure-Metering

Do you shoot raw format? If so, you might be able to render an image optimised for the highlights and one for the subject and then merge the two together using one of many possible techniques we can discuss in a separate post.

Have you tried shooting bracketed exposures (I appreciate that this is probably hand held, however if you are after better sky then it may not matter too much if there is minor movement between frames).

P.S. Although it is not a bright sunny day, one may elect to use a slightly warmer white balance without changing the mood of the shot too much. The shots are a little too cold for my taste, however this is obviously just as much a personal artistic decision as a technical one.


Sincerely,

Stephen Marsh

Alex P

I know this is in finishing school, but I found it moved from People so I'll offer my opinion on helping this at the taking stage if that's alright.

Looking at the top photo, the highlights on your male subjects t shirt imply that perhaps the strongest light was hitting your subjects from behind them and slightly to their left (camera right). If this was the case then perhaps turning them the face the brightest part of the sky would have helped increase the exposure on them as well as allowing you to reduce the exposure for the sky, or even aim to miss out the sky altogether? As strange as it sounds, I often find myself circling my subjects, with them spinning in time to keep their face facing me until I see the light I want on cloudy days when it's harder to spot light direction.

Another solution could have been a polarizing filter to darken the sky a little. However I appreciate that on overcast days they don't often have much effect, but it might have helped in this case as there are some bluer areas of sky. (Largely speculation, I've never actually worked with a polarizing filter)

Fill flash (or a reflector) would also have definitely helped , as there is little to no light in the subjects eyes, so in bringing up the light on them a little you could have gotten away with underexposing the sky a little. Although just watching not to overdo it and getting a very "flashed" look. Neil van Niekerk's tangents blog will have some good stuff on this, it's definitely worth checking out.

And lastly, if you shot these in raw (somewhat dependent on the dynamic range of your camera), you can always try reducing the highlights/recovery slider in ACR or Lightroom (or equivalent slider in other raw processors), or use a brush adjustment for more precise control.

Final alternative (I know I said "lastly" for the last one, but I mean it this time) would be adding a new sky from an existing photo with a good sky, as long as you get a convincing blend. But this is pretty time consuming, and really better addressed at the taking stage. Perhaps try this tutorial; http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-replace-a-sky-in-photoshop

I hope something there helps!

pathfinder

One can edit these images to look better in PS, but as discussed above, the real solution is to be aware of the cause of the exposure issue as Alex explained above, and to deal with it at the time of exposure. Fill flash is the simple, easy solution to this common problem.

The difference in proper exposure between sky and shaded faces is usually about three stops of exposure, thus a properly exposed face will cause the sky to be over exposed, or a properly exposed sky will cause the faces to be very dark.

Fill flash is the quick and easy solution to this, as it allows exposure for the sky and lights the faces properly also. A simple white or gold reflector to add light to the subject can be helpful, but does require a voice activated assistant. But even the built in flash on most cameras can help add fill flash. The real trick with a DSLR is to shoot in Manual mode for the proper exposure for the background, and use flash in ETTL to light the subject with just a touch of negative flash exposure compensation.

It is tempting to want to shoot fill flash in AV mode, but AV mode ASSUMES you want the background exposed well, and at night will keep the shutter open for up to 30 seconds - e.g.: not a good choice for hand held shooting. Manual mode for the camera lets you choose the exposure for the sky, and the flash in ETTL will then light your subject properly.

There have been discussions about fill flash and the EOS system in the Technique thread where this posts belongs. Here is one http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=32198

Here is a list of posts helpful to understand the Canon/EOS flash system http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=70330

I have moved this thread yet again to the Technique forum, as this is best corrected with shooting technique, not edited after the fact.

zoomer

most natural light photographers would bring up the exposure for the subjects and let the sky blow.
if you want to save the sky...and this one doesn't look very blown...you can probably use highlight recovery to save it in Lightroom... a little if it is jpeg and more if it is raw.

and of course flash could even out the exposure if you wanted to go that way.

JC

I think everyone has covered potential fixes. I'd just like to add, that one way to do fill flash in this instance is to set the on camera flash down to about 20% as you reduce the exposure of the shot. This will give you just enough fill light to add back some exposure to the subject without giving a really flat flash look to the subject.

pathfinder

JC is quite correct, fill flash is best used with a light touch.

I tend to prefer to use fill flash with ~ -1/2 to -2/3 stop of Flash Exposure Compensation. But this is a season to taste kind of decision, since you want to set your Manual Mode exposure to capture the sky and then light your subject with your flash, to raise its light intensity to balance the brightness of both elements in the scene.

One other point is that the native flash synch speed for most Canon bodies is 1/250th of a second or so. Once you attach a flash to a Canon DSLR in Manual Mode, the fastest shutter speed you are permitted ( without High Speed Synch termed on on your flash ) is 1/250th of a second. This means on a bright beach, with a wide aperture, you may be very overexposed if you needed 1/500th or 1/1000th of a second, and you dialed those settings ( say 1/1000th) into your shutter speed. But your flash caused your camera body to reset your shutter to 1/250th without telling you. The secret sauce in the Canon EOS flash system is called High Speed Synch, which causes your flash to emit a much longer series of light pulses so that your camera can shoot with flash at 1/1000th or 1/4000th of a second. I leave my ex580 in HSS and 2nd curtain shutter most of the time for just this reason. Not all built in flashes may support HSS or 2nd curtain, you may need to check your manual for your D60 ( or is it a 60D perhaps? )

pathfinder

zoomer wrote: »

most natural light photographers would bring up the exposure for the subjects and let the sky blow.
if you want to save the sky...and this one doesn't look very blown...you can probably use highlight recovery to save it in Lightroom... a little if it is jpeg and more if it is raw.

and of course flash could even out the exposure if you wanted to go that way.

Hi Zoomer,

While I agree that one technique is to ignore the sky, or even to push it to go totally white, a nice sky can add a lot to a snapshot.

In the first image, all the white areas of the upper 1/3 of the image read 255,255,255 - that is they are totally white and completely fried in this jpg, and contain no image data. It is possible the original RAW file might contain more salvageable data for use in Lightroom or PS, but not this image.

Indeed, I dropped the first image into Photoshop, and found that one needs to correct the sky as one selection, the people as a 2nd selection, and the water surface as a third selection. And even then, much of the sky was a totally blocked out white mass.

Fill flash would have provided a much more pleasing rendition with little time or effort, once a flash was mounted and dialed in. Fill flash with negative FEC really is great for pictures of kids moving around in the environment.

This overcast sky is more forgiving than if the child had been backlit by a late after noon sun. Fill Flash would be even more helpful then. One can shoot HDRs as well, of course, but that is far more demanding of the shooter, than just using a flash in fill flash style.

Peano

If you have images you can't re-shoot (from vacation, for instance),
you could always replace the sky. One way, assuming you're familiar
with layers and masks in Photoshop, is to use a selective color adjustment
layer applied (with the mask) to the sky, with settings approximately like these:



This works best if the sky is pure white, so you can use the same mask
on a levels adjustment layer to blow out the original sky entirely before
making the selective color adjustment. On two additional blank layers,
you can also add a gradient to brighten the horizon a little, and add clouds
using cloud brushes. Lots of free cloud brushes available online.



Nothing difficult here if you're reasonably comfortable with layers and masking. If you're not, well ... not much help.