How to avoid white skies ?

Antonio Correia

Last year I went to Cambodia and many shots had the sky white because the weather was overcast.
http://www.antoniocorreia.com/keyword/cambodia/2/53790005
for example or
http://www.antoniocorreia.com/keyword/cambodia/4/52895606
Now I'm going to Ireland and I'm afraid the same thing happens and spoil the photographs...
I have been thinking that something good to overcome this problem would be the use of a polarizing filter.:dunno
As my lens do not move as they zoom this seems to be a nice solution.:scratch
Herewith I post a photo right from RAW without any photoshoping for appreciation of the problem.
Comments please. Thank you.

cletus

Antonio Correia wrote:

I have been thinking that something good to overcome this problem would be the use of a polarizing filter.

Antonio,

I don't know that a polarizing filter is going to help. I would think that the clouds in an overcast sky would tend to bounce the light around enough that the light getting through to your lens would be very unpolarized.

Software wise, you might try selecting the sky and then darkening it up. However, if the sky is completely blown out and there's no detail left in it, I don't know that there's much you can do... short of masking off the sky and replacing it with a different sky shot.

wxwax

This is where a graduated neutral density filter shines.

cletus

wxwax wrote:

This is where a graduated neutral density filter shines.

Forgot about those!

wxwax

cletus wrote:

Forgot about those!

I gotta figure out how to get one that works for me. I may just go the Pathfinder route and get a Cokin type and hand hold it. I screwed up a potentially lovely shot of SF and the Bay Bridge from Treasure Island for the want of one.

CatOne

It's because you are using matrix metering and the camera is choosing the exposure it wants.

You have a few options:

1) Use a graduated ND filter -- This requires a tripod.

2) Use Photoshop CS2 and HDR combined with a 3, 5, or 7 shot sequence at different exposures, to merge. This requires a tripod.

3) Bracket a couple shots off by about 2 stops, and merge them yourself in Photoshop. This requires a tripod.

So... no fixing that issue unless you have a tripod, pretty much :-)

You could ALSO try underexposing the whole thing by 2 stops and using "shadows and highlights" to squish everything back... but it will look mostly like ass as you'll have a lot of extra noise in the shadows.

Anthony

Having enjoyed lurking for a while, I thought it might be time to crawl out of the woodwork on this one.

Although not a perfect solution, by using a selective colour layer, white skys can be altered very quickly to blue (or anything else for that matter). By making a loose, feathered selection round the sky, promoting the selection to a layer and using a gradient mask more subtle effects can be introduced.

I had a one minute go at the OP's picture just to illustrate the point. Hope it comes through okay.


Anthony.

Antonio Correia

ND filter, tripod and ...

CatOne wrote:

It's because you are using matrix metering and the camera is choosing the exposure it wants.

You have a few options:

1) Use a graduated ND filter -- This requires a tripod.

2) Use Photoshop CS2 and HDR combined with a 3, 5, or 7 shot sequence at different exposures, to merge. This requires a tripod.

3) Bracket a couple shots off by about 2 stops, and merge them yourself in Photoshop. This requires a tripod.

So... no fixing that issue unless you have a tripod, pretty much :-)

You could ALSO try underexposing the whole thing by 2 stops and using "shadows and highlights" to squish everything back... but it will look mostly like ass as you'll have a lot of extra noise in the shadows.

Thank you for your anwser.
When we travel in a group we do not have time to the tripod, the bracketing and so...
A neutral density filter - which I have - is good thought it lowers the aperture. As I work with lenses f/2.8 that might work.
Fixing the photo in Photoshop is one solution...
I bought the Margulis book and I think he may have a solution for that. But now I do not have time to read it... Too many things to do...:):
Best regards.

Antonio Correia

wxwax wrote:

I gotta figure out how to get one that works for me. I may just go the Pathfinder route and get a Cokin type and hand hold it. I screwed up a potentially lovely shot of SF and the Bay Bridge from Treasure Island for the want of one.

Thank you for your anwser.
The Cokin filter graded - this is not the english for this, how shall I say ? - neutral in the bottom and dense on top is probably the most confortable solution.
As my zoom lenses do not move around when I use this feature ...
Best regards.

Antonio Correia

white Sky

Anthony wrote:

Having enjoyed lurking for a while, I thought it might be time to crawl out of the woodwork on this one.

Although not a perfect solution, by using a selective colour layer, white skys can be altered very quickly to blue (or anything else for that matter). By making a loose, feathered selection round the sky, promoting the selection to a layer and using a gradient mask more subtle effects can be introduced.

I had a one minute go at the OP's picture just to illustrate the point. Hope it comes through okay.


Anthony.

Thank you.
Best regards.

cletus

Anthony wrote:

Having enjoyed lurking for a while, I thought it might be time to crawl out of the woodwork on this one.

Howdy Anthony

Glad you decided to de-lurk

pathfinder

A graduated ND is really not much use with tree lines, or city skylines, as they have too much fine detail.

Andy caught me handholding that graduated ND, but I was not shooting at that time, I was moving the filter up and down vertically to get an idea where the gradation line should be when I put the filter in the Cokin holder. That is why screw in graduated NDs are worthless - you cannot choose to raise or lower the area of density change and you NEED to unless you always shoot with the horizon dead centrer and we all know that is not ideal usually.

I used to try to use Color Select to help reclaim skys in Photoshop on overcast days, but its a pain too. and sometimes less than stellar.

I presently create a duplicate layer, and then use Apply Image on the RED channel, to the upper layer and and then blend in a Luminosity Mode - this will help darken skies relative to a foreground subject IF the subject is not Blue. Works well against a water surface background also.

You can also create a duplicate layer with ctrl-J, convert to LAB, Overlay Blend and use the Blending sliders to limit the effect to only the blue half of the B channel in Lab. This works pretty well - you get better selections for tree lines than I ever got with the magic wand or color tool.

A final suggestion is to limit shooting on days with lousy skies to close ups, macros, portraits and studies that take advantage of the soft light of the overcast day, but don't include it in the shot. You don't try to include the soft box in your nice portrait in the sudio, and then Photoshop it to make it fit in. You omit it, and just use the light. That is what overcast days are - the world's largest softboxes.

The light in the tropics is so different from the light in the more northern lattitudes. It takes a change of view and practice to utilize. But overcast days can be very fun to shoot, but you have to "think different"

Mike Lane

How about shooting couple of shots. One exposed for the sky, one for the subject and then combining them using this method.

Or maybe just one shot in raw and then use this method.

wxwax

pathfinder wrote:

I presently create a duplicate layer, and then use Apply Image on the RED channel, to the upper layer and and then blend in a Luminosity Mode - this will help darken skies relative to a foreground subject IF the subject is not Blue. WOrks well agians a water surface background also.

Ulp. :uhoh I can't follow this, I'm afraid.

Antonio Correia

Thank you both Path Finder and Mark Lane.
Nice of you.
I'll read carefully later because I have no time now, but I am sure these posts are of a great help.
If you allow me, I will comment your posts then.
Thank you.:D
Good Heath to you both

Shay Stephens

Here is the problem though. A blue sky is inconsistant visually with the low contrast and misty scene. Now matter how well blended, it is always going to look fake because subconsciously, the brain notices the lighting difference.

This is one area where editing in PS is not the answer. To do this justice, using a grad filter is the way to go, or if using a tripod, then exposure blending with braketed shots.

But you did do a good job at the editing

Anthony wrote:

Although not a perfect solution, by using a selective colour layer, white skys can be altered very quickly to blue

Antonio Correia

thank you Shay.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

Ulp. :uhoh I can't follow this, I'm afraid.

Waxy - reread the portrait workflow in LAB for a more detailed example. In essense, when you use the Apply Image command and chose the Red channel, you end up with the original image in the lower layer, and the B&W red channel in the upper layer. These two layers are then blended in the Luminosity Mode in the palette well, and the opacity slider is used to taste.

Think of this as combining a color transparency ( color slide to some folks) on the lower layer with B&W image on the upper layer that was shot with a RED filter ( RED filters darken blue skies in B&W very, very effectively)

The Luminosity Blend blends the luminosity of the upper layer with the color and detail of the lower layer = VOILA - a darker blue sky, that will match anything done with a graduated ND. It will not just be blue, but a graduated darker sky with variations, just like a shot with a dark Yellow or Red filter in B&W.

Even better, would be combining two shots and luminosity blending, as posted by others earlier, but Antonio specifically stated he would NOT be using a tripod.

AND , this editing method can actually be done to am image shot through a graduated ND also. What's not to like??

Try it Shay, you might actually like it!!:):

Tom K.

Thank you Mark Lane. Those links provided excellent info on the subject.

jfriend

You need blue for a red channel luminosity blend to work

pathfinder wrote:

Waxy - reread the portrait workflow in LAB for a more detailed example. In essense, when you use the Apply Image command and chose the Red channel, you end up with the original image in the lower layer, and the B&W red channel in the upper layer. These two layers are then blended in the Luminosity Mode in the palette well, and the opacity slider is used to taste.

Think of this as combining a color transparency ( color slide to some folks) on the lower layer with B&W image on the upper layer that was shot with a RED filter ( RED filters darken blue skies in B&W very, very effectively)

The Luminosity Blend blends the luminosity of the upper layer with the color and detail of the lower layer = VOILA - a darker blue sky, that will match anything done with a graduated ND. It will not just be blue, but a graduated darker sky with variations, just like a shot with a dark Yellow or Red filter in B&W.

Even better, would be combining two shots and luminosity blending, as posted by others earlier, but Antonio specifically stated he would NOT be using a tripod.

AND , this editing method can actually be done to am image shot through a graduated ND also. What's not to like??

Try it Shay, you might actually like it!!:):

Did you try the red channel luminosity blend on this image? As i've experienced the technique, it only works if there is blue in the image. Because blue has very little red and white clouds have plenty of red, it exaggerates the contrast between blue sky and clouds. But, if what is in the image (due to the way it was exposed), is already white and isn't blue, then it just doesn't work because blue will get darker with a red channel luminosity blend, but white won't turn blue with a red channel luminosity blend.

You can see detailed steps for this technique in my chapter 14 writeup on Margulis' LAB book here.

Shay Stephens

pathfinder wrote:

Try it Shay, you might actually like it!!:):

A blue sky on an obviously overcast day is visually inconsistant. Cut the color and it might work. Trying to change a cloudy day to a clear day is just not going to work. If it is cloudy, then work on emphasising the clouds instead of having uniform white sky.

It's like dressing a dog up in a horse costume, it might look cute and funny, but everyone knows it's not really a horse

Shay Stephens

Another thing I failed to mention on avoiding white skies. I am often faced with this situation and I try to find trees or other obstacles that physically block the sky to reduce it as much as possible.

You may not get the exact composition you intended, but at least it will be more usable than a white sky shot.

Anthony

Shay Stephens wrote:

Here is the problem though. A blue sky is inconsistant visually with the low contrast and misty scene. Now matter how well blended, it is always going to look fake because subconsciously, the brain notices the lighting difference.

This is one area where editing in PS is not the answer. To do this justice, using a grad filter is the way to go, or if using a tripod, then exposure blending with braketed shots.

But you did do a good job at the editing

In essence I agree with you - sometimes though, just a hint of colour using a greyish blue rather than a Velvia type azure blue, with the opacity knocked back can just take the sting out of chunk of pure white.

Thanks for the kind words on the editing by the way.

Anthony

pathfinder

jfriend wrote:

Did you try the red channel luminosity blend on this image? As i've experienced the technique, it only works if there is blue in the image. Because blue has very little red and white clouds have plenty of red, it exaggerates the contrast between blue sky and clouds. But, if what is in the image (due to the way it was exposed), is already white and isn't blue, then it just doesn't work because blue will get darker with a red channel luminosity blend, but white won't turn blue with a red channel luminosity blend.

You can see detailed steps for this technique in my chapter 14 writeup on Margulis' LAB book here.

I agree, if your sky is totally white and blown, or evenly grey, neither blending or Grad NDfilters will rescue you. The sky needs to be omitted as I said earlier; shoot macros, portraits, any thing but that softbox in the sky. Polarizers won't help either.

Frequently skies do have some variation in tonality, as with a cirrus cloud layer that turns the sky a very pale blue with patchy faint clouds. These CAN be emphasized by blending in some way, wheras Grad NDs will only help balance exposure differences between the foreground and the back ground. Grad NDs will not emphasize tonality variations in the sky.

Mike Lane

Tom K. wrote:

Thank you Mark Lane. Those links provided excellent info on the subject.

No problem Tim.

wxwax

pathfinder wrote:

Grad NDs will not emphasize tonality variations in the sky.

Maybe not. But they will save the sky from being blown out, preserve detail and allow a modest amount of Photoshop work make the sky interesting.

rutt

Maybe this will help.

Antonio Correia

White sky
Thank you for being so helpfull.
Isn't the anwser also in a better, broader, wider Dynamic Range ?!
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/dynamic_range_01.htm
We only have to wait a couple of years ... :
It is on the way ...

vangogh

[quote=I was moving the filter up and down vertically to get an idea where the gradation line should be when I put the filter in the Cokin holder. That is why screw in graduated NDs are worthless - you cannot choose to raise or lower the area of density change and you NEED to unless you always shoot with the horizon dead centrer and we all know that is not ideal usually.
[/quote]

I've been thinking about getting a neutral density filter for my fuji fine pix S602 zoom. I have an adapter ring to put my UV & polariser filters on, but was now wondering if I can get a holder for this that would allow me to move the filter as you describe or is a a move to DLSR jobbie?

Txs