Blown Out Sky... ALWAYS?!?!?

kitkatdubs

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
152
Reaction score
2
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I need some serious help here. I am getting tired of the sky in my images always being blown out. I love the light and airy look, so I tend to overexpose by a stop or so, but that is resulting in a blown out sky. What is the trick to avoiding this? Fill flash? HELP!?!?
 
If you overexpose you'll get blown out areas. Is it for backlight portraits this is happening, or wildlife? Have you any examples
 
Yes back light portraits of families and kids etc
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3755.jpg
    IMG_3755.jpg
    292.6 KB · Views: 982
It looks like the sky is very dull or grey rather than blown out, but my screen might not be the best.

The camera is metering the scene and averaging out, so the dark area is a little brighter, but the sky goes to far.

An off camera flash (maybe even cameras own flash) would help here. The dynamic range of the camera struggling to get everything balanced.

Do you shoot raw? If so it might be possible to take a shot allowing sky to be ok but foreground a little dark, then push shadows a little. The success of this varies from camera to camera.

If shooting jpegs your camera may have a setting to help with dynamic range. What make is your camera?
 
Do you shoot raw? If so it might be possible to take a shot allowing sky to be ok but foreground a little dark, then push shadows a little. The success of this varies from camera to camera.
If shooting jpegs your camera may have a setting to help with dynamic range. What make is your camera?

Just what I was thinking.
If possible, use Raw, do not overexpose 1 stop, and just lower the highlights and bring up the shadows. Of course not to much or you create an unnatural effect.
You can also put a Graduated Filter on the sky and lower the highlights even more, not touching the shadow areas.

another possibility, but more work, is to take 2 or 3 images every time fast with -1,0,+1 exposure and put together with HDR, ofcourse the trick is here also not to make it look like an HDR, because it should stay natural. You can also cut out the -1 exposed sky and stick it together with the +1 foreground, but yeah... lots more work.
 
Using a graduated filter will allow you to balance out the sky but you need something like a Conklin with a holder that allows you to adjust the graduation by sliding and stacking The Cokin Creative Filter System these are moderately expensive, but you can find flea Bay knockoffs for less than $30.

Or you can use an off camera speedlight to provide fill light on the subject. Which will even up the difference in light on the subject and the brightness of the sky.

Lastly a large reflector, white or silver can be used to move light on to the subject for fill
 
Other than bracketing, I like the graduated filter idea the best. With the square ones you can tilt and adjust them up/down based on the landscape.

With a flash it would help balance everything out, but you are taking a "portrait" from quite a distance. So the flashes would have to be of to the side(s) at least 10 feet? And I'd hate to take flash equipment out in a field with this scenario without first trying simplier GND square filter solution first.
 
To expand upon astronikon's post:

The way I would shoot this would be to put the camera on a tripod, put a lightstand(s) wherever I need in the frame to light the subject, get a good exposure of them. Then without moving the camera, have the subjects and lightstands removed from the scene and get a couple of shots exposing for the sky and the foreground.

Then take them shots into photoshop and use layer masks to blend it all together.

Complicated? Sure. Best results possible? You betcha.

The graduated filter idea is fine, but you're still going to have less than ideal light on your subjects. Looking at the photo on my phone I don't think you've overexposed at all.. I think the subjects are about a half stop underexposed.
 
First and foremost, WHY, if this is a portrait are the people so small in the frame? If you want to have a portrait with a large expanse of landscape behind them, you need to bring them into a foreground corner close to the camera. Your exposure is nothing more than a need for additional light. Yes, you can you try HDR, G-ND filters and a half-dozen other techniques, but at the end of the day, it's a portrait, you need controllable lighting on a very small area (the people). Two lights & stands would be perfectly adequate to manage this properly.
 
First and foremost, WHY, if this is a portrait are the people so small in the frame? If you want to have a portrait with a large expanse of landscape behind them, you need to bring them into a foreground corner close to the camera. Your exposure is nothing more than a need for additional light. Yes, you can you try HDR, G-ND filters and a half-dozen other techniques, but at the end of the day, it's a portrait, you need controllable lighting on a very small area (the people). Two lights & stands would be perfectly adequate to manage this properly.
I was curious about that too, but hey, you never know "fads" or something ...

It was a head scratcher as my answer was based on his example image. A long distance from subject with extensive space to either side.
 
Last edited:
Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two. Does it look ok?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4684.jpg
    IMG_4684.jpg
    548.1 KB · Views: 659
First and foremost, WHY, if this is a portrait are the people so small in the frame? If you want to have a portrait with a large expanse of landscape behind them, you need to bring them into a foreground corner close to the camera. Your exposure is nothing more than a need for additional light. Yes, you can you try HDR, G-ND filters and a half-dozen other techniques, but at the end of the day, it's a portrait, you need controllable lighting on a very small area (the people). Two lights & stands would be perfectly adequate to manage this properly.

BTW, I do have an image from the evening of the couple closer up off to the side I just quickly picked this one to share for reference.
 
Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two. Does it look ok?

The composite work isn't very skillful but it looks just OK. The lighting on the couple is too flat. What you have here is a recipe for going out of business. Post processing hoops is a terrible idea if you're trying to run a business. You don't have the time for that and no matter how good you eventually get at it you'll never have the time for that if you hope to make enough money to pay the electric bill to keep the computer running.

You got the right answer from tirediron. There isn't a better answer or an alternative answer. To do this right you will carry off camera portable lighting equipment into the field and learn to use it properly.

Post processing hoops is a dead end.

The other alternative is to become a fauxtographer, nuke your skies to oblivion, then in LR drag them down to grey and tint them yellow -- telling your clients it's your unique style. And we will all do this:
45a90d090d3143699c04cc275102bc6f.jpg


Joe
 
Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two. Does it look ok?
I like it! But maybe bring in a little bit more depth?contrast?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top