Blown out skies & Acura RSX type S

[timlair]

Can someone suggest to me what all i can do to get better skies in pictures like these?

1.

ISO 100 50mm f/4.0 1/125

2.

ISO 100 50mm f/3.5 1/80

I tried on this one but it looks horrible

3.

ISO 320 50mm f/6.3 1/60

 

[Destin]

You could bracket your shots on a tripod and try an HDR image.

OR

Try using some off camera fill flash, exposing for the sky, then using the flash to get the car exposed properly.

Both ways have pros and cons, and will give you different looks.

The simplest answer is to shoot at dusk, when the sky isn't so bright.

 

[dcmoody23]

What exactly is the downside to HDR??????

Anyways, if your lazy or if your shot is in motion you could underexpose your image (which would expose the sky properly), and then make a copy of the image, brighten it up, and then combine the two exposures, or make more and get more contrast..
IMO HDR beats out fake HDR hands down 100% of the time, but lazy will be lazy, and you can't misalign fake HDR

 

[12sndsgood]

what time were these shot, i prefer to shoot car shots either very early or very late as destin pointed out. if i do get something like this do to not having a real choice over my time. i'll seperate the sky and adjust it seperately from the rest of the picture.

 

[Destin]

The downside to HDR is that due to camera movement, or subject movement, an HDR image will almost never be as sharp as a single exposure. I don't care if the subject is a car and the camera is on a tripod. You still have slight movement, even if it's just a mm or two.

Also, 99% of people (including myself sometimes) cannot get HDR images to look real, and end up making them look like a watercolor painting.

 

[XCountryGuy]

Have you tried to fill flash? Do you have access to wireless flashes?

 

[grantjames]

I'm new to this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but could this be achieved using a graduated neutral density filter? That way it'd reduce the light coming in from the sky and enable both the sky and the horizon to both be correctly exposed.

EDIT: I understand this would be difficult for the 2nd picture but it should work where the sky and horizon are distinctively separated.

 

[dcmoody23]

I'm new to this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but could this be achieved using a graduated neutral density filter? That way it'd reduce the light coming in from the sky and enable both the sky and the horizon to both be correctly exposed.

EDIT: I understand this would be difficult for the 2nd picture but it should work where the sky and horizon are distinctively separated.

By reducing the light to correctly expose the sky you'd have to underexpose the car and maybe the road.. That's why multiple exposures are necessary for what he wants.

 

[ghache]

I'm new to this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but could this be achieved using a graduated neutral density filter? That way it'd reduce the light coming in from the sky and enable both the sky and the horizon to both be correctly exposed.

EDIT: I understand this would be difficult for the 2nd picture but it should work where the sky and horizon are distinctively separated.

By reducing the light to correctly expose the sky you'd have to underexpose the car and maybe the road.. That's why multiple exposures are necessary for what he wants.

or get about 3 strobe to expose the car

 

[grantjames]

I'm new to this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but could this be achieved using a graduated neutral density filter? That way it'd reduce the light coming in from the sky and enable both the sky and the horizon to both be correctly exposed.

EDIT: I understand this would be difficult for the 2nd picture but it should work where the sky and horizon are distinctively separated.

By reducing the light to correctly expose the sky you'd have to underexpose the car and maybe the road.. That's why multiple exposures are necessary for what he wants.

But I though that if it was a graduated ND filter, you'd just have to figure out how many stops the sky was overexposed by compared to the correctly exposed landscape, and then choose the appropriate filter so that they're both correctly exposed.

Where would you use a graduated ND filter if not in this case?

 

[cnutco]

You could bracket your shots on a tripod and try an HDR image.

OR

Try using some off camera fill flash, exposing for the sky, then using the flash to get the car exposed properly.

Both ways have pros and cons, and will give you different looks.

The simplest answer is to shoot at dusk, when the sky isn't so bright.

Like he said. Go back at a later time. This is by far the easiest!

Also, use some type of stand. Your photos look to be a bit soft.

Nice car though, wish I could find one for my daughter at a good price. People like those too much...

 

[DerekSalem]

The downside to HDR is that due to camera movement, or subject movement, an HDR image will almost never be as sharp as a single exposure. I don't care if the subject is a car and the camera is on a tripod. You still have slight movement, even if it's just a mm or two.

Also, 99% of people (including myself sometimes) cannot get HDR images to look real, and end up making them look like a watercolor painting.

See that's only true because people *make* them that way. Most people use Photoshop to create HDR images and by default (without the user touching a single setting) it makes HDR photos look pretty damn realistic. It's only once people start messing with the settings that it starts looking like fake art.

HDR is about the only way to really make these types of photos look good (without blown out sky or darkened car body). To take good car shots you need to use the golden hours (first hour or so after the sun comes up and last hour or so before it goes down) to get effective lighting instead of harsh. Use the lighting to your advantage.

Oh, and best way to fix #3 is tell him to not wear that shirt, hat, and sunglasses lol he looks like he's trying out for WWF

 

[o hey tyler]

What exactly is the downside to HDR??????

Anyways, if your lazy or if your shot is in motion you could underexpose your image (which would expose the sky properly), and then make a copy of the image, brighten it up, and then combine the two exposures, or make more and get more contrast..
IMO HDR beats out fake HDR hands down 100% of the time, but lazy will be lazy, and you can't misalign fake HDR

The downside to HDR is that it makes photos look fake, unless used tastefully I've found.

I used to be a fan of the almost fantasy-esque HDRs, but as of late they're just to visually distracting for me. I find images that are lit using actual lights to decrease the cameras visible tonal range and to get a decent exposure across the board.

 

[o hey tyler]

But I though that if it was a graduated ND filter, you'd just have to figure out how many stops the sky was overexposed by compared to the correctly exposed landscape, and then choose the appropriate filter so that they're both correctly exposed.

Where would you use a graduated ND filter if not in this case?

Yes, actually a Graduated ND Filter would work to tone down the exposure on the sky. You need a pretty dark one though.

 

[rainking]

Can't you underexposed the shot to get the correct exposure for the sky and use a flash to expose the subject correctly?