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

[benhasajeep]

If you shoot raw and use lightroom or similar program. You can bring the sky back down with a graduated filter option and adjust just it's exposure or combinations of settings. So, you would expose for the couple and fix the sky in post. Most of the time you can bring back at least some clouds. Unless it's way overexposed / blown out. Or if you don't mind the little extra time. Change the sky completely in post!

With digital, expose for the subject (using RAW). And you can fix or change just about anything in post! Now having proper lighting to begin with, means less time in post. But sometimes you don't have the equipment or mother nature just doesn't want to cooperate. The extra time in post is the fix!

 

[vintagesnaps]

The exposure looks off. If it's overcast and the sky isn't pretty I often frame differently to have less sky in the frame. I sometimes aim the camera down a little toward the subject to get a meter reading, then reframe the shot. And get closer to the subject; this maybe wasn't the day to try a scenic view of the couple against a lousy sky and tall dry grasses.

This seems like you need to get out with just your camera and figure out how to get proper exposures in a variety of conditions, and get in more practice, before trying to do more portraits. I wonder if you missed basics early on and could benefit from further learning.

 

[kitkatdubs]

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:
View attachment 145491

Joe

How do you carry around off camera portable lighting when you have a toddler running a 100 mph at a session? I just dont get the answer to that. It's not practical. Another answer would have been more beneficial.

 

[cherylynne1]

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:
View attachment 145491

Joe

How do you carry around off camera portable lighting when you have a toddler running a 100 mph at a session? I just dont get the answer to that. It's not practical. Another answer would have been more beneficial.

Is it your own toddler or a toddler that's the subject? I have toddlers and shoot families, so I have answers to both. I would never bring my own child to a shoot that I had paying clients at, because I could never concentrate. If the clients have children, that's a different story.

I nearly always use flash or reflectors, because I became frustrated with blown out skies as well. I tried the current trend of compositing skies (and not usually even the sky that was there) and felt dissatisfied with that as well. Using flash doesn't just balance out the light, it also sculpts the features and adds catchlights.

For toddlers in photos with their parents, the parents will keep them in place, so you just have to entertain them. I have a "photographer's hat" with a giant fish on it, and I'll start pretend sneezing until the hat falls off, and they all think that's hilarious. (Keep the camera on a tripod...this isn't possible when handheld.) For toddlers by themselves, if they start running around, then the parents become your lighting assistants. They can move the umbrella/ softbox in the general direction or follow them with a reflector. You can even hold the reflector and the camera in a pinch.

But really, chasing toddlers around is a problem even if you don't have lighting. You've likely staked out the best possible spot, where the light and shadows are just right and the background is clear and free of distractions. So you're already trying to get them to stay in one general spot. Adding flash isn't really much more complicated than that.

 

[kitkatdubs]

How do you carry around off camera portable lighting when you have a toddler running a 100 mph at a session? I just dont get the answer to that. It's not practical. Another answer would have been more beneficial.[/QUOTE]

Is it your own toddler or a toddler that's the subject? I have toddlers and shoot families, so I have answers to both. I would never bring my own child to a shoot that I had paying clients at, because I could never concentrate. If the clients have children, that's a different story.

I nearly always use flash or reflectors, because I became frustrated with blown out skies as well. I tried the current trend of compositing skies (and not usually even the sky that was there) and felt dissatisfied with that as well. Using flash doesn't just balance out the light, it also sculpts the features and adds catchlights.

For toddlers in photos with their parents, the parents will keep them in place, so you just have to entertain them. I have a "photographer's hat" with a giant fish on it, and I'll start pretend sneezing until the hat falls off, and they all think that's hilarious. (Keep the camera on a tripod...this isn't possible when handheld.) For toddlers by themselves, if they start running around, then the parents become your lighting assistants. They can move the umbrella/ softbox in the general direction or follow them with a reflector. You can even hold the reflector and the camera in a pinch.

But really, chasing toddlers around is a problem even if you don't have lighting. You've likely staked out the best possible spot, where the light and shadows are just right and the background is clear and free of distractions. So you're already trying to get them to stay in one general spot. Adding flash isn't really much more complicated than that.[/QUOTE]

Haha no I dont bring my kids to my sessions, EVER. But I've encountered many situations with young kids were they literally do not sit still and I am running all over the damn place trying to get them to cooperate. I am noticing these days that people like the more "lifestyle" feel. They are tired of the mundane pose and smile portrait sessions. They want candid interactions with there families. They want drama and shadows, not the perfectly exposed portraits from the 80's. I know there are rules to photography, but it's subjective and if there are people paying for your work, then you are obviously doing something right. I do own a flash that I use for indoor sessions. I would LOVE to learn how to use off camera flash but it seems like too much of a rig-a-ma-roll to haul around all this **** at a session with young kids running around (I shoot primarily young families.) It just does not seem practical. I'm not sure what the solution is b/c I do not like blown out skies. Is this photo any better? I used a sky overlay- I am not sure if it looks believable or not. I've seen sky overlays done well and they look amazing... not sure if my skills are there yet.

 

[KmH]

Using flash doesn't just balance out the light, it also sculpts the features and adds catchlights.

Yep. Flash or reflected light.

 

[cherylynne1]

I'm seeing a halo around some of trees, and it also looks unnatural to have the sky so dark all the way to the skyline. If you look outside, the sky tends to gradually lighten as it gets close to the horizon.

And yes, they like lifestyle, but they want it to look natural while everyone is still smiling and looking at the camera, which is on the verge of being impossible.

I had a recent session that I wasn't thrilled with because I had two toddlers running in separate directions and the sky was mostly blown out, but I did get enough light from the flash to brighten their features, which I had to be satisfied with. Sometimes you take what you can get. A couple from that session:

DSC07048-Edit

DSC06950

 

[benhasajeep]

Haha no I dont bring my kids to my sessions, EVER. But I've encountered many situations with young kids were they literally do not sit still and I am running all over the damn place trying to get them to cooperate. I am noticing these days that people like the more "lifestyle" feel. They are tired of the mundane pose and smile portrait sessions. They want candid interactions with there families. They want drama and shadows, not the perfectly exposed portraits from the 80's. I know there are rules to photography, but it's subjective and if there are people paying for your work, then you are obviously doing something right. I do own a flash that I use for indoor sessions. I would LOVE to learn how to use off camera flash but it seems like too much of a rig-a-ma-roll to haul around all this **** at a session with young kids running around (I shoot primarily young families.) It just does not seem practical. I'm not sure what the solution is b/c I do not like blown out skies. Is this photo any better? I used a sky overlay- I am not sure if it looks believable or not. I've seen sky overlays done well and they look amazing... not sure if my skills are there yet.

Having remote flashes is not rig-a-ma-roll. It's proper photography. Yes, some things can be done in post as I said. But to do it for every shot and every customer takes money from your pocket! It's actually not hard to have two remote lights on 2 stands. Especially if you can control them remotely! With grips and clamps reflectors can be used with stands as well, if you don't or can't get an assistant.

Several solutions has been written to your problems. One is to meter for the subject and fix the sky in post. The other is to use additional light sources to have an even scene. Another is your own solution of using the stacked photo's metered for each.

 

[kitkatdubs]

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:
View attachment 145491

Joe

Your way of talking to people really isn't helpful. Please keep your comments to yourself.

 

[deeky]

Flash is too much rig-a-ma-roll? Personally, I would consider paying much of anything for these three photos too much rig-a-ma-roll for me. Exposure is off, white balance is off, your third photo addresses those two but see the above comments regarding editing artifacts.

Not being mean, just trying to provide honest reality.

If you have people paying for these, then good for you. I think there's a ways to go to move from joe/jane-wtih-a-camera to professional.

This summer I took family photos at my own family reunion. We have a professional portrait photographer in the family, but due to other family issues like attending a funeral that afternoon, he didn't have his camera along. I very quickly realized that, while I could handle the camera, it was largely the handling of the subjects that made him a professional. SO glad he stepped in to help just getting everybody lined up and coordinated! If you're going pro, you need to provide the services of a pro. And I know that's not me.

 

[Ysarex]

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:
View attachment 145491

Joe

Your way of talking to people really isn't helpful. Please keep your comments to yourself.

Sorry, I hadn't considered those 100 mph. toddlers.

Joe

 

[tirediron]

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:
View attachment 145491

Joe

Your way of talking to people really isn't helpful. Please keep your comments to yourself.

It should be helpful because it's correct. You may not like it, and may seem inconvenient or "riga-maroll" but it's how it's done. A personal example: Last year I had a call from a family that was visiting from Saskatchewan, and wanted a particular "running along the beach" family shot with Mom, dad and two children (~4 & 7). Because they could only be available around mid-afternoon, I knew the light was going to be harsh, so I set up a series of four or five lights (can't remember how many) with large-ish modifiers so that I had a+/- 1/3 stop band of light that was about thirty feet long. IIRC, they "ran" along the beach at least a dozen times before I got one that I was happy with.... That required four (or five) lights, stands, and umbrellas, two power supplies, two inverter battery packs, and close to an hour of set-up/prep time. The smallest print they ordered from the session was an 11x14...

 

[vintagesnaps]

But Joe (Ysarex) makes some valid points - and refers you back to John (tirediron) who's giving you some reliable professional portrait techniques. I've been a photographer for years & years and still have learned something from those guys. And yeah, toddlers are active, so it's probably going to take getting good at action shots and being able to get shots efficiently and quickly.

It's not just the sky, the exposure looks off for the whole photo. It seems like you aren't seeing that. Maybe you don't want to hear that, or you don't want to find out that there's more to learn and that you need to bring up your skill level. I guess you can be mad at the pros giving you advice or realize they might be trying to help you. Maybe take a breath and stop and think about it and reconsider what they're telling you.

 

[kitkatdubs]

I think what I dont like are Joe's sarcastic remarks. He sounds like a know it all. I personally dont like dealing with people who act pious and hot headed. He's making dumb jokes that really arent necessary. I dont need his criticism. And to be honest, I used to come to this place a lot for help but stopped b/c everyone's "constructive criticism" was not friendly by any means. With that being said, hows the exposure and WB on this image.

 

[tirediron]

...hows the exposure and WB on this image.

The WB looks okay, 'though this monitor isn't necessarily perfectly calibrated. The exposure isn't bad, but there's a loss of detail in the white of the dress, and you have background highlights which are brighter than the subject; as the human eye is always attracted to bright over dark, this serves to pull the eye away from the subject and to the background. 1-2 stops of fill light would have knocked down the highlights and produce a better overall image with reduced dynamic range.