Expose for the Sky

NateS · May 24, 2008

This is the reason I expose for the sky. The first picture is as taken. Hugely underexposed foreground and the sky exposed fairly well.

Second photo is with

D-lighting
Better quality
Shadows - 70
Highlights - 1
Color Boost - 60

1 color control point on the sky
Size - 30%
Saturation - 60
Brightness - (-70)

If I had exposed for the trees the sky would have been solid white (I took a few like this). Even when adjusting in Capture NX, the fixing the sky when it is completely washed out looks horrible. Exposing for the sky and using D lighting to bring out underexposed sections really makes the photo pop I think. Some may argue that the sky is too dark in the second, but I like the stormy feel it gives.

abraxas · May 25, 2008

Good example. I use cs2 for all my adjustments though. Capture NX has been too clunky and awkward for me. I do use it for converting my d300 RAW to TIFF. I'll get rid of it entirely when I upgrade to cs3.

Anyway, I agree, there's so much more information available to process exposing to the sky.

Alpha · May 25, 2008

A polarizer would make for a lot less work in post.

pm63 · May 25, 2008

I have to admit that while this may work in theory, I really don't like the look of the colours in the second photo. It seems to look fake, with really odd colours. D lighting in software does this to the pictures, which is why I never use it.

RKW3 · May 25, 2008

Alpha said:
A polarizer would make for a lot less work in post.

Or a ND grad.

NateS · May 25, 2008

Graduated ND is what I need, but this tool works well until then.

If you don't like the looks of the colors, it can easily be adjusted with the Color Boost portion of the D-lighting settings. Decreasing that back to about 30 give a more natural feel. I however perfer the looks of the trees in my second photo which is why I went that route. My point is that D-lighting can be used in this method come out looking more "real" if you choose.