How do I stop blowing out the sky!?!

[Goldcoin79]

I'm very interested in this post as I have had a similar problem with some of my photos. I can fully understand why a fill flash would be the answer, but can any one confirm if I am understanding it right? So would you spot meter the sky so the exposure of the sky is correct and use a fill flash to brighten up the people in the photo?

Your feed back will be appreciated.

James

 

[gsgary]

Location Location

 

[Overread17 5]

This makes complete sense!! Thanks! Oh and I did use a flash, but had it almost aimed straight up b/c of my lack of practice and time with the flash. Also I agree with the tree, uck, there were people everywhere. This was mainly a snapshot.

Aiming the flash up (or I've even seen it turned so that its firing behind you) works in an environment where there is a suitable surface to bounce the flash light itself off. Typically you'd find this indoors (or under a marque or similar structure) - there you have the walls and the ceiling to bounce the light off to give a fill to your subject.
Also because the source of light is so much larger than the subject (remember the "source" of the light is the last surface it leaves before it hits the subject, so when bounced off a wall the wall is the source so far as the subject is concerned) the light gives a much more diffused effect. This is great indoors when you are in a crowded or fast moving environment and can't setup a flash light with a softbox or umbrella. Outside you've got to rely on those accessories to soften the light (very small pulses of light, often called fill flash, can sometimes be gotten away with with less diffusion because its only bumping up the light a little rather than being the major light source).

I'm very interested in this post as I have had a similar problem with some of my photos. I can fully understand why a fill flash would be the answer, but can any one confirm if I am understanding it right? So would you spot meter the sky so the exposure of the sky is correct and use a fill flash to brighten up the people in the photo?

You are correct, you'd meter for the brightest part of the scene, in this case the sky, and then you would use the flash light to boost up the exposure in the foreground areas. Note that depending on the shade and the brightness of the bright and darker areas the flash might go from being fill light (where is part of, but not all of the contributing light to the exposure) through to the main light and as such you'll have to keep an eye on how much flash power you are needing; whilst you can simply push out more and more (up to the flash units limit) you'll have to keep a mind for controlling that light, you don't want it getting harsh and getting that "deer in headlights" appearance to your subjects.

 

[Derrel]

FILL-in is what is needed....something to "elevate" the shade exposure "upward", so that it is closer to the correct exposure for the SUN-lighted areas in the back. The easiest way to do this is to use a very LARGE reflector, or a pair of them. By large, I mean the size of a twin bed, or bigger. No, I am not kidding. "Panels" made with PVC frames fitted with tightly-stretched reflective fabric, and propped up with light stands, or "arms" have been a standard for this for decades. I say this is the easiest way because "reflector fill" is WYSIWYG....you can SEE the effect, and your in-camera light meter can measure the right exposures!!! In ***my** opinion, reflector fill usually produces superior-looking, more-natural,better lighting, for most people, under most conditions. it just looks more-natural AND the color temperature of the light reflected back usually looks very natural as long as the reflectors are white, or silver. GOLD reflectors often produce a very cheesy, warm, fakey-looking effect most of the time--but CAN be okay when you know how to use that for an advantage.

The second way, a little bit harder, is to Fill-in the shadowed ares with FLASH. aka "fill-flash".

This is NOT a neutral density filter situation.

 

[MonicaBH]

At what angle would you direct your flash?

 

[MLeeK]

I'd have gone forward with a diffuser on it. Or better yet mount off camera to one side.

 

[fokker]

By far the easiest option to avoid this problem would be to not have the sky in the photo. If it is overcast, unless you are using a fill-flash, the sky will almost always be blown out. Easiest way to avoid the sky in your photos is to use a telephoto lens, the compression at 200-300mm lets you easily avoid showing the sky.

 

[MK3Brent]

At what angle would you direct your flash?

Off camera and high 45 most likely. Without a good surfaced to bounce off, the lighting could look rather flat.

 

[Overread17 5]

As a very VERY general rule of thumb most flash lighting attempts to recreate natural sunlight at a slightly tilted angle. This brings things to around the 45 degree or so angle above to one side of the subject, simulating the sun in the sky. It gives a "natural" look to shadows over the subject.

Note of course that you might find you need additional lights to help enhance a shot - your main might be the 45 degree angle one, but you might throw in another on the opposite side which is weaker so that the shadows, whilst shown over the face ,are not as strong.

You can find lots of guide books on posing and positioning for lighting setups.

 

[TCampbell]

You have to think of this as TWO exposures.

1) You've got your subjects which are in medium shade. That's probably 2 stops below the sunny-16 rule (no I didn't peek at your EXIF data if it was included.)

2) Then you've got the background which IS in full-sun, and that is the sunny-16 rule.

If you want to "balance" the exposure, then you need to make the lighting in the shade match the lighting in the background. You can't do anything about the lighting in the background unless you've learned the secret to conjure clouds on-demand. But you CAN do something about the lighting in the shade by using a flash.

Since you want the shade to "look" like shade you don't necessarily want to "match" the lighting in the background, but if you can get it to within maybe 2/3rds of a stop (or even 1 stop) then you'll be doing much better. As it is, you're probably two stops apart.

You do this by using FLASH on your subjects in the shade. By adding light, you can can reduce the exposure on them. Yes... you're adding light, and then setting your camera to not let in as much light so that you effectively get the SAME exposure on them as you got before you added the light. This seems a bit nonsensical... except the light you add will only affect the near foreground. It wont do anything to the background. NOW when you reduce the exposure on the camera, you not only block foreground light, you ALSO block background light. This makes the whole exposure much more balanced.

 

[cgipson1]

spam above reported

 

[KenC]

Flash or reflectors are the best solution, but failing those, I agree with fokker that a longer lens will help. It doesn't even need to be as long as 200-300 mm. Even a 100 or 135 has a noticeably narrower angle of view than a 50 and makes it much easier to control what is in the background of your image by changing your position just slightly.

 

[Solarflare]

I agree that fill flash is a huge help, but unfortunately companies like Nikon believe the feature for fill flash in bright sunlight is only wanted by a rare elite that buys the best of cameras. My D5100 cant do fill flash in bright sunlight, neither can my SB400, as neither of them supports High Speed Sync.

 

[Goldcoin79]

Thanks for all that have given advice on this subject it has been most helpfull and easy to understand.

 

[ronlane]

Flash. This is why Natural light is HARDER THAN HELL and most "natural light" photographers are really just scared of flash. It should be the opposite-flash is MUCH easier and they should be terrified of natural light!
And don't place people in front of a tree trunk like that. It SOUNDS good when you do it, but trunks aren't pretty and they hurt your composition.

I think I understand your comment here about being in front of the tree trunk. Would you/could you, place them beside it in order to take advantage of the shade? Can't tell for sure but if the camera was moved to camera right and the subjects moved to camera left, it may have helped the blown out sky, correct?