Overexposed sky; portrait shot; would ND filter fix this image?

[KmH]

Learn about a flash and ambient light technique called Dragging The Shutter.
dragging the shutter - Yahoo Search Results

The sky in the photo you posted is mostly very close to being blownout/clipped while parts of the sky are completely clipped.
Blownout/clipped means all 3 RGb color channels are at the max value they can be, which means they have little or no detail that can be recovered via post process editing.

The simplest solution is to allow and plan for the dynamic range before the shutter is released, hence learning about dragging the shutter.

 

[weepete]

Everyone is overthinking here. Just get a darker dog.

I vote for 18% grey dog!

Wrong way round. Given that the difference between the lights and shadows is too great for the camera to record a darker dog would lead to more blown out sky (if exposed properly for the dog). Really what is needed here is a lighter dog, to reduce the brightness between the sky and the dog. Given that the dog is already quite light I'd suggest genetic modification with bio-luminecent plankton (could also double up for light painting) or possibly squid.

 

[Ysarex]

Another easy fix is to simply underexpose by a stop or 2 to maintain highlights in the sky, then bring it back in post. As long as you keep your ISO pretty low, you shouldn't need to worry about losing much shadow detail.

It's a very bad idea.
The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
No matter how low your ISO set.
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.

It's a very good idea if in fact you're saving a raw file and you expose to place the diffuse highlight. Typically no need to reduce exposure by two stops (Adam was speaking off the cuff some there) -- just enough to make sure the diffuse highlight isn't clipped. Here's an example:

That's the camera JPEG with a slight crop. Just to make it more fun I chose a subject that was dark -- nearly black in fact. And just to make it more fun I chose a subject that throws something of a wrench into the ND grad filter. And just to make it more fun I took the photo with my little shirt pocket compact with the tiny sensor (OP has FF sensor).

The sky is nuked in the camera JPEG and the subject is as Adam suggested at least a stop on the underexposed side. However I placed the diffuse highlight in the sky at the sensor threshold so it was easy for me to do this:

DR looks pretty good to me. I didn't need a filter and I didn't need a flash; I just need a raw file to process.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
No matter how low your ISO set.
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.

Not to disagree, but I've searched for corrabarating information on this statement and can't find anything. Perhaps if you could cite some or point me in the right direction?

 

[TCampbell]

That’s a LOT of sky in the image (that doesn’t really contribute to the image).

So... a “graduated” ND filter could help... but a flash would also help.

But consider changing your composition and/or shooting location so you aren’t photographing all that sky.

 

[Ysarex]

The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
No matter how low your ISO set.
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.

Not to disagree, but I've searched for corrabarating information on this statement and can't find anything. Perhaps if you could cite some or point me in the right direction?

He's got that about right -- maybe a tad high -- can't give you a exact figure since it differs camera to camera. You're shooting a Pentax -- K3? So you've got about 10 stops of usable DR from that sensor. Stops are exponential -- the next one is twice as big as the last one. So remember when we were in grade school and they tried to teach us exponents with a bucket of pennies? We're working with binary computer systems so the first stop is two pennies. The next stop is four pennies. The next stop is eight pennies etc. Count them out in separate piles until you've got 10 stops worth. Then take away the top stop (1024 pennies) and half of the preceding stop (256 pennies) and count what's left in the rest of the piles.

Joe

 

[sergezap]

Everyone is overthinking here. Just get a darker dog.

I vote for 18% grey dog!

Wrong way round. Given that the difference between the lights and shadows is too great for the camera to record a darker dog would lead to more blown out sky (if exposed properly for the dog). Really what is needed here is a lighter dog, to reduce the brightness between the sky and the dog. Given that the dog is already quite light I'd suggest genetic modification with bio-luminecent plankton (could also double up for light painting) or possibly squid.

I think good colors you might attain with Kodak certified pet is much more important than dogdammit highlights!

 

[sergezap]

The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
No matter how low your ISO set.
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.

Not to disagree, but I've searched for corrabarating information on this statement and can't find anything. Perhaps if you could cite some or point me in the right direction?

1. Don't trust your RAW converter until you turned off all obvious or (and) hidden corrections.
2. Just inspect your RAW files in RawDigger.

 

[sergezap]

Another easy fix is to simply underexpose by a stop or 2 to maintain highlights in the sky, then bring it back in post. As long as you keep your ISO pretty low, you shouldn't need to worry about losing much shadow detail.

It's a very bad idea.
The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
No matter how low your ISO set.
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.

It's a very good idea if in fact you're saving a raw file and you expose to place the diffuse highlight. Typically no need to reduce exposure by two stops (Adam was speaking off the cuff some there) -- just enough to make sure the diffuse highlight isn't clipped. Here's an example:

View attachment 158354

That's the camera JPEG with a slight crop. Just to make it more fun I chose a subject that was dark -- nearly black in fact. And just to make it more fun I chose a subject that throws something of a wrench into the ND grad filter. And just to make it more fun I took the photo with my little shirt pocket compact with the tiny sensor (OP has FF sensor).

The sky is nuked in the camera JPEG and the subject is as Adam suggested at least a stop on the underexposed side. However I placed the diffuse highlight in the sky at the sensor threshold so it was easy for me to do this:

View attachment 158355

DR looks pretty good to me. I didn't need a filter and I didn't need a flash; I just need a raw file to process.

Joe

Even in a just simple scene it looks like HDR.
I don't talk this one is a bad photo or your thoughts has no right to exist.
Just try this with a smthng like color passport and try to achieve natural or (and) accurate colors.

 

[smoke665]

He's got that about right -- maybe a tad high -- can't give you a exact figure since it differs camera to camera. You're shooting a Pentax -- K3? So you've got about 10 stops of usable DR from that sensor. Stops are exponential -

Okay I'm understanding the comment now. Thanks Joe, needed a memory boost. LOL FYI according to charts I've seen the K3ii starts out at north of 13 stops @ISO 100 gradually declining to ISO 3200 before it drops below 10 stops.

 

[Ysarex]

He's got that about right -- maybe a tad high -- can't give you a exact figure since it differs camera to camera. You're shooting a Pentax -- K3? So you've got about 10 stops of usable DR from that sensor. Stops are exponential -

Okay I'm understanding the comment now. Thanks Joe, needed a memory boost. LOL FYI according to charts I've seen the K3ii starts out at north of 13 stops @ISO 100 gradually declining to ISO 3200 before it drops below 10 stops.

Those are "instrument test" charts. They don't have much if anything to do with taking photographs. Bill Claff doesn't have your K3ii in his list but he has the K5ii which rates at 10.5 stops DR.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Joe

 

[mrca]

Tim is absolutely right, the background is pretty blah and all that sky adds nothing to the image. I believe a slightly above dog eye level camera position would have helped eliminate the sky. Sparky's crop is a much more powerful, simpler image. Woof? A reference to War of the Roses as she served him pate and when he mentioned he hadn't seen his dog in a while she said woof. First, maximizing your sensor. I have calibrated my sekonic meter to the individual sensor and know EXACTLY where the clipping point is. Pushing the whites to just before clipping in RAW allows pulling detail out of them but leaves the shadows as far to the right as possible without clipping and leaving them with as little if any muddying. Having the subject properly exposed in the capture may, as here, cause you to sacrifice highlights that you want to keep. An example of "expose for the highlight in digital." If you are in a situation where you want to include the bright sky, which here is a bald, empty sky which I would minimize or eliminate, consider bursting 2 shots then combining in post either in hdr or masking. Doesn't look like much here any way. I left CA where there wasn't a cloud in the sky for 6 months to FL where we have beautiful clouds, upside. Downside, that means rain any day and exposing lighting gear to potential rain. But I now usually have some gorgeous clouds to work with but don't want them blown out completely and have enough information to kick contrast, shadow, targeted area adjustments. Personally, I would have used a silver reflector to add specular highlights to the dog's fur making it appear shinier and it would raise the exposure on the dog closer to a sky. I would also use an off camera flash to raise him a stop or so above the bg. Finally, in post, could duplicate the image, process one for the sky and the other for the dog then combine. I don't have the luxury of screwing up the shot of the day so have learned multiple techniques, 6 here, to have at my disposal so no matter what gear I have with me, I get the shot. Try practicing with these and next time you will nail it. Post your practice for more suggestions.

 

[Ysarex]

Another easy fix is to simply underexpose by a stop or 2 to maintain highlights in the sky, then bring it back in post. As long as you keep your ISO pretty low, you shouldn't need to worry about losing much shadow detail.

It's a very bad idea.
The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
No matter how low your ISO set.
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.

It's a very good idea if in fact you're saving a raw file and you expose to place the diffuse highlight. Typically no need to reduce exposure by two stops (Adam was speaking off the cuff some there) -- just enough to make sure the diffuse highlight isn't clipped. Here's an example:

View attachment 158354

That's the camera JPEG with a slight crop. Just to make it more fun I chose a subject that was dark -- nearly black in fact. And just to make it more fun I chose a subject that throws something of a wrench into the ND grad filter. And just to make it more fun I took the photo with my little shirt pocket compact with the tiny sensor (OP has FF sensor).

The sky is nuked in the camera JPEG and the subject is as Adam suggested at least a stop on the underexposed side. However I placed the diffuse highlight in the sky at the sensor threshold so it was easy for me to do this:

View attachment 158355

DR looks pretty good to me. I didn't need a filter and I didn't need a flash; I just need a raw file to process.

Joe

Even in a just simple scene it looks like HDR.

I processed it to make the point that there was enough data recorded to lift the shadows substantially and have a blue sky. I can process it any way I want.

I don't talk this one is a bad photo or your thoughts has no right to exist.
Just try this with a smthng like color passport and try to achieve natural or (and) accurate colors.

I have and it's going to take a whole lot more limit pushing before color accuracy becomes an issue.

Joe

 

[KmH]

Not to disagree, but I've searched for corrabarating information on this statement and can't find anything. Perhaps if you could cite some or point me in the right direction?

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...m/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

 

[smoke665]

@KmH Interesting read, thank you for sharing. Think I'll save this back in my library.