Why sky over exposed

[adikrist]

This isn't that hard to overcome. Some cameras have exposure lock, where you can meter off one thing, lock in that exposure, and then recompose your shot. Or, if you shoot in manual using your camera's light meter as your guide, set your shutter and aperture to correctly expose the sky, then recompose your picture without changing your shutter or aperture settings. That being said, without a flash it's likely that your subject will come out underexposed.

When you guys talk about exposure lock, does it mean to lock the shutter speed and the aperture?
I am using Canon. There is this * button to lock the exposure.
After pointing at the sky, the display shows the shutter and aperture, then i press *. However, when i move and focus the another object, the shutter and apreture changes also ( while the * still on )
Is this correct, or is it my camera?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?

Thanks for tips..

What are you talking about? Show some examples.

 

[bigtwinky]

Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?

Thanks for tips..

What are you talking about? Show some examples.

Seems that the OP already received 4-5 pretty decent responses that explained his problem, without the need for images. If you cant understand basic issues without someone drawing a picture for you, I'd suggest posting in threads where you can be of an added value.

 

[Dao]

When you guys talk about exposure lock, does it mean to lock the shutter speed and the aperture?
I am using Canon. There is this * button to lock the exposure.
After pointing at the sky, the display shows the shutter and aperture, then i press *. However, when i move and focus the another object, the shutter and apreture changes also ( while the * still on )
Is this correct, or is it my camera?

After you lock the exposure, the aperture and shutter speed should stay the same until you fully press the shutter button (take the photo) or press the * button again to re-lock the exposure settings.

For example, in a sunny day, you meter the sky and lock the exposure with the * button. And then you point the camera downward and AF (half press the shutter button) your subject (such as your friend) and then take a photo. You will notice the sky exposes properly but your friend is underexpose. (of course flash can help) It is because the camera will not meter the scene again.

 

[adikrist]

For example, in a sunny day, you meter the sky and lock the exposure with the * button. And then you point the camera downward and AF (half press the shutter button) your subject (such as your friend) and then take a photo. You will notice the sky exposes properly but your friend is underexpose. (of course flash can help) It is because the camera will not meter the scene again.

Do the shutter and aperture stay unchanged even i zoom in/out?

 

[Robin Usagani]

For example, in a sunny day, you meter the sky and lock the exposure with the * button. And then you point the camera downward and AF (half press the shutter button) your subject (such as your friend) and then take a photo. You will notice the sky exposes properly but your friend is underexpose. (of course flash can help) It is because the camera will not meter the scene again.

Do the shutter and aperture stay unchanged even i zoom in/out?

Yes and no. If you are shooting in manual mode, it wont change most of the time unless you put your aperture to the max or minimum. Depending on your zoom, most lens will have different min and max aperture.

 

[adikrist]

After reading replies on this thread, today i did the practice. This is the result.

When taking the pic i focused on the building in the top image, and on the sky in the bottom one. The image came out exactly as described in this thread and i'm satisfied with the outcome and i learned new lesson today.

However, this lead me to another related questions.
How to make the building brighter? I tried to use the flash, but didnt make much difference.

Image on top has 1/99 shutter, aperture 6.4, ISO 400
Image on bottom has 1/197 shutter, aperture 8, ISO 400
How come the faster shutter is the smaller aperture is? Shouldnt it be faster shutter, bigger aperture?

 

[Dao]

Take a look at this

HDR photo software & plugin for Lightroom, Aperture & Photoshop - Tone Mapping, Exposure Fusion & HDR Imaging for photography

 

[Gaerek]

Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?

Thanks for tips..

What are you talking about? Show some examples.

Seems that the OP already received 4-5 pretty decent responses that explained his problem, without the need for images. If you cant understand basic issues without someone drawing a picture for you, I'd suggest posting in threads where you can be of an added value.

I haven't found a single thread where he added value yet. Twinky is spot on, this is a basic exposure issue. Someone with 45 years of experience shooting out dated camera equipment should have no trouble understanding the OP's problem.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?

Thanks for tips..

What are you talking about? Show some examples.

Seems that the OP already received 4-5 pretty decent responses that explained his problem, without the need for images. If you cant understand basic issues without someone drawing a picture for you, I'd suggest posting in threads where you can be of an added value.

I want to see exactly what he means. It is not an unreasonable request. Furthermore, I was not talking to you.

This was all he wrote:

"Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos. I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?"

Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the exact problem he has? Right, it isn't enough, is it?

 

[Gaerek]

What are you talking about? Show some examples.

Seems that the OP already received 4-5 pretty decent responses that explained his problem, without the need for images. If you cant understand basic issues without someone drawing a picture for you, I'd suggest posting in threads where you can be of an added value.

I want to see exactly what he means. It is not an unreasonable request. Furthermore, I was not talking to you.

This was all he wrote:

"Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos. I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?"

Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the exact problem he has?

He stated his exact problem in his post. If you cannot understand that, it's not my problem, or anyone else here. Besides, he didn't ask how to fix it or avoid it, he wanted to know why it happened. Reading comprehension FTW.

...i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.

Examples wouldn't really help in this case because overexposed sky is a symptom of improper metering. The first three replies explained the exact problem, why it was happening, and methods of preventing it in the future. I hardly believe that seeing examples would somehow allow you to give some insight not already offered.

It's amazing that the half dozen or so individual people who replied before you knew exactly what he was talking about, but you need an illustration. I guess 45 years of experience really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Seems that the OP already received 4-5 pretty decent responses that explained his problem, without the need for images. If you cant understand basic issues without someone drawing a picture for you, I'd suggest posting in threads where you can be of an added value.

I want to see exactly what he means. It is not an unreasonable request. Furthermore, I was not talking to you.

This was all he wrote:

"Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos. I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?"

Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the exact problem he has?

He stated his exact problem in his post. If you cannot understand that, it's not my problem, or anyone else here. Besides, he didn't ask how to fix it or avoid it, he wanted to know why it happened. Reading comprehension FTW.

...i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.

Examples wouldn't really help in this case because overexposed sky is a symptom of improper metering. The first three replies explained the exact problem, why it was happening, and methods of preventing it in the future. I hardly believe that seeing examples would somehow allow you to give some insight not already offered.

It's amazing that the half dozen or so individual people who replied before you knew exactly what he was talking about, but you need an illustration. I guess 45 years of experience really doesn't mean anything.

I was not interested in replies, because they had no more information than I did. I wanted to know exactly what he was having trouble with, and I'll trouble you to stay out, and don't address me again. I wasn't talking to you and don't care to talk to you. Without specific examples I was not sure what he meant.

Maybe he was taking sunsets for all I know.

 

[bigtwinky]

Furthermore, I was not talking to you.

Open forum awad. If you dont want other people discussing your posts and your thoughts on an open forum, then there is this little thing called a Private Message. If you get your panties in a twist when someone that you were not talking to replies to your comment, then send the OP a private message for more info

Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the exact problem he has? Right, it isn't enough, is it?

Please dont use the WE here. I think WE all did fine in understanding his problem. To the point where what WE said explained the problem, helped him understand, and he now is able to take images and expose for different areas. Incredible, no?

WE went on fine with what he said. YOU did not. So when the user has a whole bunch of replies explaining the issue, jumping in here saying some dribble trollish crap like "What are you talking about? Show some examples." is stupid and pointless.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Furthermore, I was not talking to you.

Open forum awad. If you dont want other people discussing your posts and your thoughts on an open forum, then there is this little thing called a Private Message. If you get your panties in a twist when someone that you were not talking to replies to your comment, then send the OP a private message for more info

Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the exact problem he has? Right, it isn't enough, is it?

Please dont use the WE here. I think WE all did fine in understanding his problem. To the point where what WE said explained the problem, helped him understand, and he now is able to take images and expose for different areas. Incredible, no?

WE went on fine with what he said. YOU did not. So when the user has a whole bunch of replies explaining the issue, jumping in here saying some dribble trollish crap like "What are you talking about? Show some examples." is stupid and pointless.

No, it isn't. I'm reporting you. My post was perfectly reasonable. The OP's question was vague and I wanted to see what he meant, not what you thought he meant.

When, where, and how are the skies overexposed? This is perfectly reasonable to ask. At the time I made my response, early this morning, there was little to go by.

And again, I was not talking to you, nor do I wish to!

What is wrong with you people? Where do you get off chastising me for asking the OP for a little clarification? Am I supposed to be a mind-reader?

 

[OrionsByte]

When taking the pic i focused on the building in the top image, and on the sky in the bottom one. The image came out exactly as described in this thread and i'm satisfied with the outcome and i learned new lesson today.

However, this lead me to another related questions.
How to make the building brighter? I tried to use the flash, but didnt make much difference.

Image on top has 1/99 shutter, aperture 6.4, ISO 400
Image on bottom has 1/197 shutter, aperture 8, ISO 400
How come the faster shutter is the smaller aperture is? Shouldnt it be faster shutter, bigger aperture?

Trying to get this thread back on track...

A flash isn't much help when the subject is more than a handful of feet away, so that's why it didn't make a difference.

What you're going to have to learn is that a camera doesn't see the way we see, and that's because our brains make a lot of adjustments for us before we really "perceive" the scene. Standing in front of that building, I'm sure it looked plenty bright to you, but to the camera, the difference between the brightest part of the scene and the darkest parts of the scene (the dynamic range) is too great. To use the ruler analogy that was used earlier in this thread, your eye may be able to see everything from 0" to 12", but the camera has to pick a 6" range, and therefore there's going to be stuff that it "can't see" because it's either too bright or too dark.

The link that Dao posted is about a technique called HDR (High Dynamic Range) that basically lets you take several pictures at different points along the ruler until you've covered the whole range, and then merge them in to one photo using software. It takes a bit of practice to learn to do it right, and it can be overdone to the point where it's just silly, but in the photos you posted it would really be the only way to keep the sky from getting blown out AND keep the building from being underexposed.

You're learning quickly though, and that's good. Keep asking questions, and ignore the crotchety folks that just like to piss each other off.