Why sky over exposed

[bigtwinky]

No, it isn't. I'm reporting you.

Oh, please take your ball and go home too.

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.

Your post was blunt and rude. As are many of your posts on many of the threads. It was not reasonable as the explanations where already given.

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

And again, its an open forum. Discussions can be had with anyone. Make a public post, expect a public reply. If you want a one on one with someone, send them a private message.

If you do not wish to talk to me, then stop replying to my posts.

Holy god you are a piece of work.

 

[Petraio Prime]

No, it isn't. I'm reporting you.

Oh, please take your ball and go home too.

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.

Your post was blunt and rude. As are many of your posts on many of the threads. It was not reasonable as the explanations where already given.

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

And again, its an open forum. Discussions can be had with anyone. Make a public post, expect a public reply. If you want a one on one with someone, send them a private message.

If you do not wish to talk to me, then stop replying to my posts.

Holy god you are a piece of work.

I am quite amazed that my simple query of the OP, to show us what he meant, should be worthy of comment or interference from you. There are many possible causes, and in some cases what may look like overexposure at first blush, to the novice, may not be overexposure at all. I didn't feel compelled to spell all this out, which is why my simple request provide an example was not inappropriate.

I just asked to see an example of what he was talking about. That was all. It was neither blunt nor rude. The OP's question was too brief and vague to permit a definitive answer, which is why I asked him to provide a sample.

 

[Gaerek]

I was not interested in replies, because they had no more information than I did.

No, you weren't interested in the replies because you are the God of Photographers and have knowledge that other people don't have, or something like that. As I said before, the question was answered, the problem was addressed. Then you swagger in thinking you can provide insight that wasn't already covered in your, blunt, I'm better than you way.

I wanted to know exactly what he was having trouble with,

His first post explained that pretty precisely. But again, someone with 45 years of experience should have known that.

and I'll trouble you to stay out, and don't address me again.

I wasn't going to reply, until I read this. You were begging for me to come back.

I wasn't talking to you and don't care to talk to you.

If this is true, then you wouldn't keep replying to every response I make. You see, a dialog requires 2 people. If you don't want that, then stop replying to me. It's a very simple concept. You know, you could also put me on your ignore list too. But, I think you're a glutton for punishment, and will just reply to this post too.

And Twinky was right again. If this wasn't addressed to the group, then why post in a public forum? There is a thing called Private messages. If you don't want people to comment, use those next time.

Without specific examples I was not sure what he meant.

SKY IS BLOWN OUT. How more specific can you be? It means the sky is too bright. The meter, in it's attempt to find middle gray, turned the sky completely white. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? There really is only one reason why the sky could be blown out. The situation was irrelavent. Besides, the replies that came WAY before yours encompassed many different situations. Did you just not read them?

Maybe he was taking sunsets for all I know.

But we all know that you think landscapes are a waste of time and that sports where you can stop a ball in midair, or shots of rhinos in harsh, direct sunlight is where it's at!

 

[pgriz]

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?

@ adikrist, you have several options. In-camera, you can either darken the sky with a graduated neutral density filter (putting the dark part of the filter over the bright parts of the picture), or, if the subject is small enough and close enough to the camera, you can use either fill flash or a reflector that will bounce some light into the dark areas. When dealing with a building, you can’t really do that (unless you’re operating a Hollywood studio), and the usual solution is to come back when the light is more favorable. If the light is behind you, then the chances are higher that the scene in front of you will have exposure values that are closer together.

After the pictures are taken, you have several post-processing options. If you have two images that have different exposures, then you can merge them (using layers) in Photoshop or similar photo-editing software. Of course for this to work well, the camera should have been on a tripod and the two exposures should be taken pretty close in time to each other.

As Dao has indicated, there is also HDR, (which stands for High Dynamic Range), in which the program is given two or more images that differ only in exposure, and the software selects the mid-range elements from each photo and blends them together. In the hands of a skilled artist, the results can be breath-taking, although it is also possible to produce atrocious results.

Still another option (post-processing) is to “select” areas that are too light or too dark (but still have some detail), and either “burn” them in (making them darker), or “dodge” them (making them lighter).

With respect to your last question, you were probably in “auto” mode, with the camera setting both the aperture and the shutter speed. You would probably be better off using your camera in Aperture-priority mode, as this allows you to select the aperture (and the corresponding depth-of-field), and you let the camera select the shutter speed. Depth-of-field is important in composing photographs because you can direct your viewer’s attention by using sharp focus on the things you want the viewer to see, and allow the distracting peripheral elements to be out-of-focus.

 

[OrionsByte]

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?

I forgot to respond to this part.

If you want to keep the same exposure, then aperture would open up (smaller numbers) as the shutter speed gets faster (higher numbers). So yes, faster shutter = bigger aperture if you want to keep the same exposure.

However, when you metered on the sky instead of the building, your camera adjusted itself to let less light in, which is what you wanted. In this case it did it by reducing both the shutter speed and the aperture, but you could also have adjusted either one individually as well (though the adjustment would have been bigger).