White sky???

[jpeka65844]

I'm looking back through a lot of my pictures and I'm noticing in a lot of them, there's white sky. On days that I KNOW were not overcast! How can I get a true BLUE sky behind my subject??? Here's an example taken on a flawless summer day at AK. Notice the patch of WHITE SKY behind Devine's shoulder! HELP!

 

[jpeka65844]

Whoops...sorry....it's not behind her shoulder it's next to her face.....

And it wasn't summer, it was December 1st. I was way off. But it was a FLAWLESS, CLOUDLESS sky. I have a pic from the Christmas tree at AK and the blue sky looks fantastic in that one!

 

[crazydadguy]

It depends on what you have your camera pointed at when it "tests" to see what exposure it should use. If you have a manual exposure compensation, on bright days, drop it down a few clicks and you should see nice difference.

 

[MICKEY88]

It depends on what you have your camera pointed at when it "tests" to see what exposure it should use. If you have a manual exposure compensation, on bright days, drop it down a few clicks and you should see nice difference.

that will work for some pics,but in others that will cause the main subject to be underexposed,

sometimes you can select the sky with your editing software and darken it, bringing out the blue..

another trick that I've done for years and recently read about in a photography magazine is this....

when I see a nice blue sky, especialy with nice white clouds, I'll shoot a bunch of pics, wideangle and zoomed in, when I have a pic with a washed out sky, I simply replace it with the sky from one of my sky pictures.., once you learn to match ups skies with tonal value etc, it is easy and done right no one ever knows..

 

[AndrewWG]

I'm looking back through a lot of my pictures and I'm noticing in a lot of them, there's white sky. On days that I KNOW were not overcast! How can I get a true BLUE sky behind my subject??? Here's an example taken on a flawless summer day at AK. Notice the patch of WHITE SKY behind Devine's shoulder! HELP!

This photo looks backlit to me. That would be tough for any camera to get all of the photo in perfect exposure. However, what I do to get rid of the "white sky" effect is to point the camera at your subject and see what it suggests the settings should be. I shoot in Av mode most of the time, so I'll say I set the aperture to f8 to take the readings. Lets say it says 1/100 at f8. If you take the picture like that, your sky is going to be white (blown out). Then point the camera at the sky you want exposed and see what it says. Lets say it says 1/1000 at f8. If you take the picture at that setting, the subject is going to be way underexposed (dark). That is just WAY too much of a difference to get everything in perfect exposure in one shot. However, what you can do and be somewhat successful is to try to bracket some shots and shoot the scene (in Manual mode) at f8 for shutter speeds of, say, 1/250 and 1/500 and see what your results are. These settings will darken the subject a bit but help to bring the sky back towards it's normal color. I used this rechnique alot in WDW in November and it worked well.

Of course, I do this because I have no idea how to do what Mickey88 is saying. If I knew exactly how to do that, it would be much easier to do. I just don't like post processing. In a case like this, it is probably worth my time to learn how to do it.

Here is a photo that I know that I used this technique with. I have since deleted the original blown out sky version unfortunately so I can't compare them here. You can see that the hotel is a bit underexposed (darker but not bad), but I got the sky to be nicely exposed. The original pic (the way the camera wanted me to take it) had a real well exposed hotel and a whiter looking sky. These were much easier than the shot that you posted though. I think the difference was something like 1/100 for the building and 1/800 for the sky or something like that. I shot this at 1/320 at f8.

 

[MICKEY88]

here is a picture of a group of cars from my car club, the president wanted to use this shot for the cover of our 2007 Calendar, the sky was Ok, but I didn't think OK was good enough, I selected the sky, darkened it and got pic #2, I still didn't like it, so I went to my gallery of skies and chose a shot of a nice Orlando sky, selected my sky, then inserted the Orlando sky, resulting in pic#3 which then became our cover shot..

 

[LMarge]

are there lens filters that help with this?

 

[SharonLowe]

are there lens filters that help with this?

Not in this case. In other cases, a graduated neutral density filter can help - darker on half of it, gradually going to clear.

I'm looking back through a lot of my pictures and I'm noticing in a lot of them, there's white sky. On days that I KNOW were not overcast! How can I get a true BLUE sky behind my subject??? Here's an example taken on a flawless summer day at AK. Notice the patch of WHITE SKY behind Devine's shoulder! HELP!

This image would have worked better with some fill flash - would have a good exposure on her and nice blue skies. Any time you have a backlit subject (and one this is this dark), it is best to add some fill flash.

You can possibly recover some of the overexposed area if you have PS and especially if you have CS3 - if you have CS3, treat the image like a negative and first process in ACR one with the sky the way you want it and then open the original again in ACR and process it for the person. I'll try to do it later and see if I can come up with something better for you. If you don't have CS3, try using the select color range feature and select the brighter bits. Then, use levels or curves to darken the lighter parts.

edit - I had a quick look at it and the sky is totally blown out - no color left in it at all. With some finesse, you could change to white to blue but that takes a lot of time and PS skill.

 

[AndrewWG]

are there lens filters that help with this?

A graduated neutral density filter could help in certain situations. In Mickey88's situation it may have brought more color to the sky. I like the final shot better though. You really kind of need a good line of sky and ground to get the filters to work the best I think. I just recently bought one but haven't really tried to figure out how to use it properly yet.

 

[cpbjgc]

I was looking at the EXIF data and see you are using a Canon S5 IS. This does have a bracketing feature that automatically shifts the expsoure settings for three pictures (first is exposed as set, next is underexposed, the last is overexposed). You may want to look into that feature more (p.87 of the user guide)

The S5 also allows you to view your histogram on playback beside a thumbnail of your picture and will show any "blown out" areas as blinking in the picture (p.20 and 21 of the user guide). I only mention this because if you do review right after the shot, you can make any adjustments and shoot again right away.

Finally, as a follow up on the fill flash suggested by SharonLowe, (that is what I would have done too) but what she didn't mention is that you need to set your metering to spot metering and then use the AE lock to set your exposure off the sky (p.84 of the user guide), then recompose your shot with the flash open and set to fire.

 

[Amy]

another trick that I've done for years and recently read about in a photography magazine is this....

when I see a nice blue sky, especialy with nice white clouds, I'll shoot a bunch of pics, wideangle and zoomed in, when I have a pic with a washed out sky, I simply replace it with the sky from one of my sky pictures.., once you learn to match ups skies with tonal value etc, it is easy and done right no one ever knows..

here is a picture of a group of cars from my car club, the president wanted to use this shot for the cover of our 2007 Calendar, the sky was Ok, but I didn't think OK was good enough, I selected the sky, darkened it and got pic #2, I still didn't like it, so I went to my gallery of skies and chose a shot of a nice Orlando sky, selected my sky, then inserted the Orlando sky, resulting in pic#3 which then became our cover shot..

I'd only use this method on a photo that absolutely HAD to be perfect, because it seems like an awful lot of work to do this. But can you explain how you'd do this in Photoshop Elements please? (And in English for people like me who are novices with Elements.)

I understand how to do selective coloring, where you create a black & white layer and "erase" the parts you want to still be in color. Can you do something like that for sky pictures? Like create a layer of your perfect sky and then erase so that the buildings, people, etc. from the original photo are now on the perfect sky?

Or do you have to do the whole selection thing and cut from one photo and paste into another? Whenever I select and cut/paste, my edges don't look natural. I'll admit that I need more experience with selections and how much to feather the edges and all that stuff.

 

[MICKEY88]

I'd only use this method on a photo that absolutely HAD to be perfect, because it seems like an awful lot of work to do this. But can you explain how you'd do this in Photoshop Elements please? (And in English for people like me who are novices with Elements.)

I understand how to do selective coloring, where you create a black & white layer and "erase" the parts you want to still be in color. Can you do something like that for sky pictures? Like create a layer of your perfect sky and then erase so that the buildings, people, etc. from the original photo are now on the perfect sky?

Or do you have to do the whole selection thing and cut from one photo and paste into another? Whenever I select and cut/paste, my edges don't look natural. I'll admit that I need more experience with selections and how much to feather the edges and all that stuff.

actually with practice it's easier and faster..than using layers..

I use PAint Shop Pro Photo X2, so I am not familiar with Photoshop elements.

I would think that your method with layers should work..

 

[handicap18]

One thing I've noticed with this subject is where your place yourself in relation to the subject. I've found that with the sun behind me, I get the blue sky.

If the sun is behind the subject then you'll get a blown out sky. It makes sence. The camera see's all this light coming in makes its adjustment. Unlike the human eye the camera has to chose either the blue sky or the nicely exposed subject. Not both.

A polorizer filter or Graduated ND filter can help depending on the subject and composition. Post processing can also help.

 

[GrillMouster]

I think it might help to understand why this happens.

Imagine a ladder. The top step of the ladder represents pure white; the bottom step of the ladder represents pure black, and all steps in between represent shades of gray that get darker as you go down. Each step is one "stop" darker than the one above it. A "stop" of light is a unit of measure used in calculating exposure. Digital camera sensors can only discern a finite number of "stops" of light in any given scene. This is known as "dynamic range". Let's say that your digital camera has a dynamic range of 4 stops. Going back to the ladder analogy, the camera could only clearly discern a section of the ladder that is 4 steps tall. If you chose the top 4 steps of the ladder, your camera would clearly show the steps between pure white to light grey. If you chose the bottom of the ladder, your camera would clearly show the steps between dark grey and pure black. If you chose the middle part of the ladder, your camera would clearly show the steps between light grey and dark grey. So, what happens to all the other steps of the ladder than are outside the 4-step range? The camera would show them as pure white or pure black (no detail), depending on whether they are above or below the 4-step range you chose.

Now, let's apply this to the picture of Devine. The range of light-to-dark in this scene was too wide for the camera to capture it all. Most of this scene was in shade and shadows, represented by the bottom steps of the metaphorical ladder. The sky and clouds visible through the trees (in front of Devine's face) are brighter, and would be represented by the upper part of the metaphorical ladder. In order to see the details in the face, leaves, and tree, the camera had to expose for the bottom steps of the metaphorical ladder, and everything above those steps were converted to pure white. This is also known as "blown highlights". If, instead, the camera exposed for the sky, you would clearly see the blue sky and clouds, and some highlight details, but almost everything else would have been too dark or converted to black.

When you're trying to capture a scene with a range of values that is wider than what your camera is capable of capturing, your immediate solution is to compress the values in the scene by either lightening the darker areas of the scene or darkening the brighter areas of the scene. Fill flash adds just enough light to the dark subject in the foreground so that its level of brightness is closer to that of the background. Graduated neutral density filters darken one portion of the scene, such as a bright sky, bringing the entire scene to within the dynamic range of the camera. However, this usually only helps in situations where there is a clear horizon and nothing of importance crosses the horizon plane.

In the explanation above I used a dynamic range of 4 stops for illustrative purposes. Dynamic range varies by camera and media. If memory serves me correctly, the human eye is capable of discerning about 50 stops of light. That wide dynamic range is the reason we don't walk around seeing pure white skies all the time. Our eyes can see the details in the clouds, shades of blue in the sky, the middle values in the grass and the leaves, and you can even see details in the shadows under the trees. Black and White film has a dynamic range of about 9 stops, quite a drop from what our eyes can see. Color negative film has a range of 5-7 stops. Slide film has even narrower range. Further complicating things are the uneven divisions of over- and under- exposure latitude. Digital camera sensors have a dynamic range similar to or narrower than that of slide film, but they're getting better, especially with high-end DSLR cameras.

A more recent solution to the issue of low dynamic range is in post-processing. Some photographers take multiple images of the same scene, exposing each image for a different part of the scene. The photographer then blends the images together in Photoshop, often using layer masks, to create a final image where everything appears properly exposed. Because of the amount of information that can be recovered from RAW files, photographers shooting in RAW format can, to an extent, do what I mentioned above with just a single exposure. This technique is preferred over copying and pasting a sky from another image, which can often look artificial.

 

[jann1033]

great & easy to understand grillmouster!
since i don't as of yet have a flash, can i use my on camera flash for a fill or is it to bright.( rebel xt)? right now if i need fill i am adding it via camera raw but wouldn't mind being able to do it in real life

 

[GrillMouster]

You could use the built-in flash for fill, but you would have to manually decrease the flash strength in the camera to adjust for fill. A general rule of thumb is to meter for the ambient light, then set the flash exposure compensation to 1 stop below. Take test shots. One problem with the built-in flash is that it's harsh, flattening (not flattering) light. However, for fill that's not as much of a problem, because the strength of the fill flash should be less than that of the main light (which could be natural light). Another problem with built-in flash is that it can cause red-eye, because of its proximity to the lens. But, if you had to choose, it's better to fix red eye in post-processing than to have to add fill in post-processing. Adding fill in Adobe Camera Raw isn't the same as adding fill at the time you take the picture.

You won't ALWAYS be able capture the entire range of light in a scene. If you can't overcome it by adjusting your shooting angle, moving the subject, using flash, or using a filter, then don't sweat it. As long as the subject is properly exposed, it's perfectly okay for the sky to be blown out. Sometimes, you can use it as professionals do, as a technique to add drama.

 

[MICKEY88]

This technique is preferred over copying and pasting a sky from another image, which can often look artificial.

that is the reason to have many sky files of varying tonal ranges, and cloud configs etc.??

any photoshopping can look artificial if not done properly, including layers..

another option is to go with a Sony DSLR with the dynamic range optimizer, which does a fairly decent job of processing highlights and shadows in camera, to minimize this problem..

 

[GrillMouster]

Yes, Mickey88, you are correct in saying that any technique in Photoshop can look artificial if not done properly. However, some techniques require greater mastery and attention than others do in order to avoid the appearance of artificiality. For an image to be believable, the color, intensity, and direction of light throughout the scene should coordinate. A pasted sky could introduce discrepancies if you have not also made adjustments to large reflected surfaces such as glass, metal, or water. Additionally, the selection of the sky should be precise, something that's not always easy to do, especially around or through hair and foliage.

I'm not completely opposed to copying and pasting a sky or background from another image, but I would avoid doing so whenever possible. It's not always the easy quick-fix that many seem to think it is.

I haven't had experience with the Sony DSLRs, but I know several people who like the D-Lighting control in Nikon systems.

 

[MICKEY88]

Yes, Mickey88, you are correct in saying that any technique in Photoshop can look artificial if not done properly. However, some techniques require greater mastery and attention than others do in order to avoid the appearance of artificiality. For an image to be believable, the color, intensity, and direction of light throughout the scene should coordinate. A pasted sky could introduce discrepancies if you have not also made adjustments to large reflected surfaces such as glass, metal, or water. Additionally, the selection of the sky should be precise, something that's not always easy to do, especially around or through hair and foliage.

I'm not completely opposed to copying and pasting a sky or background from another image, but I would avoid doing so whenever possible. It's not always the easy quick-fix that many seem to think it is.

I haven't had experience with the Sony DSLRs, but I know several people who like the D-Lighting control in Nikon systems.

I won't disagree with what you're saying, but the average person will never notice the details you are speaking of..

I haven't tested the Sonys myself yet, but all the reviews I've seen speak highly of the DRO

 

[pjacobi]

In the photo of the cars, a circular polarizing filter would help darken the sky and make the clouds more well defined.

In the photo of the tree, the dynamic range (difference between light and dark areas) is beyond the limit of the camera. To artificially extend the range of camera, take two photos, one exposed correctly for the tree, and one exposed correctly for the sky. Then merge the two exposures into a single High Dynamic Range (HDR) image. I believe Photoshop CS3 has this capaibilty.

I would definately suggest getting a circular polarizer filter to improve most outdoor picture. HDR is a more of an advanced technique.


-Paul