Best way to make the sky look blue?

<p>Even when the sky is close to blue to the naked eye, my camera doesn't capture it as blue.<br>

I understand there are some remedies: (1) use a polarizing filter, (2) edit in the post processing, or (3) change the white balance.<br>

I think there are pros and cons to each. (1) polarizing filter: you need multiple filters, or step up/down rings, if your lenses have different front thread size, as mine do. (2) PP editing is time consuming and sometimes gets complicated. (3) You'd probably need to use gelled flash in order to avoid reddish subjects.<br>

Have I left out a better method?</p>

<p>The easiest one: don't over-expose the sky. Meter <em>for</em> the sky, so that you can retain some nice saturated blue color, instead of having overcooked and look more white-ish. But then, depending on what you're shooting, you might need some reflected or locally-produced light to help properly expose the foreground. Think "flash fill" to save you from local shadows that will appear quite dark if you're stopped down enough to keep the sky under control on a bright day.</p>

<p>For my color hunger, I think a polarizer works the best for me.<br />ND filter might be of some help too for ya.<br />Whether you adapt via step ups or go for several filters, it is a balance of ease and conveience and money.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>Blue, baby, blue.</p><div></div>

<p>@ Matt Laur,<br>

Your answer makes me wonder about a more fundamental point. Isn't the lack of nicely saturated blue color in the sky due to the blue light scattering in all angles, rather than overexposure? I often expose for the sky in order to avoid blown highlight, and use extensive fill flash, with the aid of an ND filter. Even in such cases, the sky is not blue enough for my taste.</p>

<p> </p>

If you are not getting a blue sky as you see it, you may be overexposing the sky as Matt says.

 

A polarizing filter is a must have. Serious landscape photographers used graduated neutral density filters

so as to properly expose the foreground and not over expose the sky. A neutral density filter does nothing

to balance the exposure.

 

You can duplicate the effects of a neutral density in post processing but it is usually best to get the best

exposure when taking the photos.

<p>Good photography isn't supposed to be easy. I often hear about the work but that is what it takes to do anything well, otherwise you get what you get and that is mediocracy, even in one's career.</p>

<p>How the sky turns out will vary widely by the conditions you shoot in. I don't like those almost black, blue skies, but this past week shot something that nearly gave me one of those. There wasn't any choice if I wanted the subject to be exposed properly--and there were no filters being used. (I really haven't seen one of those since I used to overuse my polarizer when I first started out 33 years ago). Often, light skies are just a factor of the conditions as well.</p>

<p>There are really a lot of ways to bump up the blue and sometimes they are really easy even in post, but working to get things as optimal as possible in the field and then working things to your vision is post has been the lynchpin of great photography since forever.</p>

<p>Regarding polarizing filters...beware of using it too extensively with wide-angle lenses. You can get banding that doesn't look very natural. Another suggestion might be to merge two exposures--one for the sky and one for the horizon and below (assuming a landscape). Or how about this: Go B&W, then use the blue channel sliders to make the sky dark!</p>

<p>Some of it's the weather (if the humidity is high, you get lower contrast because of the sunlight scattering from the more humid air), polaroid will help most if you shoot at 90 degrees to the sun, and helps least if you're shooting into or down sun. I have the best luck metering off the sky, but if your subject is dark or in the shade, you may have trouble on the low end (so use a fill flash if you can).</p>

<p>If there is a big gap in brightness between sky and foreground, you may not have the luxury of exposing for the sky. Indeed as most "post" adjustments will only work satisfactorily if you mange to capture detail in the sky to start with. Its quite common not to be able to do that well enough without over darkening the foregrounds. The two solutions not covered in the OP's initial post have the effect of compressing the brightness range of the scene. They are to use graduated neutral density filters, and to combine the output from several different,bracketed exposures so you effectively end up with the sky from the dark pictures in a series and the foregrounds/shadows from the lightest.</p>

<p>Controlling the balance of exposure between the skies and foreground is a fundamental part of the landscape photographer's job. It's unlikely that he can get away with only using one technique, but will have learned several alternatives for differing conditions. </p>

<p>The other thing you have to consider is how dark and saturated you want your skies to be. Clearly there's an element of taste here, and so for example I would myself not aim to produce a sky like Jim Momary's example above, and yet if a polariser is the only tool on your armoury on this issue its going to happen if you shoot in clear, elevated conditions with a polariser fitted at 90 degrees to the sun and adjusted to max. So for me in those conditions I'm likely to use a grad or no filter at all. Equally I'll try and make sure any reflection of sky in water is darker than the sky itself- which happens in a large majority of cases in reality.</p>

<p>Two exposures is good if you can remember to bring a tripod. If you forget, it's pretty easy to get a sky bluer in Photoshop. There are preset blue filters in the adjustments tab.</p>

<p>Sun at your back usually helps get a nice blue sky. I've noticed lens angle to sky in relation to the position of the sun at different times of day will render a rich blue.</p>

<p>Shooting Raw and switching between Picture Style camera profiles including a custom profile will help in getting intense blue skies.</p>

<p>Vibrance slider in Adobe Camera Raw can do wonders to getting rich cerulean blue skies. See below.</p><div></div>

<p>If the sky is naturally a darker blue on that day maybe use an EV of ~-2/3 stop? That's a relatively easy way to bring out some darker colors. Or as many people have mentioned you can just play with some sliders, as seen above vibrance does well along with altering a bit of the blue luminance.</p>

<p>One big problem I have experienced is overcast skys. These come out blown out white, and no polarizer on earth will help you. You only option here is post processing, which will still give very little detail, or merging 2 differently exposed shots. </p>

<p>The other option is low contrast color film, but let's not get into that now.</p>

<p>To help with the overcast skies one needs to make a sacrifice at times with the photograph. Similar to film the digital camera also has the problem of bleated out overcast skies. By holding the shutter button down and starting with the sky you can gradually move down to the photograph you intend to photograph and find an in between in the photograph. Actually I love overcast days because the light is real smooth and makes just about any subject easy to photograph less a rich blue sky. Stopping down can help with those overcast skies as well. Try it out and let us know what you come up with.</p>

<p>Duane_L: <em>"...By holding the shutter button down and starting with the sky you can gradually move down to the photograph..."</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I think you are trying to describe a possible method of finding a compromise exposure between the sky and the land. </p>

<p>If so, it's not going to work using the simplest settings on many cameras. With the default setting on many DSLR cameras, once you press the shutter button half way down, your focus is locked, but the exposure is not locked, so that when you continue to move the camera down further to compose the image without having the horizon exactly bisect the image, the final exposure will be determined at the moment you actually take the picture, and hence the sky will again be very light or even completely blown out.</p>

<p>In contrast, on many cameras, eg, my d700, you can use a custom setting to ensure that the exposure is locked along with the focus when you press the shutter release half-way down. However, if you do that and follow the procedure you described, the exposure will be locked at the start of your downwards scan that you described, not at the half-way point.</p>

<p>Perhaps you meant to say something like <em>"Angle the camera up towards the sky so that you have about half sky and half ground in the image -- then press the shutter half-way down</em>. <em> With the correct settings, this will lock both focus and exposure</em>". OTOH, perhaps you meant something else and you would like to clarify what you said?</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<p>If the sky is not an importent part of the shot, it might be best to just take a field of blown out white with no detail, and process it into a field of blue with no detail. At least it will look more natural. </p>

<p>Ken:</p>

<p>My best "tricks" for deepening the sky's hues are:</p>

<p>1. Shoot when the sun is low in the sky, while shooting toward the "dark" side of the sky (i.e., shoot with the sun at your back):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/blue1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Shooting the "dark side" of the sky + circular polarizer filter.</p>

<p>2. Underexpose the sky (but key your subject accordingly).<br>

3. Use a polarizing filter.<br>

4. Use a graduated neutral-density filter (e.g., typically, 0.9 ND or above).<br>

5. Color-correct your strobes using a sheet of Lee full-CTO (color-temperature orange) gel, and set your camera's white balance to tungsten (or, manually enter a lower color temperature, if your body supports this feature):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/blue2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Strobe + full-CTO + camera's white balance set manually to 2,800-degrees Kelvin. </p>