blown out sky- how not to?

I grabbed this shot as the bride and her girls were heading to the

reception venue. What should I have done to not blow out the bright

sky but not overexpose them? Thanks<P>Elaine Marie<div></div>

That shoud read not under-expose them.<P>Elaine Marie

Really not much you can do without a level horizon with all of the gals' heads below the horizon. If that was the case, you could use a split ND filter to help even it out.

 

If you had a LOT of lighting, you could use fill, but on a wide shot like this, you'd need a LOT of lighting.

 

Or, if you're digital, take 2 exposures, one for the foreground, one for the background, and merge in PS later...

 

Otherwise, let it blow, let it blow, let it blow...

Elaine,

 

ND Grad filter is the classic solution for landscape photography; probably not too practical for portaiture.

 

Double exposure is the digital age solution for your problem; probably easier to achieve, but still cumbersome.

 

Third solution is to underexpose a little, but I'm sure you already tried that...

 

You're running into one of the limitations of the camera, dynamic range.

 

Ignacio

Use one powerful flash and a high shutter speed. You might be surprised how much you can flash-fill. Try it on a day off first. I can make specific recommendations if necessary.

When you have a blue sky you can darken it with a yellow filter if you're using B&W film. Under cloudy/overcast conditions it doesn't do much good. At the same time the soft light doesn't give you any harsh dhadows. I'd rather have the soft light and a blown out sky. As others have said you can darken it during printing or with photoshop but you'll just end up with a boring grey sky either way. If you can shoot from a higher angle there'd be less sky to deal with. Maybe use a ladder? Stand in the bed of a pickup truck? Remember that only other photographers notice these things. Everybody else looks at the girls and their dresses...LOL~Blown sky? What sky?

Wow, what a tough shot! Your subjects are in shadow with the rest of the world brightly lit by sun.

 

The only other thing (which due to scheduling concerns wasn't an option I'm sure) would have been to have done that shot with the sun on the other side (morning or evening, whichever it wasn't), with some fill flash to even out the light on the subjects. That probably would have presented a situation with much less dynamic range and allowed you to do a little post processing to pop the sky out and have properly lit subjects.

The simplest way around that problem is to compose the shot differently, from a perspective that omits the sky entirely. If you ran ahead of them you could've placed them on a diagonal with (I assume) the buildings on the left side of the street forming the background.

 

Other than that, everyone else has already given you many ideas.

 

Of course, you can simply borrow the sky from another image and paste it into the shot you posted. I don't see anything wrong with doing that in this case since it is about the women, and not the background.

 

C Painter

One think you could do in such a shot is to shoot RAW, then create to converted images. One that exposes for the girls and buildings and a 2nd that exposes for the sky, then blend them. However like Al said, you'll just get a boring gray sky, and besides most viewers will focus on the subject matter, the girls anyway.

This is B&W. The classic solution to darken a blue sky in B&W is to use a deep red filter. That has some effects in portraiture that are usually less than desirable, such as lightening red lips, but the faces are small enough that it probably wouldn't matter.

<p>

I'm assuming the sky was blue, and not grey overcast, judging by the sharp shadows on the buildings. If my assumption is wrong, then my solution is wrong, of course.

<p>

Now that you've taken the photo and (I assume) can't re-shoot, you can always crop out most of the sky. I'd cut out much of the foreground, as well, and crop it to a very wide, short aspect ratio.

I would do as Dan suggested and then you can also add a gradient layer to simulate a ND filter effect so it's not as boring a sky. Also, you can crop some of it out.

Flash - the only simple answer really. Blending in PS and multiple exposures seems too complicated and quirky for this type of shooting. In these conditions, I always shoot with flash.

 

Bogdan

Thanks everyone. Great comments. This was shot digital color coverted to B&W. The wedding party was late to the reception, had it not been such a hurried shot I would have shot it from the other direction as the sun would have been behind me a little. I may have also been able to get the sign and building of the venue in the picture that they were headed to. Not quick enough thinking on my part. I'll try some cropping.<P>Elaine Marie

I might be tempted to blend the two different exposures as above. Even though you will get a "boring gray sky", it would bring more attention to the ladies in their white dresses.

That looks like a shot you're not going to be taking two exposures of since it's an action type of shot.

 

Here's another tool to add to your toolbox ... allow the sky to blow out and leave the image in color. Then use a plugin like nik color to add a mild touch of color to the sky.

 

The color has to be somewhat muted but strong enough to hold the viewers eyes on the photo; a weak sky allows the viewers eyes to quickly slip off the top of the image and your goal is to "capture" the eyes of the viewer in your wonderful photo.

 

Here's an example... I used the method described above:<div></div>

>I might be tempted to blend the two different exposures as above. Even though you will get a "boring gray sky", it would bring more attention to the ladies in their white dresses.<

 

Yep! That's the trouble with that image is that the sky is too bright in the frame and basic visual psychology causes your eye to be drawn to the brightest part of the image.

 

Ideally, the dresses would occupy that zone. Therefore, having the sky a boring gray is actually very helpful to the intent of the image in that it won't compete with the intended subject.

 

C Painter

Shoot Film!!!

 

;)

I've got a folder of images, some are of a beautiful blue sky with white puffy clouds, others are of sunrise and sunset images. I've got other stuff as well that I use in my business.

 

What I will do, once in a while, is change the image, in this case take one of my sky images and place it into a photograph such as yours.

 

Is this the correct way? Who knows!

 

It's what I do and I learned some of these tricks from others who have helped me along the way. What's more isn't it strange people actually pay me to do this and they see the image as more beautiful! I like the idea.

 

How about that!

As if film shots haven't had a blown sky.

 

One way to avoid it when shooting available light is to be aware where the sun is even on

overcast days ... and place it at your back. Not only does that light your subjects a little

bit better, it often (not always) features a bit more sky tone behind them.

 

No special program is needed when "fixing" a blown sky in B&W. In PS select the white sky

area with a wand, feather it a little, and use the darkening tool set to Highlight and about

15% strength ... then dust just the top of the sky in a sweeping motion slowly graduating

downward. The area around the horizon should stay white because that's the way it is

naturally.

 

I'd crop your pic to more of a panoramic also. Just an opinion.<div></div>

If it's a clear sky, a polarizer can help. If it's cloudy, then it won't.

Agree with you Marc, but with film, if the scene is metered correctly it could be minimized

or is more unlikely, especially if used along with a polarizer (most effectively if used

perpendicular to the light source).

 

I follow your postings as much as I enjoy your photography. You recently complained just

about this issue when you said that you're or are considering to scan film for the backlit

shots to avoid/minimize this specific (latitude) problem.

 

You also once made a nice comment that I quote every so often which says something like

"PS compensates on digital what film does on its own". Do you remember that post?

 

I always appreciate your feedback, regardless of your tone.

 

-Vlad

I don't know about the sun at your back Marc. I understand that if you shoot for available light, then that's the best/most logical choice for the best picture. But a lot of times you don't HAVE that choice, so you need flash - or you'll miss the shot. Myself, I LIKE to shoot into the sun at times with flash. It can look awesome. I'll post a picture when I get home - at work now. My point is that one should be prepared for all lighting situations - flash or not. Sometimes you can move around all you want, but sometimes you can't. Don't restrict yourself. And Photoshop is gimmicky for this IMO. Fake skies, etc...Is this photography or photo art? Is the line getting thinner between the two now?

 

Bogdan

 

The crop is necessary to make the picture look better composed. Otherwise they are right in the middle and it doesn't look right.

Photo-Art? Frankly, while as photographers we might rail for/against and hotly debate the merits of heavily modified/manipulated photos versus true photographic originals as gimmicky and crap, do you really think in the end the client cares whether that beautiful sky in that photo is real or not?

 

In my limited experience, clients want beautiful pictures. As long as the final image looks relatively realistic and beautiful, they won't care what you did or didn't do to get the image to that point.

 

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. ;)

 

P.S. - This statement does not apply to modifying the people themselves to be better looking/less wrinkly/whatever. That's an entirely different (and well debated) thread. This statement applies mainly to the scene around your subjects. :)

Garry,

 

No, the client probably doesn't care. This is not about image integrity or such. But the question asked was, "What should I have done to not blow out the bright sky but not overexpose them?". That's a photograpy technique question IMO - not a Photoshop one. So I answered accordingly as did Marc. Different ways - flash or move around to get the sun out of the way if you want to use available light.

 

My comment was then to not limit yourself and learn/use all methods available, so you don't have to do it in Photoshop. Because in the end it's easier and to ME less "gimmicky" for lack of a better word.

 

 

Bogdan

Fair enough Bogden! I suppose I'm jaded from some of the other forums and critiquers here, who shout nasty words and throw rotten apples at you if you use Photoshop to do anything to an image other than a minor amount of sharpening and contrast/sat. ;)

 

I agree with your statement that the question was about photographic technique and not "can I slide a sky in back there". Hence my first response regarding time of day/direction.

 

Cheers!