How do I avoid overexposing the sky?

<p>I'm shooting a few minutes after sunrise-- and the sky is a warm blue. But the metering on my SLR constantly blows it. See my shot and you'll see what I mean. Any suggestions for how to avoid this? Is a graduated neutral density filter the only answer?<br>

<img src="http://www.cactus21.com/camera/Example1.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>Also-- look at my second shot-- taken with an inexpensive Canon point & shoot in harsh mid-day sun. Why is an point & shoot "smart" enough to compensate for the contrast?<br>

<img src="http://www.cactus21.com/camera/Example2.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I don't see the image you are referring to.</p>

<p>Much of the answer is dependent on your metering mode/technique.<br>

Are you using matrix, center wt or spot..AND, <strong>what</strong> are you metering off of?</p>

<p>A few mins after sunrise considering clear skies will show about a 3 to 4 stop difference between the sky and foreground. Most DSLR's can handle this if you choose a middle ground in exposure. In other words, if you are metering off the foreground, your camera will blow out the sky. If you meter for just the sky, the foreground will be very dark.</p>

<p>A 2-4 stop soft transition GND will help tremendously in this scenario.</p>

<p>What many will do is shoot RAW which will give you more exposure latitude. In PP you can recover an overly bright sky, (not a blown sky)</p>

<p>Method #2, and one I prefer, is to shoot two exposures, one for the sky and one for the foreground..sandwich the 2 shots and mask off what you want or don't want.</p>

<p>W/o a GND you can get a acceptable shot at that time of day, but it will be a compromise.<br>

Pick a f/stop somewhere in the middle of the two exposure extremes if you don't have a GND, or shoot two from the tripod; exposing each accordingly.</p>

<p>Hope that helps a bit.</p>

<p>Ahh..I see the images now.<br>

The two images are vastly different in tonality.<br>

The top image (est) has at least 4 stops varience in just the foreground.<br>

Photo 2 is far less contrasty, perhaps 2 stops diff between sky and water/rocks.</p>

<p>Hi :)<br /> I had the same problem using my DSLR and I found an easy way to solve it. Here's how:<br>

If I would stick to the auto mode, the tree would look nice but the sky would be completely white.<br>

That is, as you probably know, because of the lower dynamic range of the camera (check it on Wikipedia).<br>

The method I use only works when there isn't too big difference between the dark and the bright areas of the photo (I'll explain later). If this is not the case, here is what you should do:<br /> 1 Set the EV compensation (or shutter/aperture/ISO if you use manual mode) so that the sky looks just nice. The rest of the picture should look dark, but not black (avoid that, "sacrifice part of the sky in such case).<br>

2 Using Photoshop, add an exposure adjustment layer and increase EV until the dark parts look OK. If the dark parts were black, they would still be visible but there would be enormous noise level and it'll look all crappy. If they weren't the photo will look like your first posted picture.<br /> 3 Now click on the layer and add an adjustment mask (check the net if you don't know what's that and how to do it) and paint with black all the overexposed parts. Use a very soft brush and don't go into tiny details unless you are going to print a poster or you just want to do it.<br /> 4 After fine adjustments, your picture should look like this</p>

<p>http://tinypixels.blogspot.com/2009/10/gold.html</p>

<p>the answer between the 2 pics is not the cameras. it is YOU. a p&s takes the pic for you. the dslr does no such thing; instead you take the pic. there have been MANY questions on forums asking "why are the pics from my new dslr worse than my p&s?" the answer is that the user is expecting thre camera to the work. a dslr is expecting the user to do the work, and that is you.</p>

<p>as for your upper pic taken with the dslr. the dslr is expecting you to ,decide what is the subject the rocks the water the sky and tell it to meter and take the picture for THAT subject. a p&s does all that for you. you have to help and do the deciding for the dslr. the sky is much brighter than the rocks/water. no exposure by a dslr is going to take both. you therefore have to decide and tell the dslr to meter for the one you want. normally, you do not want the highlights(the sky) to overexpose. this means that the rocks/water is going to be somewhat dimish. but this is fixed in postprocessing. in a program like photoshop elements7-8 you simply go the the tab enhance and select the adust lighting then shadows/highlights. this gives you a device that lets you up the brightness on the shadows(the rocks/water) alone. thus making the entire image pleasing. other problems are fixed in postprocessing using other methods. the p&s is giving you the whole image, BUT neither the sky or the rocks/water is going to be an accurate rendition of what you saw. the dslr is built to give you what you saw but sometimes you have to help it in the deciding and metering.</p>

<p>Nobody's hit right answer yet. This has nothing to do with cameras, exposure, or metering. It's physics, and you can't change it. Just understand what's going on and learn to deal with it.</p>

<p>In order for this to work, the sky has to be within a certain level of brightness relative to the ground. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The sky/ground do not always remain in the same relationship to each other in regards to brightness.</p>

<p>Sometimes, especially in the mountains, the sky is very bright in the evening because it is not technically sunset yet. However, the ground is already very dark because everything is in shadow. This is what you see in the first picture. See how the hill in the background is still lit up by the sun? There is a huge disparity between the brightness of the sky and the brightness of the lake/rocks in the foreground. The best thing to do in this situation is just ignore the sky, or try to cut it out of your composition.</p>

<p>The situation with the second picture is that the ground is being lit up by the sun. The ground is very bright, as is the sky, so the difference just isn't that great. It is possible sometimes in midday to have both the sky and ground expose to within a few stops of each other.</p>

<p>If you add to this the intense polarization of the sky on a clear day, you get the benefit of a nice blue sky when looking 90° to the angle of the sunlight. Try this experiment on the next sunny day: Go outside and just look up at the sky. Notice that near the sun, the sky is very white. Now if you turn your head 90° to one direction or the other, the sky is blue. Now turn your head another 90° until you are facing away from the sun, and the sky is white again. This is polarization. If you shoot 90° to the sun, you always get a darker, bluer sky that will balance better with the foreground. If you also put a polarization filter on your lens, you can really bring this effect in to your advantage.</p>

<p>There are so many variables between your first and second samples that isolating a reason or even a few reasons for their differences in appearance would be impossible. The best test for comparing two cameras is to shoot the same scene with both at the same time, with settings as similar as possible. As one person already said, the point & shoot will do more <em>for</em> you, and it might make better looking photos until your skill with the DSLR matches and exceeds what the point and shoot has been programmed to do. Many become frustrated with DSLRs early on, because they expect that a more expensive and complex camera will automatically give better results. It will, when the person operating it has achieved mastery of its controls. You'll pick this up over time from working with the many variables in the scenes you photograph, and in the equipment with which you shoot them. It can be a lifelong venture for most of us, or come relatively quickly for the geniuses among us.</p>

<p>The atmosphere is made of many different types of matter that have very different difraction characteristics. When light leaving from the sun hits the atmosphere it difracts along the atmosphere, kind of like a light through a prism. This is also why dawn and evening light goes to the red/yellow end of the spectrum. It is this same principle that turns the sky blue as you move further and further from the sun. It is also why you will get different blues depending on time of day, humidty and other atmospheric conditions.</p>

<p>For richer skies I generally shoot between 9am and 11am and 3pm to 5pm. Next, make sure the sun is to your back. That is the general rule.<br>

Through the use of HDR techniques or exposing for the sky you can get some good blues, even shooting directly into the sun. Also note that certain lenses are better at this than others (my 10.5 mm Nikkor Fisheye does it perfectly).</p>

<p>The short answer.... underexpose the rest of the photo. Unfortunately DSLRs don't have enough dynamic range to get a nice exposure on the sky and the rest of the photo (in most cases).<br /> <br /> The solution...bracket three shots; one for sky, one for far away, one for foreground. Then combine them so that each portion is properly exposed. You could also consider using software such as Photomatix HDR to combine them.</p>

<p>Short basic fix. Reduce exposure so that the sky doesn't get blown out. This will darken the entire image including the foreground. Boost the shadows during post-processing. There are many ways to accomplish this, depending on how you meter, whether you're shooting RAW, and what software you use for post-processing. RAW will give you greater ability to correct a shot like this during post-processing. </p>

<p>Watch your histograms and instant review to recognize when you might want to re-shoot because the sky is getting blown out. Watch all color channels as the luminence histogram may not look like it's clipping much but one of the colors might be; this can cause color inaccuracy if you try to correct during post. </p>

<p>Hal's got it. In the first photo, the sun has lit the sky but the ground isn't getting bright light yet; meter for the ground and the sky will blow out. Also, the sky hasn't yet developed a very deep blue.</p>

<p>But, one other thing. The sky's gradient is a bit whacked out in early morning light. Here's a photo I took an hour after sunrise (if it has been earlier, what I'm going to show would have been even more pronounced).</p><div></div>

<p>Now imagine I had held the camera horizontally, oriented to the horizon and used a narrower frame, as in your first shot.</p><div></div>

<p>Wow! This is the most educational post I've read to date. Good question and very good, easy to understand answers for a Cro-Magnum like me.</p>

<p>I agree that waiting for time of day and weather are the only way to beat this. You can get some compression of contrast with ND filtration; but location and timing will be more influential. Pretty much anytime you're fighting the sun, then the sun's going to win and you're going to lose.</p>

<p>"Let the Zones fall where they may." Expose for the subject, and accept that you exposed for the subject. 90% of the time, this will put you in the ballpark.</p>

<p>Is there really anything so wrong with the sky in the first picture? If the sky is not the subject, and not contributing to showing the subject, does it matter that it looks white?</p>

<p>So, if you accept these ideas, then you avoid overexposing the sky by making it the subject of the photograph, metering the sky to make the subject as dark or as light as you want, and expose the photo that way.</p>

<p>The issue is not with your metering system, it's with the contrast in the scene you have chosen to photograph and how you are using the camera. It is unlikely that your compact would be any better at recording your first shot than your dslr, in fact the reverse because most dslrs offer a bit more dynamic range than most compacts. Further the problem you have with image 1 isn't a metering problem because the foreground appears correctly exposed, and if you gave less exposure so as to darken the sky you'll darken the foreground .</p>

<p>Your image 2 is better exposed overall because it has less contrast , thats all. The camera you used is pretty much incidental.</p>

<p>But we all want to photograph at times of the day when the sky is a whole lot lighter than the foreground. There's a lot of ways you can do this with decent results though none of the solutions are universally applicable. </p>

<ul>

<li>You can as you intimated use a ND grad filter to reduce the sky/foreground brightness differential</li>

<li>Assuming you are using a dslr you can take two photographs, one exposed for the sky and one for the foreground, and combine them using an image editor such as Photoshop.</li>

<li>You can use your histogram to make sure that both highlights and shadows have detail- ie nothing touching the left or right of the histogram, and no "blinkies". The resulting image won't look much, but you can lighten the foreground and maybe darken the sky in post. Note that if the brightness range of the scene is greater than that which your camera offers, this technique won't work well.</li>

<li>You can in some circumstances use fill flash to light the darkest foregrounsd areas so allowing less exposure and a better sky</li>

<li>You can recompose to make less emphasis on the brightest areas of the scene.</li>

<li>You can go back at another time when the light is more suited to what you wish to achieve. </li>

</ul>

<p>All of these have their place and none of them is a panacea. You 'll benefit from having a few of these techniques in your armoury.</p>

<p>Many thanks for all of the great answers! For me, the solution lies in either composing the shot differently or choosing a different time of day. Maybe those recommendations seem obvious to some: <strong>But this thread taught me much about <em>why</em> .<br /> </strong></p>

<p>Mike,<br>

Don't overlook the suggestion for a graduated neutral density filter. That is the best way to overcome your dilemma, in my opinion.</p>