Jump to content

How not to blow out the sky?


sleake

Recommended Posts

I was out today taking some pictures, trying to learn not to blow out the sky. It was a partly cloudy day,

in a park. I was using a Cokin P series 121M gradient ND filter. Seemed I was always blowing the sky.

 

What is the "basic" philosophy or technique to keep the sky from over powering? I'm reading and

trying, but just not getting there yet.

 

Did I possibly need a darker filter (more stops)? Should have have stacked a regular ND with the

gradient ND? My guess is that wouldn't help because the difference from the ground to the sky would

have still been too far apart.

 

When you are shooting a landscape and want to capture the sky and clouds, how do you do it?

 

Without some detail and color in the sky, it really makes for a bland photo.

 

Thanks!

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

To help everybody giving advice, could you post a sample of the image you are having a problem with, along with the relevant settings and filter information?

 

My guess is that you probably needed a stronger, or possibly differently edged, filter, but I'd like to see a sample. Using a sky with a lot of white as practice might not be fair to yourself. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, other members might be better able to help you more if you told us what medium you were using. Were you shooting traditional B&W film in a classic Rolleiflex? Kodak color film in a Pentax k1000 or a Leica? Fuji 4x5? Polaroid? Is your favored camera a new Canikon Mega-pixel Marvel? With so many photographers now using so many different formats and media we cannot automatically assume one over the other. The answers made be determined by the type of tools you use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, you can't read my mind? :)

 

Sorry, I should know better. Using a Nikon D300. 12 bit NEF. Cokin 121M filter. Using matrix metering.

 

Looking back through my photos, I realize I did a poor job of keeping track of which I used what filter with, so it is a little more difficult to tell. I was just trying to learn and had that "I have the filter, everything sould work". I'll go back over the pics and see if I can pull a couple. My guess is stronger filter.

 

Sorry for being brain dead tonight...

 

Scott

 

Let me see if I can post a couple for some input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This answer makes a couple of assumptions: one; that you're using a tripod, and two; that you have Photoshop or some other image editor that has layer capabilities.

 

Make two exposures. Meter one for the sky and one for the landscape. Don't mess with the focal length and usually don't mess with the f-stop.

 

Layer them in Photoshop.

 

This can be done in the camera too. The manual, which I don't have in front of me, has information on the settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that not all skies are created equal. A blue sky with some puffy cumulus

clouds will blend nicely and naturally with the landscape if the sun is at your back, while

a high overcast looking toward the sun will be many times lighter than the landscape

(and therefore difficult to capture in a single shot). For those times when the sky is

much lighter, you generally have four choices: 1) use an "appropriate" graduated

neutral density filter, 2) take two exposures as Eric suggested, 3) process a single raw

image at two different exposures, or 4) duplicate the image as a new layer, darken or

lighten one layer, and use the gradient tool to bring the layers into proper balance.

Wait, I forgot 5) HDR, in which the computer does #2 (preferably using more than two

exposures).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several options. One is to shoot in RAW or whatever the Nikon equivalent is then make two developments, one for foreground and the other for sky :

 

Then you can use an ND grad to bring the sky down - to my mind this tends to work better for cloudy skies..

 

Then you can take two sots at different exposures and combine them in PS..

 

The shot below is a combnation of two exposures :<div>00PNxw-43311884.jpg.bc3963d4dc96decf5d90415aae521c0b.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin's shots look so spectacularly nice.

 

But i have never seen scenes like these in my many decades on earth. They are not

what I consider photography. They use harsh digital manipulations and are digital art,

no doubt, and of high, good caliber there. A bit like the Kincaid "paint by numbers

kitsch" found centered above couches in parts of Europe, just the stags with huge

antlers are missing for that form of "Kunst". Yet they do not represent any form of

photographic realism for which i aspire in my work. Others may aspire otherwise.

 

So if the poster wants to get into photography, he needs to show us his pics and let us

see. If he aspires to get into digital art, he should do what Colin does so well.

 

There is a fork in the road here, poster. Beware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, as Frank doesn't like the above shotsI will upload the original versaion of the ND grad shot untouched by PS which will demonstarte what I mean. And it doesn't mater whether people like my shots or not we are discussung tevhniques and possibilitites not aesthetics. You can use the techniques to get whatever effect suits you.

 

I can't remember how many ND grads I used but in these circumstances stacking ND grads will often get you a decent sky. There is a limit though and you can see the blue is turning a bit grey. I can't reember exactly what I used here but prbably in the order of a 0.9 but maube more. That wold be the equivalent of about 3 stops. I have a 0.9 a 0.6 and 0.3 too so mix and match the grads to the lightt. In this case the sun is shning through a thin veil of cloud as you can see which reduces its strength greatly.

 

I always shoot a variety of combinations metering for the foreground and holding back the light sky. I also hand hold the filters as getting them in and out of holders while the light os changing so fast is a real pain. The big 4 inch ones are best as there is much less chance of getting fingers in the shot!

 

.<div>00POPo-43325084.jpg.fb8e628adbb5c4ee1b5aef3aac22ff9e.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest challenges, as Frank alludes to, is to get an image derived

from film/sensor to look like something the eye would see. Too far one way, and you

end up with an image that lacks detail. Too far the other way, and you end up with an

impossible image (at least to the eye). When the shaded backside of a rock looks

brighter than the foreground fully exposed to the sun, that is an impossible image made

possible only by digital manipulation.

 

Based on the position of the sun, I find Colin's first image to be bordering on impossible,

while the second image is very possible (had I not been told, I would have assumed it

was a single exposure). Many viewers won't care and will find both to be beautiful

images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal is to learn how to capture what I see as closely as I can in the camera with as little post work as possible.

 

For me, there is a picture that has been a year in the making. My house/property backs up to some land that used to be a horse farm. There is a large pasture that is filled with "buttercups" (don't know the real name, that is what we called them when I was a kid) and when they are all in bloom, the entire field is yellow with little to no green to be seen. My goal has been to get the sun coming up behind the trees on the other side of the pasture, but that is where the blown sky comes in to play.

 

Late this afternoon I tried with the sun behind me instead. A little different and the field isn't in full bloom yet, but below is what I got using my ND4 gradient Cokin. This is straight out of the camera. No adjustments whatsoever. Looks to be slightly overexposed to me, but I would appreciate your input. (and these were test shots, I'm still trying to figure out how I want to compose it in the end)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, in addition to a GND (if it is needed) for a shot like this, also consider a polarizer to

really bring out the colors in the vegetation. Best of all is a polarizer with Velvia, but that's

another conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intent here is not to turn this into a for and against kind of debate. Photography is art and as such, is subject to MUCH interpretation.

 

Andy - did you do any post processing on that picture, or is it mostly as captured? I'm not trying to be a purist per se, just trying to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll second a polarizer. I am also not sure if there is tree line behind you that would block the sunlight as the sun dips, but you might want to think about taking the picture even later in the day if you can. Just don't try to take it right before sun set. The redder slightly dimmer light might help the flowers a lot, they look a little washed out to me. Otherwise looks like a pretty nice photo to me.

 

Colin I love a lot of your pictures, especially the ship wreck. Not the style I personally go for, but I still like it a lot (I don't paint like Monet either, but I still admire his work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, there is no such thing as a digital image that hasn't been post processed. Either the camera manufacturer does it, or you do it.

 

Attached is the file before going into CS3 with some settings within the RAW converter.

 

In CS3 I do as little as possible but ALWAYS sharpen as my last step. This is the biggest difference between the attached file and the one I posted earlier.

 

Anyway, to answer you original post, I bracket my shots - one exposure for the sky and one for the shadows - and layer the images in Photoshop and use the Gradient Mask tool.<div>00PP37-43339784.thumb.jpg.625e46345fcbbc33d4a7ba2172e82cdb.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott I have been having the same problem so I thank you for this post and have found the information you all provided very useful.

I went to the zoo recently and battled with this due to the time of day mostly and the fact that every time I attempted a shot of the giraffes the sky spoiled nearly all my shots and I had some trouble working it out!

 

I will give these tips a try and see how I go.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Scott, there is no such thing as a digital image that hasn't been post processed.

</i><br><br>

 

This also goes for film images. The sooner the twats who like to pontificate about what is and what isn't a photograph realise this, ....well.... the less cranky I'll be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...