blown out sky- how not to?

[rtrace]

Garry,

 

I'm not anti Photoshop. I may be Photoshop stupid/limited though, but that's another thing ;)

 

Photoshop is fine for fixing (as are RAW converters), and the better you are, the better your fixes will look. But IMO getting it right in camera will benefit everyone - even the Photoshop experts. Less post work and not everything can have a nice/natural fix.

 

Bogdan

[picturesque]

I'm kinda agreeing with Bogdan about this image, because if it is a Beatles "Abby Road photo", it should be in color and the exposure slanted toward a saturated sky would knock out distracting detail behind the subjects as well. The only problem would be having enough flash power to fill against bright sun at that distance from the subjects.

[timcorridan]

you guys beat me to the crop idea, here's my take...<div></div>

[fotografz]

I wonder how many watt seconds of strobe power you'd need to light balance that sky with

a subject that is that far away?

 

Reminds me of all the tourists on top of the Empire State building at dusk trying to light

up NYC with their P&S flash : -)

 

The idea of watching the sun when shooting available light is part of the concept of

anticipation.

 

I also don't think that using PS to help with such matters is particularly wrong. It's no

different than when Ansel Adams burned in portions of a print because even using the

zone system some scenes are beyond the range of film or digital sensors to record ... so a

compromise has to be made. How skillfully it's done is another matter.

[elaine marie]

Tim <P> Yes heading to Whiskey Row's "THE PALACE" for the reception. Nice dark venue...than add Dj with disco ball ,colored lights and a fog machine that set off the fire alarm... Auto focus whats that?THis is off topic but heres a picture of the bride with the fireman that arrived.<P>Back to topic... I really just want to learn technically how to handle bright backlighting ...not how to PS it. But thank you for all the advise I will take what I need.I guess its about being in the right place at the right time and thinking 5 steps ahead of what your shooting.The next time I shoot in downtown Prescott I'll get my Abbey road shoot right.<P>Elaine Marie<div></div>

[twmeyer]

I would handle this by exposing a RAW file and use multiple conversions to blend in post, but I wanted to make a contribution to the contest, as the stakes are so high :^)... t<div></div>

[rtrace]

Funny guys here! I never said Photoshop was wrong, just not the answer to this question - which the poster agreed to in her last post...So?

 

Again, the way to handle strong backlighting (if you want to expose both the background and subject) is with FLASH! Can you do it by shooting RAW and blending exposures? Yes/maybe. You can also bracket exposures or whatever, but that doesn't seem as practical.

 

Now, how would *I* have taken that particular shot? Obviously I realize you'd need a lot of flash from that distance, but there is no alternative I see. So I would have used a wide angle lens, moved in much closer, and I wouldn't need that much flash power (my 550EX would do just fine at that point) and I'd get the back too. That's how I'd take that shot. Point is that flash is the way to handle strong backlight in-camera - not post. If you're lucky and you can get an angle where the sun is not in your face, good, but that's not the case all the time, nor the question here.

 

You can watch the sun all you want and anticipate and miss your shot.... Not saying anticipation and awareness of light are not important, they ARE, but you have to be flexible. Don't hate the flash!

 

Bogdan

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

A variation of Marc's: selected the sky as a layer, added a gradient mask then darkend with a levels adjustment layer. Also cropped and straightened a bit.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Sorry about that<div></div>

[williamchuttonjr]

IMHO the "Add A Sky" image looks as like ut was taken on another planet.

[fotografz]

Any work on Elaine's image will look foreign since all that anyone has to work with is a

500 pixel compressed jpeg. Anything added to that tiny j-peg in PS will be uncompressed

and mechanical looking.

 

10 to 1 bet that the original has some trace of tone in the sky (unless it was totally blown

to zero info during exposure, which I doubt since backlit shots are usually underexposed

and attempts to lift the shot to see the subject destroys the light areas.) ... so it could be

processed as two shots then layered for use of the history tool or eraser tool.

 

Elaine, was this photo from a film neg or was it a digital shot? If a digital shot, was it taken

as a RAW file or a jpeg. Was the original, out of the camera image dark or washed out (not

the proof, the file itself) ?

[garethspics]

If you shoot neg.film expose for the shadows and you will probably get the dynamic range on the neg, but you will still need to do a bit of Photoshop to sort out the print. Your local lab may or may not do a decent job.

[fotografz]

Don't disagree with you Bogdan ... it's always better to get it right in the camera. However

more than one person has mentioned that the flash probably couldn't fill from that far away.

And, a wide angle of this shot close enough to fill against a bright sky using an on camera

flash would be a completely different photo.

 

If I couldn't get to the opposite side in time, and had to shoot it against the sun, I'd simply

crop out the sky altogether, and would have framed it that way in the camera if possible.

[jmichaelc]

Elaine -

 

As others suggested, if your forced to shoot under these conditions, then there is simply nothing you could have done here. However, i belive you did the right thing - you exposed the subjects properly and you converted to BW. Under these conditions, i would have considered this shot a success. Out of all the attempts here, i like your origional shot the best - blown sky and all. Looks real and the way you cropped it looks balanced.

[jmichaelc]

Actually, on second look, i like Toms crop the best......less road.

[rich_taylor____mequon__wi]

It was a grab shot. It wasn't pre-planned and measured and stylized. It wasn't the Abbey Road cover shoot. You work with what you have. The exposure was a difficult one, and while the image won't win any technical awards, it works for what it is. It's fun and it's quirky and a bit different and it's got a blown-out sky. I can live with it. I'd crop it just a bit, but I wouldn't make all the sky corrections. None of them work, IMO.

[ned1]

If you are shooting b&w film, either use a yellow filter or pull it a stop or print and burn the sky.