# Blown Out Sky... ALWAYS?!?!?



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

I need some serious help here.  I am getting tired of the sky in my images always being blown out.  I love the light and airy look, so I tend to overexpose by a stop or so, but that is resulting in a blown out sky.  What is the trick to avoiding this?  Fill flash?  HELP!?!?


----------



## jaomul (Aug 22, 2017)

If you overexpose you'll get blown out areas. Is it for backlight portraits this is happening, or wildlife? Have you any examples


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

Yes back light portraits of families and kids etc


----------



## jaomul (Aug 22, 2017)

It looks like the sky is very dull or grey rather than blown out, but my screen might not be the best.

The camera is metering the scene and averaging out, so the dark area is a little brighter, but the sky goes to far.

An off camera flash (maybe even cameras own flash) would help here. The dynamic range of the camera struggling to get everything balanced. 

Do you shoot raw? If so it might be possible to take a shot allowing sky to be ok but foreground a little dark, then push shadows a little. The success of this varies from camera to camera.

If shooting jpegs your camera may have a setting to help with dynamic range. What make is your camera?


----------



## Timppa (Aug 22, 2017)

jaomul said:


> Do you shoot raw? If so it might be possible to take a shot allowing sky to be ok but foreground a little dark, then push shadows a little. The success of this varies from camera to camera.
> If shooting jpegs your camera may have a setting to help with dynamic range. What make is your camera?



Just what I was thinking.
If possible, use Raw, do not overexpose 1 stop, and just lower the highlights and bring up the shadows. Of course not to much or you create an unnatural effect.
You can also put a Graduated Filter on the sky and lower the highlights even more, not touching the shadow areas.

another possibility, but more work, is to take 2 or 3 images every time fast with -1,0,+1 exposure and put together with HDR, ofcourse the trick is here also not to make it look like an HDR, because it should stay natural. You can also cut out the -1 exposed sky and stick it together with the +1 foreground, but yeah... lots more work.


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 22, 2017)

Using a graduated filter will allow you to balance out the sky but you need something like a Conklin with a holder that allows you to adjust the graduation by sliding and stacking The Cokin Creative Filter System these are moderately expensive, but you can find flea Bay knockoffs for less than $30. 

Or you can use an off camera speedlight to provide fill light on the subject. Which will even up the difference in light on the subject and the brightness of the sky.

Lastly a large reflector, white or silver can be used to move light on to the subject for fill


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)

Other than bracketing, I like the graduated filter idea the best.  With the square ones you can tilt and adjust them up/down based on the landscape. 

With a flash it would help balance everything out, but you are taking a "portrait" from quite a distance.  So the flashes would have to be of to the side(s) at least 10 feet?  And I'd hate to take flash equipment out in a field with this scenario without first trying simplier GND square filter solution first.


----------



## Destin (Aug 22, 2017)

To expand upon astronikon's post:

The way I would shoot this would be to put the camera on a tripod, put a lightstand(s) wherever I need in the frame to light the subject, get a good exposure of them. Then without moving the camera, have the subjects and lightstands removed from the scene and get a couple of shots exposing for the sky and the foreground. 

Then take them shots into photoshop and use layer masks to blend it all together. 

Complicated? Sure. Best results possible? You betcha. 

The graduated filter idea is fine, but you're still going to have less than ideal light on your subjects. Looking at the photo on my phone I don't think you've overexposed at all.. I think the subjects are about a half stop underexposed.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2017)

First and foremost, WHY, if this is a portrait are the people so small in the frame?  If you want to have a portrait with a large expanse of landscape behind them, you need to bring them into a foreground corner close to the camera.  Your exposure is nothing more than a need for additional light.  Yes, you can you try HDR, G-ND filters and a half-dozen other techniques, but at the end of the day, it's a portrait, you need controllable lighting on a very small area (the people).  Two lights & stands would be perfectly adequate to manage this properly.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 22, 2017)

tirediron said:


> First and foremost, WHY, if this is a portrait are the people so small in the frame?  If you want to have a portrait with a large expanse of landscape behind them, you need to bring them into a foreground corner close to the camera.  Your exposure is nothing more than a need for additional light.  Yes, you can you try HDR, G-ND filters and a half-dozen other techniques, but at the end of the day, it's a portrait, you need controllable lighting on a very small area (the people).  Two lights & stands would be perfectly adequate to manage this properly.


I was curious about that too, but hey, you never know "fads" or something ...

It was a head scratcher as my answer was based on his example image.  A long distance from subject with extensive space to either side.


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two.  Does it look ok?


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

tirediron said:


> First and foremost, WHY, if this is a portrait are the people so small in the frame?  If you want to have a portrait with a large expanse of landscape behind them, you need to bring them into a foreground corner close to the camera.  Your exposure is nothing more than a need for additional light.  Yes, you can you try HDR, G-ND filters and a half-dozen other techniques, but at the end of the day, it's a portrait, you need controllable lighting on a very small area (the people).  Two lights & stands would be perfectly adequate to manage this properly.



BTW, I do have an image from the evening of the couple closer up off to the side I just quickly picked this one to share for reference.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two.  Does it look ok?



The composite work isn't very skillful but it looks just OK. The lighting on the couple is too flat. What you have here is a recipe for going out of business. Post processing hoops is a terrible idea if you're trying to run a business. You don't have the time for that and no matter how good you eventually get at it you'll never have the time for that if you hope to make enough money to pay the electric bill to keep the computer running.

*You got the right answer from tirediron.* There isn't a better answer or an alternative answer. *To do this right you will carry off camera portable lighting equipment into the field and learn to use it properly.*

Post processing hoops is a dead end.

The other alternative is to become a fauxtographer, nuke your skies to oblivion, then in LR drag them down to grey and tint them yellow -- telling your clients it's your unique style. And we will all do this:


 

Joe


----------



## KmH (Aug 22, 2017)

What light metering mode do you usually use?

The people in both shots are significantly under exposed.
The first couple by about 1.25 stops, the second couple not as bad, but fill light was needed on both couples - either reflected or flash - to help isolate them light wise from their surroundings.

Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Location Photography

Direction & Quality of Light: Your Key to Better Portrait Photography Anywhere
On-Camera Flash Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography
Off-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Photographers

Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)
The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop (2nd Edition)
The Digital Print: Preparing Images in Lightroom and Photoshop for Printing


----------



## Timppa (Aug 22, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two.  Does it look ok?


I like it! But maybe bring in a little bit more depth?contrast?


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 22, 2017)

If you shoot raw and use lightroom or similar program.  You can bring the sky back down with a graduated filter option and adjust just it's exposure or combinations of settings.  So, you would expose for the couple and fix the sky in post.  Most of the time you can bring back at least some clouds.  Unless it's way overexposed / blown out.  Or if you don't mind the little extra time.  Change the sky completely in post! 

With digital, expose for the subject (using RAW).  And you can fix or change just about anything in post!  Now having proper lighting to begin with, means less time in post.  But sometimes you don't have the equipment or mother nature just doesn't want to cooperate.  The extra time in post is the fix!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 22, 2017)

The exposure looks off. If it's overcast and the sky isn't pretty I often frame differently to have less sky in the frame. I sometimes aim the camera down a little toward the subject to get a meter reading, then reframe the shot. And get closer to the subject; this maybe wasn't the day to try a scenic view of the couple against a lousy sky and tall dry grasses. 

This seems like you need to get out with just your camera and figure out how to get proper exposures in a variety of conditions, and get in more practice, before trying to do more portraits. I wonder if you missed basics early on and could benefit from further learning.


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> kitkatdubs said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two.  Does it look ok?
> ...



How do you carry around off camera portable lighting when you have a toddler running a 100 mph at a session?  I just dont get the answer to that.  It's not practical.  Another answer would have been more beneficial.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 22, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > kitkatdubs said:
> ...



Is it your own toddler or a toddler that's the subject? I have toddlers and shoot families, so I have answers to both. I would never bring my own child to a shoot that I had paying clients at, because I could never concentrate. If the clients have children, that's a different story. 

I nearly always use flash or reflectors, because I became frustrated with blown out skies as well. I tried the current trend of compositing skies (and not usually even the sky that was there) and felt dissatisfied with that as well. Using flash doesn't just balance out the light, it also sculpts the features and adds catchlights. 

For toddlers in photos with their parents, the parents will keep them in place, so you just have to entertain them. I have a "photographer's hat" with a giant fish on it, and I'll start pretend sneezing until the hat falls off, and they all think that's hilarious. (Keep the camera on a tripod...this isn't possible when handheld.) For toddlers by themselves, if they start running around, then the parents become your lighting assistants. They can move the umbrella/ softbox in the general direction or follow them with a reflector. You can even hold the reflector and the camera in a pinch. 

But really, chasing toddlers around is a problem even if you don't have lighting. You've likely staked out the best possible spot, where the light and shadows are just right and the background is clear and free of distractions. So you're already trying to get them to stay in one general spot. Adding flash isn't really much more complicated than that.


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

How do you carry around off camera portable lighting when you have a toddler running a 100 mph at a session?  I just dont get the answer to that.  It's not practical.  Another answer would have been more beneficial.[/QUOTE]

Is it your own toddler or a toddler that's the subject? I have toddlers and shoot families, so I have answers to both. I would never bring my own child to a shoot that I had paying clients at, because I could never concentrate. If the clients have children, that's a different story.

I nearly always use flash or reflectors, because I became frustrated with blown out skies as well. I tried the current trend of compositing skies (and not usually even the sky that was there) and felt dissatisfied with that as well. Using flash doesn't just balance out the light, it also sculpts the features and adds catchlights.

For toddlers in photos with their parents, the parents will keep them in place, so you just have to entertain them. I have a "photographer's hat" with a giant fish on it, and I'll start pretend sneezing until the hat falls off, and they all think that's hilarious. (Keep the camera on a tripod...this isn't possible when handheld.) For toddlers by themselves, if they start running around, then the parents become your lighting assistants. They can move the umbrella/ softbox in the general direction or follow them with a reflector. You can even hold the reflector and the camera in a pinch.

But really, chasing toddlers around is a problem even if you don't have lighting. You've likely staked out the best possible spot, where the light and shadows are just right and the background is clear and free of distractions. So you're already trying to get them to stay in one general spot. Adding flash isn't really much more complicated than that.[/QUOTE]

Haha no I dont bring my kids to my sessions, EVER.  But I've encountered many situations with young kids were they literally do not sit still and I am running all over the damn place trying to get them to cooperate.  I am noticing these days that people like the more "lifestyle" feel.  They are tired of the mundane pose and smile portrait sessions.  They want candid interactions with there families.  They want drama and shadows, not the perfectly exposed portraits from the 80's.  I know there are rules to photography, but it's subjective and if there are people paying for your work, then you are obviously doing something right.  I do own a flash that I use for indoor sessions.  I would LOVE to learn how to use off camera flash but it seems like too much of a rig-a-ma-roll to haul around all this **** at a session with young kids running around (I shoot primarily young families.)  It just does not seem practical.  I'm not sure what the solution is b/c I do not like blown out skies.  Is this photo any better?  I used a sky overlay- I am not sure if it looks believable or not. I've seen sky overlays done well and they look amazing... not sure if my skills are there yet.


----------



## KmH (Aug 22, 2017)

cherylynne1 said:


> Using flash doesn't just balance out the light, it also sculpts the features and adds catchlights.


 Yep. Flash or reflected light.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Aug 22, 2017)

I'm seeing a halo around some of trees, and it also looks unnatural to have the sky so dark all the way to the skyline. If you look outside, the sky tends to gradually lighten as it gets close to the horizon.

And yes, they like lifestyle, but they want it to look natural while everyone is still smiling and looking at the camera, which is on the verge of being impossible. 

I had a recent session that I wasn't thrilled with because I had two toddlers running in separate directions and the sky was mostly blown out, but I did get enough light from the flash to brighten their features, which I had to be satisfied with. Sometimes you take what you can get. A couple from that session: 

DSC07048-Edit

DSC06950


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 22, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> Haha no I dont bring my kids to my sessions, EVER.  But I've encountered many situations with young kids were they literally do not sit still and I am running all over the damn place trying to get them to cooperate.  I am noticing these days that people like the more "lifestyle" feel.  They are tired of the mundane pose and smile portrait sessions.  They want candid interactions with there families.  They want drama and shadows, not the perfectly exposed portraits from the 80's.  I know there are rules to photography, but it's subjective and if there are people paying for your work, then you are obviously doing something right.  I do own a flash that I use for indoor sessions.  I would LOVE to learn how to use off camera flash but it seems like too much of a rig-a-ma-roll to haul around all this **** at a session with young kids running around (I shoot primarily young families.)  It just does not seem practical.  I'm not sure what the solution is b/c I do not like blown out skies.  Is this photo any better?  I used a sky overlay- I am not sure if it looks believable or not. I've seen sky overlays done well and they look amazing... not sure if my skills are there yet.




Having remote flashes is not rig-a-ma-roll.  It's proper photography.  Yes, some things can be done in post as I said.  But to do it for every shot and every customer takes money from your pocket!   It's actually not hard to have two remote lights on 2 stands.  Especially if you can control them remotely!  With grips and clamps reflectors can be used with stands as well, if you don't or can't get an assistant.

Several solutions has been written to your problems.  One is to meter for the subject and fix the sky in post.  The other is to use additional light sources to have an even scene.  Another is your own solution of using the stacked photo's metered for each.


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> kitkatdubs said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a picture of one I did the other night where I took two images, one over exposed and one under and then did a composite of the two.  Does it look ok?
> ...



Your way of talking to people really isn't helpful.  Please keep your comments to yourself.


----------



## deeky (Aug 22, 2017)

Flash is too much rig-a-ma-roll?  Personally, I would consider paying much of anything for these three photos too much rig-a-ma-roll for me.  Exposure is off, white balance is off, your third photo addresses those two but see the above comments regarding editing artifacts.  

Not being mean, just trying to provide honest reality.

If you have people paying for these, then good for you.  I think there's a ways to go to move from joe/jane-wtih-a-camera to professional.  

This summer I took family photos at my own family reunion.  We have a professional portrait photographer in the family, but due to other family issues like attending a funeral that afternoon, he didn't have his camera along.  I very quickly realized that, while I could handle the camera, it was largely the handling of the subjects that made him a professional.  SO glad he stepped in to help just getting everybody lined up and coordinated!  If you're going pro, you need to provide the services of a pro.  And I know that's not me.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > kitkatdubs said:
> ...



Sorry, I hadn't considered those 100 mph. toddlers.

Joe


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > kitkatdubs said:
> ...


It should be helpful because it's correct.  You may not like it, and may seem inconvenient or "riga-maroll" but it's how it's done.  A personal example:  Last year I had a call from a family that was visiting from Saskatchewan, and wanted a particular "running along the beach" family shot with Mom, dad and two children (~4 & 7).  Because they could only be available around mid-afternoon, I knew the light was going to be harsh, so I set up a series of four or five lights (can't remember how many) with large-ish modifiers so that I had a+/- 1/3 stop band of light that was about thirty feet long.  IIRC, they "ran" along the beach at least a dozen times before I got one that I was happy with....  That required four (or five) lights, stands, and umbrellas, two power supplies, two inverter battery packs, and close to an hour of set-up/prep time.  The smallest print they ordered from the session was an 11x14...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 22, 2017)

But Joe (Ysarex) makes some valid points - and refers you back to John (tirediron) who's giving you some reliable professional portrait techniques. I've been a photographer for years & years and still have learned something from those guys. And yeah, toddlers are active, so it's probably going to take getting good at action shots and being able to get shots efficiently and quickly. 

It's not just the sky, the exposure looks off for the whole photo. It seems like you aren't seeing that. Maybe you don't want to hear that, or you don't want to find out that there's more to learn and that you need to bring up your skill level. I guess you can be mad at the pros giving you advice or realize they might be trying to help you. Maybe take a breath and stop and think about it and reconsider what they're telling you.


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 22, 2017)

I think what I dont like are Joe's sarcastic remarks.  He sounds like a know it all.  I personally dont like dealing with people who act pious and hot headed.  He's making dumb jokes that really arent necessary.  I dont need his criticism.  And to be honest, I used to come to this place a lot for help but stopped b/c everyone's "constructive criticism" was not friendly by any means.  With that being said, hows the exposure and WB on this image.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> ...hows the exposure and WB on this image.


The WB looks okay, 'though this monitor isn't necessarily perfectly calibrated.  The exposure isn't bad, but there's a loss of detail in the white of the dress, and you have background highlights which are brighter than the subject; as the human eye is always attracted to bright over dark, this serves to pull the eye away from the subject and to the background.  1-2 stops of fill light would have knocked down the highlights and produce a better overall image with reduced dynamic range.


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 23, 2017)

tirediron said:


> kitkatdubs said:
> 
> 
> > ...hows the exposure and WB on this image.
> ...



Thanks I appreciate your feedback.  Curious what your thoughts are on Mastin Labs presets?  Anyone in here use them?


----------



## kitkatdubs (Aug 23, 2017)

tirediron said:


> kitkatdubs said:
> 
> 
> > ...hows the exposure and WB on this image.
> ...


BTW, there is no detail in the dress.  Its white, stretchy jersey knit cotton so there is no detail on it.  Its plain.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 23, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> I think what I dont like are Joe's sarcastic remarks.  He sounds like a know it all.  I personally dont like dealing with people who act pious and hot headed.  He's making dumb jokes that really arent necessary.  I dont need his criticism.  And to be honest, I used to come to this place a lot for help but stopped b/c everyone's "constructive criticism" was not friendly by any means.



He didn’t sound like that at all. However you sounded like you don’t have a clue what your doing (overexposing images and wondering why the sky is blown out) and yet you are taking clients money. Things like this don’t go over well around other photographers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rosh4u (Aug 23, 2017)

The reason behind blown out areas is the overexpose which you need to look forward too and overcome.


----------



## weepete (Aug 23, 2017)

Well Kitkatdubs, your sky is blown out because it's a lot lighter than your foreground and as far as I can see there's four ways of dealing with it. 

1. Lighten the foreground 
2. Darken the sky
3. Shoot different exposures and combine in post
4. Shoot somewhere and some time where the foregound and sky are evenly lit.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> ...BTW, there is no detail in the dress.  Its white, stretchy jersey knit cotton so there is no detail on it.  Its plain.


Every fabric has detail; Shadows, folds, the weave, etc.  A garment should never appear as a single, detail-less piece of fabric, unless it is exposed incorrectly.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 23, 2017)

kitkatdubs said:


> I think what I dont like are Joe's sarcastic remarks.  He sounds like a know it all.  I personally dont like dealing with people who act pious and hot headed.  He's making dumb jokes that really arent necessary.  I dont need his criticism.  And to be honest, I used to come to this place a lot for help but stopped b/c everyone's "constructive criticism" was not friendly by any means.  With that being said, hows the exposure and WB on this image.



The WB is blue -- her skin tone is off and the dress is blue -- probably should be white. You know you blew out the sky so crop it off. Otherwise the image is flat. The large expanse of lawn is a problem because your subject isn't separating well from the background -- another aspect of insufficient contrast. And Tirediron is right about the detail loss in the dress. Here's some of those problems adjusted. And the best solution to the exposure/contrast problems would be to balance the lighting with front fill. I am trying to help -- you did ask for help.

Joe


----------



## gozooming (Aug 23, 2017)

Try to use a polarized filter. it helps


----------

