# Need help with something i saw on youtube.  Exposing for the Sky.



## Rudipides (Aug 28, 2014)

Ok guys I saw a video of guy on youtube giving a wedding photography workshop and in one scene he was taking a photo of the subjects outside.  He aimed at the sky and said he was exposing for the sky first and then he aimed back at the subjects and took the picture.   He did this so that the sky was beautiful blue instead of blown out.  I did some test shots yesterday trying to recreate this.  I metered the blue sky and set my exposure. I then aim back down at a subject and take the picture.  As I would have expected my photos come out underexposed.  I could put it in lightroom and recreate the blue skies by adjusting settings as always, but am I missing something in-camera here?

Thanks


----------



## Overread (Aug 28, 2014)

Understand that the camera aims to expose to what is termed neutral grey or 50% grey. It's trying to expose itself so that the bulk of the light data, if you were looking at the histogram, lands in the middle. 

Thus when faced with a subject (like the sky or snow) that is very bright the camera isn't trying to re-create that brightness; instead its going for that neutral grey approach. So the sky or snow would come out underexposed. This is a well documented effect of reflective based metering (as found in DSLRs) and to counter it you simply have to learn that when faced with a subject like that you've got to over-expose the shot a little (by say up to a stop) to compensate for the cameras metering. 



Similarly you'll likely find that when shooting normal not as bright/reflective subjects that if you're in strong lighting you might have to underexpose so that the highlights down blow out.


----------



## Rudipides (Aug 28, 2014)

I just went back and watched the video again and caught something I missed before do to video editing,  he DID use an external flash to expose the couple and still get the blue sky.

thanks


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 28, 2014)

Rudipides said:


> Let me ask it this way;
> 
> Lets say i'm shooting a couple outside in a park on a mostly sunny day where there are plenty of white clouds and pretty blue sky.  And lets say there are a good number of trees around so that the sky is obviously brighter than the couple.  If I expose for the couple, the sky most likely is going to be more exposed if not blown out.  What is the normal technique that you guys use for exposing for the couple but also capturing that beautiful blue sky?    the guy I mentioned in the original post was not using flashes or reflectors, etc.    In my tests I could expose for the sky and then modify the shadows/highlights etc, in lightroom to get the picture I was wanting.  Im wanting to know what it is im missing 'in-camera' to get the same effects.  Or is it the guy in the video was not mentioning that he also got the results via lightroom, etc?



In that case, I would use flash.  The process is; meter for the sky (I usually meter to -1, because I like a darker sky) then I shoot the couple with enough flash power to light them up adequately for the setting the camera is at.  Preferably, I'd use off-camera flash but a camera mounted accessory flash would work as well.

I don't know why 'the guy in the video' was getting good results without flash or reflectors etc.  Do you have a link?  Without knowing more, I'd say that there must have been something in place that is lighting up the subjects, even it it's just a wall or bright ground.  Or maybe the sky just wasn't really that much brighter than the subjects.  Or maybe they were heavily edited.  

Normally, you can't simply get a good exposure of a sky and someone standing outdoors, unless they are lit up very well.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 28, 2014)

Your camera has dynamic range.  It might be 8 stops, or 12 stops or it might be 16 stops, but there is some range.  Everything either brighter or darker than your exposure setting and range, will burn out or be buried in black shadow.  If the scene is fairly evenly lit, you can choose what part to expose for, and probably the rest will be OK, too.  If you expose for a really bright sky, and the ground is in shadow, you will get dark ground.  If you expose for dark ground, your sky will burn out.

I don't know what video you saw.  Lets say you are going out at lunch time, and the sky is blue with white clouds, and you want to saturate that, but you want a foreground person to be exposed well.  Try exposing the sky 1 or two stops under exposed, and fill with flash.  Adjust flash power to taste.

Post the video's link and we can try to figure out what the video depicts.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 28, 2014)

As CameraClicker has noted, the dynamic range of digital cameras as tested in the lab is quite large (up to 16 stops), the practical range is quite a bit smaller (7-10 stops).  So the trick is to make sure everything where you want some detail (from the highlights to the deep shadows) fits within the dynamic range of your camera/sensor.  By checking the exposure of the sky first, he was seeing the exposure for a normal 18% grey rendering of the sky, and I'm sure he was then adjusting the actual exposure to put the sky at the upper end of the dynamic range.  He also probably knew that there was not enough light to render the main part of the image properly, and therefore used the fill flash to bring the main part of the image into the right area of the dynamic range.

When I do these shots, I take an incident light reading (handheld meter) to let me know how much light is falling on my main subject.  I also check the exposure for the sky (if I want it to be rendered properly with colour and detail), and the exposure for the dark shadows.  These then set up for me the dynamic range of the scene.  Knowing the dynamic range of my camera (tested and verified separately), I know that the highlights need to be within 3 stops of the main exposure to be rendered with detail.  Let's say that the highlights (in this case it will be clouds in the sky), meter at 1/2000 sec at f/8 at ISO 100.  I know that my "main exposure" will need to be at 1/250 (3 stops less) at f/8 at ISO 100.  If my incident light reading (off the main subject) reads less than that, then I know I need to use a fill flash or reflector to increase the light on the main subject).  Say it reads 1/30 at f/8 at ISO 100.  That tells me I need 3 stops of additional light.  So I have to make the decision to either use a reflector or a fill flash to get me that light.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 28, 2014)

Rudipides said:


> I just went back and watched the video again and caught something I missed before do to video editing,  he DID use an external flash to expose the couple and still get the blue sky.
> 
> thanks



yep.  set camera to expose for the sky, set the flash to expose for the subject based on the camera's settings.

Otherwise you need a different methodology if you're not using flash.


----------



## sscarmack (Aug 28, 2014)

Jason Lanier

15:55 mark








Your welcome


----------



## Braineack (Aug 28, 2014)

I like this guy.


----------



## Rudipides (Aug 28, 2014)

Yep, that's the video I was watching.  I had to go back and watch that section a couple of more times to see that he did use a flash.

thanks guys.  Your input also helped a lot.


----------



## Rudipides (Aug 28, 2014)

Braineack said:


> I like this guy.



I like him too but most of his images look unnatural as if he post-processed the crap out of them.  If he didn't I would really like to know his settings.


----------



## sscarmack (Aug 28, 2014)

To me, it looks almost like a HDR look, or he bumps the clarity a lot in his photos. Then again, maybe I've only seen a small portion of his photos. And I really wasn't a fan.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 28, 2014)

Don't know if this will help you or not.  Shot on a balcony at 35 mm.  ISO 100, f/6.3, 1/1600th, daylight white balance, High Speed Sync, there are 2 Canon 600 EX RT flashes at full power just beyond arm's reach at camera right, just above eye level.  Exposure was set so meter reading of just sky was 1/3 stop below middle.  Sky unfortunately is just blue, with some cloud just above those distant buildings and the sun is overhead, coming in at a steep angle, about 3:20 pm.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 28, 2014)

sscarmack said:


> To me, it looks almost like a HDR look, or he bumps the clarity a lot in his photos. Then again, maybe I've only seen a small portion of his photos. And I really wasn't a fan.


I've only seen what's In that video. I assumed heavy-handed post work.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 28, 2014)

You can take this to extremes if you want (and if you have enough flash power).

Here is a shot I took a few years ago.  It was taken at about 2:00pm under a very white looking, overcast sky (not stormy at all).
I under exposed the sky (probably two stops or more) and then lit up the subject with an off camera studio style strobe (with portable battery).


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 28, 2014)

Braineack said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > To me, it looks almost like a HDR look, or he bumps the clarity a lot in his photos. Then again, maybe I've only seen a small portion of his photos. And I really wasn't a fan.
> ...



According to his FAQ, about 5% of the photos he supplies to a bride are done in the Painting Look, which is called Jason's Signature Collection.  The remaining 95% are professionally developed and look fantastic, ...  Brides receive 100% standard processing and additionally, 5% Signature look.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 29, 2014)

he can't even lay off the clarity slider tone-mapped look on his wildlife gallery.

look at the overly done sharpness halo around the mouth of this bear: http://static.squarespace.com/stati...398299/Landscapes by Ja-0023.jpg?format=1000w

like are you kidding me here: http://static.squarespace.com/stati.../1384422308003/JAL_2577-Edit.jpg?format=1000w

that shot is awful.  He spent so much time making his "properly exposed sky" look "good" that he couldn't take the time to at least remove the two distract people in the background?  This shot seriously looks like he just tossed it in photomatix.  The bride/groom are distorted and blurry for crying out loud.

I said that I liked him, because I liked what he was saying and his personality from the video, at the time stamp indicated to start watching from. He seems to know what he's talking about, and I like his style of abrasiveness. But honestly, his work does little for me.

I don't like that he claims that his photos look so good because he exposes properly, but then he entire online portfolio consists of ****ty tone-mapped images.  The reason everyone says your skies look fake, is not because you exposed them properly, it's because you made them look fake, Jason.

Good thing it's just a fade and it will end, mark my words.


but back on topic:

OP do you have a flash other than on the camera? 

You don't absolutely need one there are other things you can do. For example: go out to walmart and spend $5 on a white foam core board.  Put the subject in shade, then reflect the sun back on the subject.  Meter off the subject's face but not at the brightest point, and not the darkest.  When you take the shot, the sky shouldn't be as bright.

If you think about it, it's pretty simple.  If the subject is dark, and to expose for them properly, you need a slow shutter.  But a slow shutter leads to the sky being overexposed.  So when you put a whole lot of light on the subject, be it from the sun itself or a flash, then you can reduce the time needed to expose.  When you do this, the sky will darken, but the subject will be now lit up and bright.


----------



## sscarmack (Aug 29, 2014)

Well said, I thought I was the only one


----------



## Braineack (Aug 29, 2014)

like I said, I've never seen his work. and I was chuckling to myself when I first watched the video and saw a few of his shots pop on screen from the workshop and I was thinking to myself: well, I see why everyone claims you "photoshop" your work now.  Viewing his online portfolio just confirmed it.

there's only a few shots in his entire wedding gallery that look natural.

wanna hear a joke?

Q: why do people think Jason Lanier photoshops* his photos?
A: http://static.squarespace.com/stati...384422337527/JD8_4993-Edit-2.jpg?format=1000w



*photoshopping can be a term used when describing highly manipulated images.  It doesn't have to be edited in Photoshop.


would this guy be so highly regarded, sought after without his signature style?  I cant answer that because the only work I see is his signature "from the depths of the HDR Hole" look.


----------



## sscarmack (Aug 29, 2014)

Don't get me wrong, we all have a couple photos that we aren't proud of or we tried something different. But this is his 'signature style'.

This is as far as I got with tone mapping and HDR


----------



## Rudipides (Aug 29, 2014)

1.  Yes I have an external flash and do use it.  My original question was due to not understanding what the guy said in the video. I thought he was getting the blue sky exposed along with the subjects WITHOUT using his flash. but going back I did see where he mentioned that he used a flash.

2.  the added input about this has ALSO been a great help to me.  I always accept tips and advice. Never stop learning.

3.  The guys (Jason Lanier) stuff all looks plastic or cartoonish to me.


----------

