# Best way to get rid of blown out sky



## madisonofriel (Mar 4, 2015)

I am trying to find the best way to get a blue sky instead of white, I've heard several ways but I'm not sure how they would work for PORTRAITS. I have a hard enough time getting enough light for the portraits as it is, but now I need to fix the sky and I really can't afford  to loose that light going to the person if that makes any sense. Any ideas? Thanks

Below is an example of the very common problem


----------



## goooner (Mar 4, 2015)

The best option would be to use a off camera flash I suppose. Or expose for the sky and bring up the shadows in post (this will of course depend on your camera's dynamic range).


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2015)

filter?


----------



## madisonofriel (Mar 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> filter?


I wanted to use a filter but wouldn't it shade the person's face as well?


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

First, you need a camera with high dynamic range (like: D3200, D3300, D5200, D5300, D5500, D7100, D7200, D600, D610, D750, D800, D800E, D810, D810A, DF, D4s).
Second you need to expose the shot to the highlights, not the shadows. The D750 and the D810/A have the new Highlight-Weighted Metering mode, that does that very well.
Third, make sure you're uing RAW file to shoot, not JPG.
Fourth, in RAW file post-processing, recover the shadows of the shot, whiling keeping the highlights without blowing up, and adjust any other parameters.
Last, after you're satisfied, convert it to JPG and be happy.












Or, expose to the highlights and just use a flash to bring up the shadows while shooting.

Good luck!


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 4, 2015)

1) flash is your best option

2) shoot with the sun in their face and/or a reflector

3) filters.  Polarizing filters tend to deepen the sky's blue without overly impacting the subject.  You can also use a blue-yellow filter, which will darken blue tones, but brighten skin tones.  Another option is a graduated neutral density filter, this will make the top of the image (where the sky typically is) darker than the bottom of the image (where the subject with insufficient light usually is).

4) extreme shadow saving with an ultra high dynamic range camera.  expose so that the sky is exactly how you'd want it and then bring the foreground up in post.

5) HDR with a very quick exposure bracketing system and a very still subject.

Let me repeat, flash is your best option.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 4, 2015)

Madison,

You need to read about dynamic range in order to understand the exposure issue but in short, the sky is so bright that, in order to introduce any color into it, the exposure must be so short that the less bright parts (face, etc) are rendered as too dark.

There are several ways to get around this (none of which may work for you here)

Shoot from a slightly higher viewpoint so that the sky doesn't fill the field.
Shoot when the sky has some clouds and is less uniformly bright.
Use a fill-flash or reflector to provide more light to the foreground.
Substitute in a sky in editing.
the use of filters (circular polarizing) will make some difference but, in the situation shown, not enough.  Better technique in choice of your position or time will do the trick here.

I noticed that both of your files, although small in dimension, are very large in bytes.
This is due to saving them in 'high' quality.
That is appropriate for files that are meant to be printed and/or have lots of fine detail but is unnecessary with files that are going to be viewed at screen size on the web. You could save this at much lower quality and reduce the file size by 50% or more without seeing any difference on the screen.


----------



## KmH (Mar 4, 2015)

Spending $2000+ for a different camera is not a very good recommendation for a first step.

Adding to photographer knowledge and skill will pay more long range dividends than buying a new camera.

As mentioned the best solution to use at shutter release is to use supplemental light to balance the dynamic range of the scene.

Failing that, if you have Photoshop you can use Photoshop's Color Range feature or other selection tools to select the sky so it can be replaced with properly exposed sky from a different photo. Many of us have a library of sky photos for just that purpose.


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 5, 2015)

If your going outside shooting portraits outside then a flash can help. The time of day can help. 

My camera does not have that much dynamic range so in post I would probably be lighten the faces a bit and drop the highlights and then just in the sky add bit of blue saturation and drop blue luminence (just saw the second video above shows this step, but I usually do not go as far). 

Just as with the flash, if overdone it does not look real. I think with the shots you have right now the best is to do what Keith said and replace the sky.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> 1) flash is your best option
> 
> ....snip....
> 
> Let me repeat, flash is your best option.



^^^^^^ 
OCF (Off Camera Flash) -- just want to emphasize from what Frank says here: "*best* option."

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Mar 5, 2015)

leave it as is. it looks good.  everything else will look fake.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 5, 2015)

Braineack said:


> leave it as is. it looks good.  everything else will look fake.


when you're outside and you look up at the sky, it looks white to you?


----------



## Braineack (Mar 5, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > leave it as is. it looks good.  everything else will look fake.
> ...


Right now? Why yes.

using tapatalk.


----------



## weepete (Mar 5, 2015)

Use some fill flash when shooting.


----------



## Maxim Photo Studio (Mar 24, 2015)

The Best option would depend on what you have on hand. I start by exposing for the background...always. Underexpose by one stop. Bring in the lights. If you can do HS sync then you would probably shoot wide open which would be great for background blur. If you have to shoot below the sync speeds then adjust the F stop to keep the sky dark.  Here is my recent example with two flashes on each side of the camera.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 24, 2015)

My first advise would be to avoid over exposure to start with. Perhaps not all of your problem, but take a look at the blown highlights on the little boy's head.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 25, 2015)

unpopular said:


> ...take a look at the blown highlights on the little boy's head.



If you use a selective histogram reading you'll find there are no blown highlights on the child's head.

For doing this kind of work in this context, especially if I'm using a low ISO, I'd use a little underexposure and target faces and clothes on a layer in software. A very soft flash burst would be ideal -- no ugly shadows or glowing highlights.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 25, 2015)

I looked at the histogram and you are right. The image is not technically over exposed in the Blue and Green channel. Red is clipped, but this is to be expected.

It is very close to being over exposed, and the specular highlight seems to be extending into lower zones.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 25, 2015)

yeah, the red channel is clipped just a bit...


----------



## Nettles (Mar 26, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> I noticed that both of your files, although small in dimension, are very large in bytes.
> 
> This is due to saving them in 'high' quality.
> 
> That is appropriate for files that are meant to be printed and/or have lots of fine detail but is unnecessary with files that are going to be viewed at screen size on the web. You could save this at much lower quality and reduce the file size by 50% or more without seeing any difference on the screen.



Interesting point. It's true that a little less than the maximum quality setting can have a significant effect on kb size. What I'm not sure about is if it really matters these days when showing photographs online. Do you you think it's that important, even if an image is 1200 or 1400 pixels across? To me it doesn't seem to be.

My feeling on it is, conscientious photographers won't want to risk even a minor visual compromise. The content of images varies and areas of sharp contrast and smooth tones, etc, will be affected when compression is hiked. When we compress we need to watch out for nasty artifacts like halos and pixelisation. 70 ppi covers a multitude of sins, it's true, but if my images are to be displayed on high quality screens of all kinds, I might prefer to err on the side of caution.

Just me?

Typically, download times these days aren't really restrictive and I doubt if hosted storage is a big concern. But I don't use the likes of Flickr and maybe there are costs.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 26, 2015)

unpopular said:


> It is very close to being over exposed, and the specular highlight seems to be extending into lower zones.




You're right, and the child's t-shirt is blown. So exposure could have been pegged back a bit. Might have helped the sky a little, but...


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

Nettles said:


> Might have helped the sky a little, but...



Like I said, it would be just a starting point. Under these circumstances pushing the subject would have likely been too extreme by itself. You'd likely need to place the shirt in like Zone VII-VII 1/2, pushing up to three(!) stops and pulling the highlights some.

Madison - to do this you'd find the brightest portion of the subject and spot meter that area, increase exposure by 1.5-2ish stops and apply an inverse "S- Curve" to the image, making the darker regions brighter and the brighter regions darker. Be sure that this is done in raw mode.

Likewise try metering the sky and placing it in Zone VIII-VIII 1/2 by increasing exposure by 3 to 3.5 stops and again adjusting in post. That would ensure that there is plenty of data being recorded in the sky but providing some headroom for the subject.

You can check other regions. Ensure your brightest area does not exceed four and one half stops less or greater exposure from null (the zero on your meter when AE bias is zero), and anywhere there is useful detail no less than or greater than 3 stops.

You can do this all with AE, but manual exposure helps a little since you don't normally bias the meter.

One thing to keep in mind is that 90° from the position of the sun the sky is typically at Zone V, or ±0 on your meter reading. So under ideal conditions, regions that are fully illuminated by the sun will be "properly" exposed by metering this part of the sky. You can find 90° zenith by pointing your finger toward the sun, forming a "gun" with your thumb. Where the thumb points is where you can meter from. So you can increase exposure some from this point to compensate for indirectly illuminated subjects, but I wouldn't go beyond three, at most three and a half stops. So if your indirectly illuminated subject is within three and a half stops from the region of sky at 90° zenith, you should have sufficuent latitude to get everything.

The sky will appear washed out, so you'll need to compensate that when processing the files.


----------



## drveede76 (Mar 30, 2015)

ruifo said:


> First, you need a camera with high dynamic range (like: D3200, D3300, D5200, D5300, D5500, D7100, D7200, D600, D610, D750, D800, D800E, D810, D810A, DF, D4s).
> Second you need to expose the shot to the highlights, not the shadows. The D750 and the D810/A have the new Highlight-Weighted Metering mode, that does that very well.
> Third, make sure you're uing RAW file to shoot, not JPG.
> Fourth, in RAW file post-processing, recover the shadows of the shot, whiling keeping the highlights without blowing up, and adjust any other parameters.
> ...



Lol, must be a Nikon fan.  This could be debated for days, but this is a slight advantage at lower ISO 100-200, but as soon as you move away from that low ISO (Higher ISO often needed with sunset shots etc) there is no advantage over a Canon sensor.  I am a Canon 6D owner and find that ETTR all but eliminates this advantage.  ETTR isnt taken into account where these comparisons are made.   

Canon also has Auto ETTR with magic lantern that is easy to activate per shot.


----------

