# Why sky over exposed



## adikrist (Jul 30, 2010)

Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?

Thanks for tips..


----------



## JasonLambert (Jul 30, 2010)

When you point the camera at your subject it is taking the light meter from the subject and not the sky. Point the camera at the sky and you will see your subject get dark.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 30, 2010)

Thats why people often meter the sky and use flash.


----------



## adikrist (Jul 30, 2010)

Thank for quick reply.

@Jason: if i point the camera on the sky, the subject will be blur as it's not focused.. ?
@Schwettylens: i dont like the effect using flash as the face will look somehow shinny. Any other trick besides using flash?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 30, 2010)

Flash with diffuser


----------



## PJL (Jul 30, 2010)

What are you trying to take pictures of? If you're doing landscapes, then the simple solution is a graduated neutral density filter; they're tinted on top and fade to clear on the bottom, so you can lower the brightness of the sky by a certain number of stops and correctly expose the foreground. 

Shiny faces shouldn't be a problem if you use a fractional power setting on an external flash. It's possible on most external flashes with some manual control to go to 1/2 power or 1/8 power for fill-flash purposes. You can also use a flash diffuser, which is a piece of opaque plastic that attaches to the front of the flash. If you're using on-camera flash, try a piece of tissue paper (or two) taped over the flash to soften it. You should also check on your particular camera model. My Elan 7, for example, automatically assumes the flash will be the primary source of light in P mode and sets the exposure accordingly. In Av mode, however, it assumes the on-camera flash will be a fill flash and sets the exposure as if there were no flash involved.


adikrist said:


> @Jason: if i point the camera on the sky, the subject will be blur as it's not focused.. ?


This isn't that hard to overcome.  Some cameras have exposure lock, where you can meter off one thing, lock in that exposure, and then recompose your shot.  Or, if you shoot in manual using your camera's light meter as your guide, set your shutter and aperture to correctly expose the sky, then recompose your picture without changing your shutter or aperture settings.  That being said, without a flash it's likely that your subject will come out underexposed.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 30, 2010)

You still want to focus on the subject.. but use the shutter speed if you were pointing it to the sky.


----------



## JasonLambert (Jul 30, 2010)

adikrist said:


> Thank for quick reply.
> 
> @Jason: if i point the camera on the sky, the subject will be blur as it's not focused.. ?
> @Schwettylens: i dont like the effect using flash as the face will look somehow shinny. Any other trick besides using flash?



I was just stating this to show the exposure difference. You asked "Why" it was happening.


----------



## pgriz (Jul 30, 2010)

adikrist said:


> Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
> I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?
> 
> Thanks for tips..


 
It happens because your digital camera has a limited dynamic range.  Usually (but it depends on the camera), the camera can handle 4 stops of exposure (over and under) and still show some detail (ie a dynamic range of 8 stops).  Outside of that, things are either white (completely overexposed) or black (completely underexposed).  Some films have a greater dynamic range (10 or even more stops of exposure, depending on the processing).

If you meter the sky and it is 3 stops (or less) brighter than your main subject, you will get some sky detail.  4 stop or more, and you'll be getting white.  So if you want detail in both the sky and your subject, you either lower the sky brightness (by using a graduated neutral density filter), or you adjust your exposure so that both the sky and subject fit within the dynamic range of your camera, or you brighten up your subject using a fill light or flash.


----------



## Dao (Jul 30, 2010)

adikrist said:


> and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.



First, you may need to know that image recording mediums have a limited dynamic range (luminance range) that they can capture.

So when you try to capture a scene where the luminance range between the  brightest point (such as the sky) and the darkest point (such as shadow of the tree) is too high that your recording medium (such as image sensor or film) cannot cover the entire range.

So if your camera meter the lower range, so it can capture all the details about the lower range (i.e. different level of shades), however,  you will lose all the details on the upper range. So anything beyond the upper range will have the same luminous. (Or what people usually refer as blown out).

Of course, if you meter the sky, your camera will capture the details on the upper range, but the details on the lower range will have the same value.  So you may not able to tell if that is a leaf or a shadow of the leaf since they both black.

Now, how to solve the problem.  It really depends on situation.  If you are taking a photo of a person or an object and that subject is close by, you can use a flash, a light reflector to light up the subject so that the camera can capture the entire luminance range of the scene.

What if you are taking a landscape photo, the graduated neutral density filter may help.  Or you can bracket the shots (taking multiple photos of the same scene with different exposure settings) and merge them in post processing.

Or take the photo at a different time when sun is not right above your head


----------



## bigtwinky (Jul 30, 2010)

Great post pgriz.

To add on to it...your meter in the camera is trying to adjust the light to get the exposure to an 18% grey level.  Picture a ruler where you have black on one end, 18% grey right in the middle, and white on the other end.  The 18% grey is the nice middle point for an exposure.

If you have a scene where the sky is bright and the foreground is dark, and you meter the sky (thus telling the camera that you want the sky to be well exposed), what the camera needs to do is bring down the exposure to get the sky nice and exposed.  However, any adjustment to exposure the camera does applies to the entire image.  So as the exposure goes down to make the sky nice, it also goes down to make the foreground even darker.

On the flip side,  if you meter off the foreground (thus telling the camera that you want the foreground to be well exposed), the meter will see that is is dark and then will brighten the exposure to bring it from the black to the 18% grey.  But again, by making the foreground brighter, it will also brighten the sky, which is already bright.  So you end up with a nicely exposed foreground and a blown out sky.

So in other words, the dynamic range is too great for the camera to fully exposure the entire scene properly.  The human eye is way more advanced than a camera lens, which is why we see things properly.  Although if you stare at a bright sky for a while and then look at a dark, shaded area, you will first see only black and then your eye will adjust and brighten the black giving you more detail.  So even the human eye has its limitations.

Funny thing... why did pirates where eye patches?  Not because they had one bad eye.  They often had eye patches on one eye to keep that eye in constant dark.  As pirates would go from above deck where it is really bright to below deck where it is really dark, they would not want to wait for their eyes to adjust.  So when they would go below deck, they would switch the eye patch to the other eye, so their eye that was covered, which is already in the dark, will pick up detail in the dark much quicker.

Ok... back to the topic...

How to fix the scene?
- this is where HDR often comes in.  HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.  What you essentially do is take 3 (or more) images, one in the middle exposure, one that is over exposed (giving you foreground detail but a blown out sky) and one that is underexposed (giving you detail in the sky, but a foreground that is all black).  You then merge these images in an HDR software (Photomatix or PS) and adjust.

- use flash.  If you have a person as a subject, then you can expose for the sky (making the person dark) but then use the flash to light the person.  Works on people, but if you are doing a big street scene with a bright sky, you can't really light the entire street (well, you technically can, but good luck finding all those lights)

- think if you really need the sky or the foreground in the image and adjust your shooting angle.  Adjusting your angle will minimize the really white or really dark parts of the scene.

Hope this helps...


----------



## adikrist (Jul 30, 2010)

Thank you guys!! Very useful tips.... will pay attention next time.


----------



## Ryan L (Jul 30, 2010)

I never knew that about pirates! Aaaarrrrrrgh


----------



## bigtwinky (Jul 30, 2010)

Ryan L said:


> I never knew that about pirates! Aaaarrrrrrgh


 

Arrrr...Iz glad sum landlover read through my entire post....arrrr.
(wow, that was horrible)


----------



## JasonLambert (Jul 30, 2010)

Pilots, before red bulbs and back lit instrument panels, would also use a patch while flying over brightly lit areas so that they could see maps and instrument panels my moonlight.


----------



## adikrist (Aug 5, 2010)

PJL said:


> This isn't that hard to overcome. Some cameras have exposure lock, where you can meter off one thing, lock in that exposure, and then recompose your shot. Or, if you shoot in manual using your camera's light meter as your guide, set your shutter and aperture to correctly expose the sky, then recompose your picture without changing your shutter or aperture settings. That being said, without a flash it's likely that your subject will come out underexposed.


 
When you guys talk about exposure lock, does it mean to lock the shutter speed and the aperture? 
I am using Canon. There is this * button to lock the exposure. 
After pointing at the sky, the display shows the shutter and aperture, then i press *. However, when i move and focus the another object, the shutter and apreture changes also ( while the * still on )
Is this correct, or is it my camera?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 5, 2010)

adikrist said:


> Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
> I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?
> 
> Thanks for tips..



What are you talking about? Show some examples.


----------



## bigtwinky (Aug 5, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> adikrist said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.
> ...


 
Seems that the OP already received 4-5 pretty decent responses that explained his problem, without the need for images.  If you cant understand basic issues without someone drawing a picture for you, I'd suggest posting in threads where you can be of an added value.


----------



## Dao (Aug 5, 2010)

adikrist said:


> When you guys talk about exposure lock, does it mean to lock the shutter speed and the aperture?
> I am using Canon. There is this * button to lock the exposure.
> After pointing at the sky, the display shows the shutter and aperture, then i press *. However, when i move and focus the another object, the shutter and apreture changes also ( while the * still on )
> Is this correct, or is it my camera?



After you lock the exposure, the aperture and shutter speed should stay the same until you fully press the shutter button (take the photo) or press the * button again to re-lock the exposure settings.

For example, in a sunny day, you meter the sky and lock the exposure with the * button.  And then you point the camera downward and AF (half press the shutter button) your subject (such as your friend) and then take a photo.  You will notice the sky exposes properly but your friend is underexpose.  (of course flash can help) It is because the camera will not meter the scene again.


----------



## adikrist (Aug 5, 2010)

Dao said:


> For example, in a sunny day, you meter the sky and lock the exposure with the * button. And then you point the camera downward and AF (half press the shutter button) your subject (such as your friend) and then take a photo. You will notice the sky exposes properly but your friend is underexpose. (of course flash can help) It is because the camera will not meter the scene again.


 
Do the shutter and aperture stay unchanged even i zoom in/out?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 5, 2010)

adikrist said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > For example, in a sunny day, you meter the sky and lock the exposure with the * button. And then you point the camera downward and AF (half press the shutter button) your subject (such as your friend) and then take a photo. You will notice the sky exposes properly but your friend is underexpose. (of course flash can help) It is because the camera will not meter the scene again.
> ...


 
Yes and no.  If you are shooting in manual mode, it wont change most of the time unless you put your aperture to the max or minimum.  Depending on your zoom, most lens will have different min and max aperture.


----------



## adikrist (Aug 5, 2010)

After reading replies on this thread, today i did the practice. This is the result.







When taking the pic i focused on the building in the top image, and on the sky in the bottom one. The image came out exactly as described in this thread and i'm satisfied with the outcome and i learned new lesson today.

However, this lead me to another related questions. 
How to make the building brighter? I tried to use the flash, but didnt make much difference.

Image on top has 1/99 shutter, aperture 6.4, ISO 400
Image on bottom has 1/197 shutter, aperture 8, ISO 400
How come the faster shutter is the smaller aperture is? Shouldnt it be faster shutter, bigger aperture?


----------



## Dao (Aug 5, 2010)

Take a look at this

HDR photo software & plugin for Lightroom, Aperture & Photoshop - Tone Mapping, Exposure Fusion & HDR Imaging for photography


----------



## Gaerek (Aug 5, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > adikrist said:
> ...


 
I haven't found a single thread where he added value yet. Twinky is spot on, this is a basic exposure issue. Someone with 45 years of experience shooting out dated camera equipment should have no trouble understanding the OP's problem.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 5, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > adikrist said:
> ...



I want to see _exactly _what he means. It is not an unreasonable request. Furthermore, I was not talking to _you_.

This was all he wrote:

"Hi, I am a beginner in photography and i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos. I know this is quite a common problem. Found some infos in google, but they all saying about how to fix over exposed sky and how to avoid it.. But what is actually the reason that this happens?"

Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the _exact _problem he has? Right, it isn't enough, is it?


----------



## Gaerek (Aug 5, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
He stated his _exact_ problem in his post. If you cannot understand that, it's not my problem, or anyone else here. Besides, he didn't ask how to fix it or avoid it, he wanted to know _why _it happened. Reading comprehension FTW.



> ...i'd like to know what is the reason that the sky is over exposed in my photos.


 
Examples wouldn't really help in this case because overexposed sky is a symptom of improper metering. The first three replies explained the exact problem, why it was happening, and methods of preventing it in the future. I hardly believe that seeing examples would somehow allow you to give some insight not already offered. 

It's amazing that the half dozen or so individual people who replied before you knew exactly what he was talking about, but you need an illustration. I guess 45 years of experience really doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 5, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > bigtwinky said:
> ...



I was not interested in replies, because they had no more information than I did. I wanted to know exactly what he was having trouble with, and I'll trouble you to stay out, and don't address me again. I wasn't talking to you and don't care to talk to you. _Without specific examples I was not sure what he meant._

Maybe he was taking sunsets for all I know.


----------



## bigtwinky (Aug 5, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Furthermore, I was not talking to _you_.


 
Open forum awad.  If you dont want other people discussing your posts and your thoughts on an open forum, then there is this little thing called a Private Message.  If you get your panties in a twist when someone that you were not talking to replies to your comment, then send the OP a private message for more info



> Now, with only that to go on, how can we assess the _exact _problem he has? Right, it isn't enough, is it?


 
Please dont use the WE here.  I think WE all did fine in understanding his problem.  To the point where what WE said explained the problem, helped him understand, and he now is able to take images and expose for different areas.  Incredible, no?

WE went on fine with what he said.  YOU did not.  So when the user has a whole bunch of replies explaining the issue, jumping in here saying some dribble trollish crap like "What are you talking about? Show some examples." is stupid and pointless.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 5, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, I was not talking to _you_.
> ...



No, it isn't. I'm reporting you. My post was perfectly reasonable. The OP's question was vague and I wanted to _see _what he meant, not what _you _thought he meant.

_When_, _where_, and _how _are the skies overexposed? This is perfectly reasonable to ask. At the time I made my response, early this morning, there was little to go by.

*And again, I was not talking to you, nor do I wish to! *

What is wrong with you people? Where do you get off chastising me for asking the OP for a little clarification? Am I supposed to be a mind-reader?


----------



## OrionsByte (Aug 5, 2010)

adikrist said:


> When taking the pic i focused on the building in the top image, and on the sky in the bottom one. The image came out exactly as described in this thread and i'm satisfied with the outcome and i learned new lesson today.
> 
> However, this lead me to another related questions.
> How to make the building brighter? I tried to use the flash, but didnt make much difference.
> ...



Trying to get this thread back on track...

A flash isn't much help when the subject is more than a handful of feet away, so that's why it didn't make a difference.

What you're going to have to learn is that a camera doesn't see the way we see, and that's because our brains make a lot of adjustments for us before we really "perceive" the scene.  Standing in front of that building, I'm sure it looked plenty bright to you, but to the camera, the difference between the brightest part of the scene and the darkest parts of the scene (the dynamic range) is too great.  To use the ruler analogy that was used earlier in this thread, your eye may be able to see everything from 0" to 12", but the camera has to pick a 6" range, and therefore there's going to be stuff that it "can't see" because it's either too bright or too dark.

The link that Dao posted is about a technique called HDR (High Dynamic Range) that basically lets you take several pictures at different points along the ruler until you've covered the whole range, and then merge them in to one photo using software.  It takes a bit of practice to learn to do it right, and it can be overdone to the point where it's just silly, but in the photos you posted it would really be the only way to keep the sky from getting blown out AND keep the building from being underexposed.

You're learning quickly though, and that's good.  Keep asking questions, and ignore the crotchety folks that just like to piss each other off.


----------



## bigtwinky (Aug 5, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> No, it isn't. I'm reporting you.


 
Oh, please take your ball and go home too.




> My post was perfectly reasonable. The OP's question was vague and I wanted to _see _what he meant, not what _you _thought he meant.


 
Your post was blunt and rude.  As are many of your posts on many of the threads.  It was not reasonable as the explanations where already given.



> *And again, I was not talking to you, nor do I wish to! *


 
And again, its an open forum.  Discussions can be had with anyone.  Make a public post, expect a public reply.  If you want a one on one with someone, send them a private message.

If you do not wish to talk to me, then stop replying to my posts.

Holy god you are a piece of work.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 5, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > No, it isn't. I'm reporting you.
> ...



I am quite amazed that my simple query of the OP, to show us what he meant, should be worthy of comment or interference from you. There are many possible causes, and in some cases what may look like overexposure at first blush, to the novice, may not be overexposure at all. I didn't feel compelled to spell all this out, which is why my simple request provide an example was not inappropriate.

I just asked to see an example of what he was talking about. That was all. It was neither blunt nor rude. The OP's question was too brief and vague to permit a definitive answer, which is why I asked him to provide a sample.


----------



## Gaerek (Aug 5, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I was not interested in replies, because they had no more information than I did.



No, you weren't interested in the replies because you are the God of Photographers and have knowledge that other people don't have, or something like that. As I said before, the question was answered, the problem was addressed. Then you swagger in thinking you can provide insight that wasn't already covered in your, blunt, I'm better than you way.



> I wanted to know exactly what he was having trouble with,


His first post explained that pretty precisely. But again, someone with 45 years of experience should have known that.



> and I'll trouble you to stay out, and don't address me again.


I wasn't going to reply, until I read this. You were begging for me to come back. 



> I wasn't talking to you and don't care to talk to you.


If this is true, then you wouldn't keep replying to every response I make. You see, a dialog requires 2 people. If you don't want that, then stop replying to me. It's a very simple concept. You know, you could also put me on your ignore list too. But, I think you're a glutton for punishment, and will just reply to this post too. 

And Twinky was right again. If this wasn't addressed to the group, then why post in a public forum? There is a thing called Private messages. If you don't want people to comment, use those next time.

_



			Without specific examples I was not sure what he meant.
		
Click to expand...

_SKY IS BLOWN OUT. How more specific can you be? It means the sky is too bright. The meter, in it's attempt to find middle gray, turned the sky completely white. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? There really is only one reason why the sky could be blown out. The situation was irrelavent. Besides, the replies that came WAY before yours encompassed many different situations. Did you just not read them?



> Maybe he was taking sunsets for all I know.


But we all know that you think landscapes are a waste of time and that sports where you can stop a ball in midair, or shots of rhinos in harsh, direct sunlight is where it's at!


----------



## pgriz (Aug 5, 2010)

adikrist said:


> After reading replies on this thread, today i did the practice. This is the result.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
@ adikrist,  you have several options.  In-camera, you can either darken the sky with a graduated neutral density filter (putting the dark part of the filter over the bright parts of the picture), or, if the subject is small enough and close enough to the camera, you can use either fill flash or a reflector that will bounce some light into the dark areas.  When dealing with a building, you cant really do that (unless youre operating a Hollywood studio), and the usual solution is to come back when the light is more favorable.  If the light is behind you, then the chances are higher that the scene in front of you will have exposure values that are closer together.

After the pictures are taken, you have several post-processing options.  If you have two images that have different exposures, then you can merge them (using layers) in Photoshop or similar photo-editing software.  Of course for this to work well, the camera should have been on a tripod and the two exposures should be taken pretty close in time to each other. 

As Dao has indicated, there is also HDR, (which stands for High Dynamic Range), in which the program is given two or more images that differ only in exposure, and the software selects the mid-range elements from each photo and blends them together.  In the hands of a skilled artist, the results can be breath-taking, although it is also possible to produce atrocious results.

Still another option (post-processing) is to select areas that are too light or too dark (but still have some detail), and either burn them in (making them darker), or dodge them (making them lighter).

With respect to your last question, you were probably in auto mode, with the camera setting both the aperture and the shutter speed.  You would probably be better off using your camera in Aperture-priority mode, as this allows you to select the aperture (and the corresponding depth-of-field), and you let the camera select the shutter speed.  Depth-of-field is important in composing photographs because you can direct your viewers attention by using sharp focus on the things you want the viewer to see, and allow the distracting peripheral elements to be out-of-focus.


----------



## OrionsByte (Aug 6, 2010)

adikrist said:


> Image on top has 1/99 shutter, aperture 6.4, ISO 400
> Image on bottom has 1/197 shutter, aperture 8, ISO 400
> How come the faster shutter is the smaller aperture is? Shouldnt it be faster shutter, bigger aperture?



I forgot to respond to this part.

_If you want to keep the same exposure_, then aperture would open up (smaller numbers) as the shutter speed gets faster (higher numbers).  So yes, faster shutter = bigger aperture _if you want to keep the same exposure_.

However, when you metered on the sky instead of the building, your camera adjusted itself to let less light in, which is what you wanted.  In this case it did it by reducing both the shutter speed and the aperture, but you could also have adjusted either one individually as well (though the adjustment would have been bigger).


----------

