# How do I stop blowing out the sky!?!



## allison_dcp (Sep 16, 2012)

Took some photos today at our reunion with my Canon EOS 20D and 50mm lens. I am working on my exposure and was paying close attention to the meter on the camera and my settings, but still manage to blow out the sky! How can I avoid this?(f/5 1/250 and 200ISO)


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 16, 2012)

FLASH! as in Fill!


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 16, 2012)

Nd filter my friend.. graduated kind.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 16, 2012)

Flash. This is why Natural light is HARDER THAN HELL and most "natural light" photographers are really just scared of flash. It should be the opposite-flash is MUCH easier and they should be terrified of natural light! 
 And don't place people in front of a tree trunk like that. It SOUNDS good when you do it, but trunks aren't pretty and they hurt your composition.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 16, 2012)

Bottom line is exposure. You're metering their face most likely and getting the proper exposer for them. The sky is much brighter. If you want a darker sky, you'll need a faster shutter. Now under exposed people. You could then add fill with a flash, sure. If you get a graduated ND filter, you can put the darker part of the filter in the sky framed above your subjects. Cheaper than buying a flash and less weight to carry around. Just an overall good option also.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 16, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> Bottom line is exposure. You're metering their face most likely and getting the proper exposer for them. The sky is much brighter. If you want a darker sky, you'll need a faster shutter. Now under exposed people. You could then add fill with a flash, sure. If you get a graduated ND filter, you can put the darker part of the filter in the sky framed above your subjects. Cheaper than buying a flash and less weight to carry around. Just an overall good option also.



A GND might be useful in 1 of 10 shots.... too limiting in the framing.... and what if you have sky behind the people? GND on them might look a bit odd, don't you think? (wow.. how did they get that half tan so fast?)

Or if you use a Cokin type GND where you can slide it, than you have dark sky above people, and light sky behind them... doesn't look very natural!

With flash.. you can use aperture to control the exposure on the subject, and shutter speed to underexpose the sky.... works great!


----------



## allison_dcp (Sep 16, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> Bottom line is exposure. You're metering their face most likely and getting the proper exposer for them. The sky is much brighter. If you want a darker sky, you'll need a faster shutter. Now under exposed people. You could then add fill with a flash, sure. If you get a graduated ND filter, you can put the darker part of the filter in the sky framed above your subjects. Cheaper than buying a flash and less weight to carry around. Just an overall good option also.


This makes complete sense!! Thanks! Oh and I did use a flash, but had it almost aimed straight up b/c of my lack of practice and time with the flash. Also I agree with the tree, uck, there were people everywhere. This was mainly a snapshot.


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2012)

Think of it light this. There is a variation in light in any normal scene between the darkest points and the brightest points - this range is the dynamic range of the scene. Now your camera has a limited dynamic range, over that range it can record detail from the darkest to the brightest points and outside of that range it records either pure black (shadows) or pure white (brights). 

In the scene you have above the camera simply can't record the whole dynamic range from the darks to the bright parts. Yes you could adjust the exposure to account for the sky, but he result would be that your darks would then be shifting into their limited point (they'd be going pure black). In addition you've the subject - that is the part that you really want exposed right and can't afford to have over or under exposed to any great degree. 


So what can you do? Well you can add or remove light to the photo. Now you can't easily remove the sun from the sky, and if you can't compose without the sky being a part of the photo you've got only one choice - adding light to the shaded areas. Boosting the light there means that the whole dynamic range from the brightest to the darkest points has been reduced and as a result will be able to fit into the dynamic range of the camera. 

Adding light can come in many forms from a simple reflector bouncing light onto the scene up to flashes and studio stobes. Learning how to use various different kinds for different effects is very important - it need not be overly complex, but learning it is important. Furthermore remember that just as you can add light you can also remove it - a black sheet can be used (out of scene) to block light or you can use a diffuse surface - in this shot you've already used a light blocker to soften the light - that being the shade cast by the tree itself.


Learning to control light is important and it releases you from a lot of limitations which will otherwise greatly reduce the quality and also greatly reduce the times that you can take photographs.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is exposure. You're metering their face most likely and getting the proper exposer for them. The sky is much brighter. If you want a darker sky, you'll need a faster shutter. Now under exposed people. You could then add fill with a flash, sure. If you get a graduated ND filter, you can put the darker part of the filter in the sky framed above your subjects. Cheaper than buying a flash and less weight to carry around. Just an overall good option also.
> ...



Yeah, and in this shot it would have worked flawlessly.


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2012)

An ND filter would not have worked in this photo. An ND filter gives you a single sheet of dark glass which reduces light coming through- just like sunglasses. An ND filter is designed to block out the light over the whole of the cameras view and if you get a screw in kind that is what you get - a drop in the exposure over the whole image.

Now if you get a graduated ND screw in filter you get a line of difference through the middle - one half being more blocked out than the other (aimed at skylines where you've a clear line between a dark ground and bright sky). 

Now if you get the square kind that go into a filter holder then with both kinds of ND filter you can vary the position of the filter in the scene. However for the photo above you've not got a clear area divide between the bright and the dark parts. The bright sky appears either side of the tree so you'd have to be very creative with a couple of ND filters to block out only the sky parts without catching the tree as well. IF you just blocked out all the light from the top half you'd have a very underexposed tree compared to the rest of the photo and that would seem odd indeed. 

ND and ND graduated filters do have their place, but you've got to have a scene which benefits from them being used.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Sep 16, 2012)

The ND grad filter is NOT the solution for this image or most high dynamic range portraiture. It's usefulness with landscapes is paramount. 

In post, you can always try lightroom 4 highlights/shadows slider. Adobe has really figured out their algorithms to pull back highlights and lift shadows intelligently (to a certain limit). 

But fill flash will save you a bunch of exposures. Learn it!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 16, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MK3Brent said:
> ...



No.. I am afraid it wouldn't! It would have been light tree / dark tree... would not look natural!  GND's are great for landscapes with unobstructed sky, or a fairly level horizon... and that is about it!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 16, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is exposure. You're metering their face most likely and getting the proper exposer for them. The sky is much brighter. If you want a darker sky, you'll need a faster shutter. Now under exposed people. You could then add fill with a flash, sure. If you get a graduated ND filter, you can put the darker part of the filter in the sky framed above your subjects. Cheaper than buying a flash and less weight to carry around. Just an overall good option also.
> ...



if your flash was pointed mostly up.. you didn't use it! There is nothing above to bounce off of, right? It may have gone off, but it didn't add any light to the subjects....


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


And would have affected the top of their heads.


----------



## CanonJim (Sep 16, 2012)

OR, the OP could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by simply moving to her left a couple of feet, to put the tree trunk over to the left of the couple, and the bush behind them, and probably have blocked out a bunch of that overly bright sky.

This is as much a compositional problem as it is an exposure/light balance problem.  I don't do a lot of this kind of photography, but when I do, I learned long ago to move myself side to side when I'm trying to place my subject, just as much as I would move the subject side to side to get proper placement.   It's a common problem - and is related to the "stuff growing out of their head" problem - when we are looking at taking a picture like this, we naturally concentrate on the SUBJECT, and our brains just throw away the other information. Unfortunately, we need that stuff to take a good PHOTOGRAPH.  So things like a bright sky, or the signpost growing out of someone's head, or other distracting background information, gets into the picture. The camera sees it, and our photograph sees it, but our brains did not, at the time of composition.


----------



## Goldcoin79 (Sep 16, 2012)

I'm very interested in this post as I have had a similar problem with some of my photos. I can fully understand why a fill flash would be the answer, but can any one confirm if I am understanding it right? So would you spot meter the sky so the exposure of the sky is correct and use a fill flash to brighten up the people in the photo?

Your feed back will be appreciated.

James


----------



## gsgary (Sep 16, 2012)

Location Location


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> This makes complete sense!! Thanks! Oh and I did use a flash, but had it almost aimed straight up b/c of my lack of practice and time with the flash. Also I agree with the tree, uck, there were people everywhere. This was mainly a snapshot.



Aiming the flash up (or I've even seen it turned so that its firing behind you) works in an environment where there is a suitable surface to bounce the flash light itself off. Typically you'd find this indoors (or under a marque or similar structure) - there you have the walls and the ceiling to bounce the light off to give a fill to your subject. 
Also because the source of light is so much larger than the subject (remember the "source" of the light is the last surface it leaves before it hits the subject, so when bounced off a wall the wall is the source so far as the subject is concerned) the light gives a much more diffused effect. This is great indoors when you are in a crowded or fast moving environment and can't setup a flash light with a softbox or umbrella. Outside you've got to rely on those accessories to soften the light (very small pulses of light, often called fill flash, can sometimes be gotten away with with less diffusion because its only bumping up the light a little rather than being the major light source).



Goldcoin79 said:


> I'm very interested in this post as I have had a similar problem with some of my photos. I can fully understand why a fill flash would be the answer, but can any one confirm if I am understanding it right? So would you spot meter the sky so the exposure of the sky is correct and use a fill flash to brighten up the people in the photo?



You are correct, you'd meter for the brightest part of the scene, in this case the sky, and then you would use the flash light to boost up the exposure in the foreground areas. Note that depending on the shade and the brightness of the bright and darker areas the flash might go from being fill light (where is part of, but not all of the contributing light to the exposure) through to the main light and as such you'll have to keep an eye on how much flash power you are needing; whilst you can simply push out more and more (up to the flash units limit) you'll have to keep a mind for controlling that light, you don't want it getting harsh and getting that "deer in headlights" appearance to your subjects.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2012)

FILL-in is what is needed....something to "elevate" the shade exposure "upward", so that it is closer to the correct exposure for the SUN-lighted areas in the back. The easiest way to do this is to use a very LARGE reflector, or a pair of them. By large, I mean the size of a twin bed, or bigger. No, I am not kidding. "Panels" made with PVC frames fitted with tightly-stretched reflective fabric, and propped up with light stands, or "arms" have been a standard for this for decades. I say this is the easiest way because "reflector fill" is WYSIWYG....you can SEE the effect, and your in-camera light meter can measure the right exposures!!! In ***my** opinion, reflector fill usually produces superior-looking, more-natural,better lighting, for most people, under most conditions. it just looks more-natural AND the color temperature of the light reflected back usually looks very natural as long as the reflectors are white, or silver. GOLD reflectors often produce a very cheesy, warm, fakey-looking effect most of the time--but CAN be okay when you know how to use that for an advantage.

The second way, a little bit harder, is to Fill-in the shadowed ares with FLASH. aka "fill-flash".

This is NOT a neutral density filter situation.


----------



## MonicaBH (Sep 16, 2012)

At what angle would you direct your flash?


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 16, 2012)

I'd have gone forward with a diffuser on it. Or better yet mount off camera to one side.


----------



## fokker (Sep 16, 2012)

By far the easiest option to avoid this problem would be to not have the sky in the photo. If it is overcast, unless you are using a fill-flash, the sky will almost always be blown out. Easiest way to avoid the sky in your photos is to use a telephoto lens, the compression at 200-300mm lets you easily avoid showing the sky.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 16, 2012)

MonicaBH said:


> At what angle would you direct your flash?



Off camera and high 45 most likely. Without a good surfaced to bounce off, the lighting could look rather flat.


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2012)

As a very VERY general rule of thumb most flash lighting attempts to recreate natural sunlight at a slightly tilted angle. This brings things to around the 45 degree or so angle above to one side of the subject, simulating the sun in the sky. It gives a "natural" look to shadows over the subject. 

Note of course that you might find you need additional lights to help enhance a shot - your main might be the 45 degree angle one, but you might throw in another on the opposite side which is weaker so that the shadows, whilst shown over the face ,are not as strong. 

You can find lots of guide books on posing and positioning for lighting setups.


----------



## TCampbell (Sep 16, 2012)

You have to think of this as TWO exposures.

1)  You've got your subjects which are in medium shade.  That's probably 2 stops below the sunny-16 rule (no I didn't peek at your EXIF data if it was included.)

2)  Then you've got the background which IS in full-sun, and that is the sunny-16 rule.  

If you want to "balance" the exposure, then you need to make the lighting in the shade match the lighting in the background.  You can't do anything about the lighting in the background unless you've learned the secret to conjure clouds on-demand.  But you CAN do something about the lighting in the shade by using a flash.

Since you want the shade to "look" like shade you don't necessarily want to "match" the lighting in the background, but if you can get it to within maybe 2/3rds of a stop (or even 1 stop) then you'll be doing much better.  As it is, you're probably two stops apart.

You do this by using FLASH on your subjects in the shade.  By adding light, you can can reduce the exposure on them.  Yes... you're adding light, and then setting your camera to not let in as much light so that you effectively get the SAME exposure on them as you got before you added the light.  This seems a bit nonsensical... except the light you add will only affect the near foreground.  It wont do anything to the background.  NOW when you reduce the exposure on the camera, you not only block foreground light, you ALSO block background light.  This makes the whole exposure much more balanced.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 17, 2012)

spam above reported


----------



## KenC (Sep 17, 2012)

Flash or reflectors are the best solution, but failing those, I agree with fokker that a longer lens will help.  It doesn't even need to be as long as 200-300 mm.  Even a 100 or 135 has a noticeably narrower angle of view than a 50 and makes it much easier to control what is in the background of your image by changing your position just slightly.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 17, 2012)

I agree that fill flash is a huge help, but unfortunately companies like Nikon believe the feature for fill flash in bright sunlight is only wanted by a rare elite that buys the best of cameras. My D5100 cant do fill flash in bright sunlight, neither can my SB400, as neither of them supports High Speed Sync.


----------



## Goldcoin79 (Sep 17, 2012)

Thanks for all that have given advice on this subject it has been most helpfull and easy to understand.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 17, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Flash. This is why Natural light is HARDER THAN HELL and most "natural light" photographers are really just scared of flash. It should be the opposite-flash is MUCH easier and they should be terrified of natural light!
> And don't place people in front of a tree trunk like that. It SOUNDS good when you do it, but trunks aren't pretty and they hurt your composition.



I think I understand your comment here about being in front of the tree trunk. Would you/could you, place them beside it in order to take advantage of the shade? Can't tell for sure but if the camera was moved to camera right and the subjects moved to camera left, it may have helped the blown out sky, correct?


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 17, 2012)

My overlookable .02.....

#1, shooting at 90 degrees to the sun provides the best opportunity to get a good sky.... especially with a Circular Polarizer (which I HIGHLY recommend for almost all outdoor shooting...) #2, most every outdoor posed portrait will benefit from the "2 exposure method" outlined above by other folks. Meter for the sky, provide fill light for your subjects. It doesn't take much tinkering at all to get the Jist of it, and a good grasp of the concept. Some people will prefer reflectors, I personally prefer flash. For me it's faster, more compact and more manageable for an "on location" type deal. This is something that is really easy to practice in your backyard with the help of an inanimate object.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 17, 2012)

Guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, *when I do this* with my arm, well, the pain in my elbow just KILLS me!"

Doctor says, "Well, we  can fix that right up, no problem!" 

So, the guy asks the doctor, "Oh,so, is there a shot for that, or some medicine that'll cure my problem?"

The doctor looks at the guy and says, "NO---just *STOP DOING "THAT"* with your elbow!"


----------



## paigew (Sep 17, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, *when I do this* with my arm, well, the pain in my elbow just KILLS me!"
> 
> Doctor says, "Well, we  can fix that right up, no problem!" "Oh, is there a shot for that, or some medicine that'll cure my problem?"
> 
> The doctor looks at the guy and says, "NO---just *STOP DOING "THAT"* with your elbow!"



hahahaha hilarious...did you learn that one from my mom


----------



## allison_dcp (Sep 18, 2012)

I havent been online in a couple days, I just wanted to say thank you all who posted suggestions. It gives me alot to work with!


----------



## Phototripper (Sep 21, 2012)

You could use a little exposure compensation and darken the exposure for the sky to look proper, but that will make your subjects darker. By adding fill light in Photoshop in post production, you can bring the subjects back out of the dark.  This works, but is not the best approach.  I use it when I do not have a flash and it does work.  Another trick would be to take two exposures, one where the sky is properly exposed and the other where your subjects are properly exposed and then merge them together in PS.  Lot of work on that solution.


----------



## Graystar (Sep 24, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> Took some photos today at our reunion with my Canon EOS 20D and 50mm lens. I am working on my exposure and was paying close attention to the meter on the camera and my settings, but still manage to blow out the sky! How can I avoid this?(f/5 1/250 and 200ISO)



This is neither a DR problem nor an exposure problem. The primary problem is that the light source is in the image. There is no exposure setting or procedure that would have captured the sky correctly.

Fill flash would not have helped in this case. Fill flash is for filling small areas of shadow when the ambient exposure would have underexposed those areas. This is the opposite problem. The ambient exposure is overexposing small areas. Solving the problem with flash would require turning the shot into a flash exposure (ambient light suppressed.) In this case you would need an external flash that was capable of High Speed Sync.

The image in question appears to have been taken on a sunny day. On sunny days, there are two light sources in the sky. The first, of course, is the sun. Anything illuminated directly by the sun will require an exposure in line with the Sunny 16 rule. The second light source, is the sky glow. That's the blue sky. When you're in open shade, you're being illuminated by the sky glow, which at least three stop less light than direct sun.

Anytime you have in your image both a light source and the items lit by that source, either the items will be underexposed or the light source will be overexposed. It doesn't matter whether it's sky and shade, or some items on your desk illuminated by a lamp...you can't properly expose both the source, and light reflected from the source, at the same time. That's the problem in the example image.

To solve the problem in camera, you have to recompose and get rid of the light source. You can also decide to solve the problem in post processing. First set exposure such that the sky is almost overexposed. It will be rendered white in post processing, and the rest of your image will be underexposed. Then in post, adjust the lighting of the various areas to recreate the scene as you remember it. If you didn't overexpose the sky, then you should be able to make it blue again.


----------



## skieur (Sep 24, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is exposure. You're metering their face most likely and getting the proper exposer for them. The sky is much brighter. If you want a darker sky, you'll need a faster shutter. Now under exposed people. You could then add fill with a flash, sure. If you get a graduated ND filter, you can put the darker part of the filter in the sky framed above your subjects. Cheaper than buying a flash and less weight to carry around. Just an overall good option also.
> ...



Spot meter on the couple or in-camera HDR will solve your problem.

skieur


----------



## jesse101 (Sep 24, 2012)

utilize a reflector or utilize a strobe as a fill in.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 24, 2012)

Shoot Film.


----------

