# Overexposed sky; portrait shot; would ND filter fix this image?



## adamnyc31 (May 25, 2018)

Hi,

   I'm using a Canon 5D w/ 16-35mm f/2.8 II  I'm trying to take some portrait photos of my dog that also capture the landscape background but the sky is always blown out.  I'm taking the photos about 6:30am before she is in direct sunlight.   

My goal is to capture this type of photo but have the sky also properly exposed.  I generally need a pretty fast shutter speed (min of 500 second) in order to capture a sharp photo as my dog doesn't sit perfectly still. 

I have never used a filter. From my research it sounds like a graduated neutral density filter might be what I need. Seems like there are so many different filter configurations; how can I figure out which filter would be ideal for this type of composition where the subject is close to the camera and the sky is much brighter?

Thanks!

I attached an example photo; it was shot with:
Shutter speed: 750
F/2.8
ISO 640


----------



## 480sparky (May 25, 2018)

No.  ND filters adjust the overall exposure and are not 'selective' to any area.  You'll need a_ graduated_ ND filter.


----------



## Jeff15 (May 25, 2018)

Hello and welcome. If I am not satisfied with a sky I put one in later using Photoshop..


----------



## sergezap (May 25, 2018)

If the sun is not right behind or infront of you, you can use a cpl filter instead of ND.
But it'll affects the water reflections also.


----------



## Braineack (May 25, 2018)

480sparky said:


> No.  ND filters adjust the overall exposure and are not 'selective' to any area.  You'll need a_ graduated_ ND filter.



or an ND filter + flash.


----------



## ronlane (May 25, 2018)

As mentioned a ND filter will effect the entire scene, a Grad-ND will effect part of the scene. To get the sky you want, you would need to expose for the sky and then use something to fill in the light on the subject. That could be flash or a reflector.

You could replace the sky as mentioned above or you could take it into PS and do a gradient layer over the sky. When you put the gradient layer on, use black to transparent, then play with the blend modes (try overlay and softlight first) and also the opacity. Not saying that this will fix this image but I've seen this method make a difference in some of my images.


----------



## photo1x1.com (May 25, 2018)

Hi and welcome! Did you shoot RAW? You can add a sort of Grad ND Filter Effect in Lightroom under the local adjustments.


----------



## weepete (May 25, 2018)

Try shooting with your back to the rising sun, that'd be the quick way to do it with natural light.

GNDs may sort of fix the issue, however they work best with horizontal lines, and as a result anything sticking up through the horizontal line of the filter will be darker as well. Or as suggested expose for the sky and use fill flash.


----------



## smoke665 (May 25, 2018)

Dynamic Range is the problem you're dealing with. The solution is not a one size fits all. There were a lot of good selections offered, but the choice depends on the range you're dealing with, and the options available.  You have to either add light to your subject or take away from the background. Can you position doggy so you're shooting into the shade of a tree?? Add a flash or reflector to bring enough light onto doggy to counteract the sky. If the tree line is high enough then a graduated ND could be used to darken the sky. You could just expose for the sky (not blown), then selectively raise the exposure of the remainder of the image. Or you could use a tripod and take two images one without doggy and the sky exposed properly, and one with doggy in the same frame and exposed for doggy. Merge as layers in PS to combine the two.


----------



## adamhiram (May 25, 2018)

Another easy fix is to simply underexpose by a stop or 2 to maintain highlights in the sky, then bring it back in post.  As long as you keep your ISO pretty low, you shouldn't need to worry about losing much shadow detail.


----------



## sergezap (May 25, 2018)

adamhiram said:


> Another easy fix is to simply underexpose by a stop or 2 to maintain highlights in the sky, then bring it back in post.  As long as you keep your ISO pretty low, you shouldn't need to worry about losing much shadow detail.


It's a very bad idea.
The upper 1.5 stops  in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information. 
No matter how low your ISO set. 
With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.


----------



## waday (May 25, 2018)

Everyone is overthinking here. Just get a darker dog.


----------



## sergezap (May 25, 2018)

waday said:


> Everyone is overthinking here. Just get a darker dog.


I vote for 18% grey dog!


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 25, 2018)

I'd rethink and reshoot this. The dog's beautiful and looks good in the photo so this could be cropped as a portrait, but so much of the image is out of focus background with a lousy sky I think it would help to frame differently and change the vantage point.

If it's a day that's hazy, humid, etc. and the sky looks washed out or whitish, I frame lower/differently than I do on a day when it's beautiful blue sky with maybe some white fluffy clouds that I actually want in my pictures.

I don't think you need the lens open that much. There's a lot of background there and it shows, it's just less in focus, but it still creates lines and shapes and blobs of color, etc. I think the ISO seems higher than necessary outdoors in sunlight so see if you can adjust settings.

I'd try getting down lower and framing it so the dog would have more of the trees behind her. Look at the dog's head in relation to the treeline - it's barely below it which cuts almost across the top of the dog/subject and across the whole image. It tends to draw the viewer's eyes away from the subject. I'd also try moving around a little and changing your vantage point, think about how the tree line looks behind the dog so you don't have taller treetops right above the dog's head.

I think it's a matter too of deciding, is this photo just about the dog with a bit of background to frame it, or is it about the dog and the scenery? If you want the dog against the beautiful scenery then get it enough in focus to make it part of the picture, otherwise too much of the image is out of focus.


----------



## 480sparky (May 25, 2018)

*Woof!*


----------



## KmH (May 25, 2018)

Learn about a flash and ambient light technique called Dragging The Shutter.
dragging the shutter - Yahoo Search Results

The sky in the photo you posted is mostly very close to being blownout/clipped while parts of the sky _are_ completely clipped.
Blownout/clipped means all 3 RGb color channels are at the max value they can be, which means they have little or no detail that can be recovered via post process editing.

The simplest solution is to allow and plan for the dynamic range before the shutter is released, hence learning about dragging the shutter.


----------



## weepete (May 25, 2018)

sergezap said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone is overthinking here. Just get a darker dog.
> ...



Wrong way round. Given that the difference between the lights and shadows is too great for the camera to record a darker dog would lead to more blown out sky (if exposed properly for the dog). Really what is needed here is a lighter dog, to reduce the brightness between the sky and the dog. Given that the dog is already quite light I'd suggest genetic modification with bio-luminecent plankton (could also double up for light painting) or possibly squid.


----------



## Ysarex (May 25, 2018)

sergezap said:


> adamhiram said:
> 
> 
> > Another easy fix is to simply underexpose by a stop or 2 to maintain highlights in the sky, then bring it back in post.  As long as you keep your ISO pretty low, you shouldn't need to worry about losing much shadow detail.
> ...



It's a very good idea if in fact you're saving a raw file and you expose to place the diffuse highlight. Typically no need to reduce exposure by two stops (Adam was speaking off the cuff some there) -- just enough to make sure the diffuse highlight isn't clipped. Here's an example:




 

That's the camera JPEG with a slight crop. Just to make it more fun I chose a subject that was dark -- nearly black in fact. And just to make it more fun I chose a subject that throws something of a wrench into the ND grad filter. And just to make it more fun I took the photo with my little shirt pocket compact with the tiny sensor (OP has FF sensor).

The sky is nuked in the camera JPEG and the subject is as Adam suggested at least a stop on the underexposed side. However I placed the diffuse highlight in the sky at the sensor threshold so it was easy for me to do this:



 

DR looks pretty good to me. I didn't need a filter and I didn't need a flash; I just need a raw file to process.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (May 25, 2018)

sergezap said:


> The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
> No matter how low your ISO set.
> With true linear response curve you'd get 3-3.5 stops of underexposing and completely kill your DR.



Not to disagree, but I've searched for corrabarating information on this statement and can't find anything. Perhaps if you could cite some or point me in the right direction?


----------



## TCampbell (May 25, 2018)

That’s a LOT of sky in the image (that doesn’t really contribute to the image).  

So... a “graduated” ND filter could help... but a flash would also help.  

But consider changing your composition and/or shooting location so you aren’t photographing all that sky.


----------



## Ysarex (May 25, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> sergezap said:
> 
> 
> > The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
> ...



He's got that about right -- maybe a tad high -- can't give you a exact figure since it differs camera to camera. You're shooting a Pentax -- K3? So you've got about 10 stops of usable DR from that sensor. Stops are exponential -- the next one is twice as big as the last one. So remember when we were in grade school and they tried to teach us exponents with a bucket of pennies? We're working with binary computer systems so the first stop is two pennies. The next stop is four pennies. The next stop is eight pennies etc. Count them out in separate piles until you've got 10 stops worth. Then take away the top stop (1024 pennies) and half of the preceding stop (256 pennies) and count what's left in the rest of the piles.

Joe


----------



## sergezap (May 26, 2018)

weepete said:


> sergezap said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...


I think good colors you might attain with Kodak certified pet is much more important than dogdammit highlights!


----------



## sergezap (May 26, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> sergezap said:
> 
> 
> > The upper 1.5 stops in RAW file contains smthng about 80% of all information.
> ...


1. Don't trust your RAW converter until you turned off all obvious or (and) hidden corrections.
2. Just inspect your RAW files in RawDigger.


----------



## sergezap (May 26, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> sergezap said:
> 
> 
> > adamhiram said:
> ...



Even in a just simple scene it looks like HDR. 
I don't talk this one is a bad photo or your thoughts has no right to exist. 
Just try this with a smthng like color passport and try to achieve natural or (and) accurate colors.


----------



## smoke665 (May 26, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> He's got that about right -- maybe a tad high -- can't give you a exact figure since it differs camera to camera. You're shooting a Pentax -- K3? So you've got about 10 stops of usable DR from that sensor. Stops are exponential -



Okay I'm understanding the comment now. Thanks Joe, needed a memory boost. LOL FYI according to charts I've seen the K3ii starts out at north of 13 stops @ISO 100 gradually declining  to ISO 3200 before it drops below 10 stops.


----------



## Ysarex (May 26, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > He's got that about right -- maybe a tad high -- can't give you a exact figure since it differs camera to camera. You're shooting a Pentax -- K3? So you've got about 10 stops of usable DR from that sensor. Stops are exponential -
> ...



Those are "instrument test" charts. They don't have much if anything to do with taking photographs. Bill Claff doesn't have your K3ii in his list but he has the K5ii which rates at 10.5 stops DR.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Joe


----------



## mrca (May 26, 2018)

Tim is absolutely right, the background is pretty blah and all that sky adds nothing to the image.  I believe a slightly above dog eye level camera position would have helped eliminate the sky.  Sparky's crop is a much more powerful, simpler image.  Woof?  A reference to War of the Roses as she served him pate and when he mentioned he hadn't seen his dog in a while she said woof.     First, maximizing your sensor.  I have calibrated my sekonic meter to the individual sensor and know EXACTLY where the clipping point is.  Pushing the whites to just before clipping in RAW allows pulling detail out of them but leaves the shadows as far to the right as possible without clipping  and leaving them with as little if any muddying.   Having the subject properly exposed in the capture may, as here, cause  you to sacrifice highlights that you want to keep.  An example of "expose for the highlight in digital."  If you are in a situation where you want to include the bright sky, which here is a bald, empty sky which I would minimize or eliminate, consider bursting 2 shots then combining in post either in hdr or masking.  Doesn't look like much here any way.   I left CA where there wasn't a cloud in the sky for 6 months to FL where we have beautiful clouds, upside.   Downside, that means rain any day and exposing lighting gear to potential rain.  But I now usually have some gorgeous clouds to work with but don't want them blown out completely and have enough information to kick contrast, shadow, targeted area adjustments.  Personally, I would have used a silver reflector to add specular highlights to the dog's fur making it appear shinier and it would raise the exposure on the dog closer to a sky.   I would also use an off camera flash to raise him a stop or so above the bg.  Finally, in post,  could duplicate the image, process one for the sky and the other for the dog then combine.   I don't have the luxury of screwing up the shot of the day so have learned multiple techniques, 6 here,  to have at my disposal so no matter what gear I have with me, I get the shot.  Try practicing with these and next time you will nail it.   Post your practice for more suggestions.


----------



## Ysarex (May 26, 2018)

sergezap said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > sergezap said:
> ...



I processed it to make the point that there was enough data recorded to lift the shadows substantially and have a blue sky. I can process it any way I want.



 



sergezap said:


> I don't talk this one is a bad photo or your thoughts has no right to exist.
> Just try this with a smthng like color passport and try to achieve natural or (and) accurate colors.



I have and it's going to take a whole lot more limit pushing before color accuracy becomes an issue.

Joe


----------



## KmH (May 26, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Not to disagree, but I've searched for corrabarating information on this statement and can't find anything. Perhaps if you could cite some or point me in the right direction?


http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...m/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf


----------



## smoke665 (May 26, 2018)

@KmH Interesting read, thank you for sharing. Think I'll save this back in my library.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 30, 2018)

adamnyc31 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm using a Canon 5D w/ 16-35mm f/2.8 II  I'm trying to take some portrait photos of my dog that also capture the landscape background but the sky is always blown out.  I'm taking the photos about 6:30am before she is in direct sunlight.
> 
> ...



Lightroom has a descent graduated filter that works pretty well on this type of problem.  Here is a quick and dirty fix.  The banding you see is just a jpg compression artifact.  




Rainy day along the creek by TOM STRAIGHT, on Flickr


----------



## Braineack (Nov 30, 2018)

honest question: how did that help?

the sky is blown out, who cares?  it was probably close to what it looked like in real life.


----------



## D7K (Nov 30, 2018)

Expose for light...... lift the shadows..


----------



## bribrius (Dec 5, 2018)




----------



## bribrius (Dec 5, 2018)

This all went so far technically over my head i just asked the doggy to help me crayola the sky


----------



## Strodav (Dec 6, 2018)

Actually, I think it's a pretty nice shot after just a bit of a crop.


Seriously, since its a picture of your fur baby, a tighter crop would better highlight your subject.  It is a stop or two over exposed and like you said, the sky is blown out.  Letting in less light will bring more color and texture out of the fur as well bringing the sky in.  Since there aren't any real shadows in the picture, you have room to reduce exposure.  How do you have your metering set?  If your metering was set for full frame then the sky should have told the camera to let in less light avoiding the over exposure.  Don't confuse metering with AF, which should have been set to a single point focusing on an eye.  Something else I find very useful is to look at the histogram on the camera.  This one would have been very right biased.

Oh, I almost forget, on bright days around water a circular polarizer is a good filter to have in your camera bag.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 6, 2018)

Ew. What are you doing?! 

That looks awful.

Tight crops aren't always the way to go, you lose all information about the setting.

Expose for the subject. If the sky blows out oh well.  I'd rather have a well exposed subject than a blue sky.   Skies are not always that blue to begin with.


----------



## RonAlv (Dec 6, 2018)

Used the Healing Brush in Light Room CC to get a bluer sky.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 6, 2018)

RonAlv said:


> Used the Healing Brush in Light Room CC to get a bluer sky.


Nice.  Maybe just a little more blue..


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2018)

bribrius said:


> RonAlv said:
> 
> 
> > Used the Healing Brush in Light Room CC to get a bluer sky.
> ...



....and more blown highlights in the clouds!

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Dec 7, 2018)

RonAlv said:


> Used the Healing Brush in Light Room CC to get a bluer sky.



Skies don't look like this.

You took an image that looked accurate and well exposed, and completely underexposed just in order to make the sky look an unnatural blue.

WHY? 

what's with everyone's obsession with fake-blue skies?  it's like you have body dismorphia, but for our atmosphere.

I equate editing photos to give them fake-blue skies like this to a magazine reshaping the body of a model and retouching the skin so poorly it looks like a plastic sex-doll on the cover and telling us this is what sexy looks like.


----------



## greybeard (Dec 7, 2018)

Braineack said:


> RonAlv said:
> 
> 
> > Used the Healing Brush in Light Room CC to get a bluer sky.
> ...


Because RonAlv likes the darkened sky.  I personally like the darkened sky as well.  RonAlv is using his camera as a tool for artistic expression and not as a copying machine.  The OP expressed an interest in finding a way to darken the sky in his/her picture of the dog and I think some of us put forth some valid ideas.  I don't see what your point is in scolding people for giving answers to the OP's questing and for taking an artistic approach to their photography.


----------



## RonAlv (Dec 7, 2018)

greybeard said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > RonAlv said:
> ...



Greybeard,
Thanks... I see it this way, "Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder". As you said, I was just pointing out another way to correct the OP's question. Some people just don't get it.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 7, 2018)

Braineack said:


> RonAlv said:
> 
> 
> > Used the Healing Brush in Light Room CC to get a bluer sky.
> ...


What do you have against plastic sex dolls? And the smurfs are blue. How do you feel about smurfs?


----------



## Braineack (Dec 7, 2018)

OP expressed interest in being able to exposure for the sky as well as the subject, this suggests, to me, OP wants to capture a realistic looking scene.

Nothing wrong with trying to recover missing information up in post, but there's really no post-processing cure for zero information besides swapping in a new sky or paint-by-numbers.

It has nothing to do with not "getting" art.  It has everything to do with looking at a photograph and wondering why it looks completely unrealistic and inaccurate while not any adding net positives to the image. The above aircraft image: we've darkened the B-25 to the point where it's no longer the subject of the image; the eye is drawn to the overtly assertive sky with biblically-insane cloud formations.  What's to get?

Look outside right now.  At this time of year you're probably seeing a very pale-blue sky that's almost white at the horizon line with clouds that blend right in -- especially the closer towards the sun you look.

There's only so much DR a camera's sensor can capture, and often exposing for the subject means you lose out on sky information.   Turning the sky/clouds BLACK in post doesn't add redeeming value to the image.

The best approach for this situation is exposing for the sky [even underexposing the sky] and lighting the subject to match the exposure -- be it a pop-up flash or off-camera flash.  Or just deal with a blown-out sky.   Unless we are missing-out on an incredible sunset I just don't see where the problem is.

Too many people have been taught that blown-out skies are inherently wrong/bad to the point where we've accepted insanely unrealistic skies as the alternative.  Hell, we've been told the pop-up flash is inherent bad too and so far from the truth -- It's a useful tool that can really help here.





quasi-related by an important non-sequitur: grass is not neon green.
related: I like colorful language.


----------



## Scoody (Dec 7, 2018)

expose for how you want the sky then fill the foreground in with flash.


----------



## greybeard (Dec 7, 2018)

I forgot about a polarizing filter, that will tame down the sky.  It would be worth a try.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 7, 2018)

greybeard said:


> I forgot about a polarizing filter, that will tame down the sky.  It would be worth a try.



 I usually leave a cpl on one of my lenses. Even during inside shots it sometimes helps with bad reflections/glare


----------



## RonAlv (Dec 8, 2018)

greybeard said:


> I forgot about a polarizing filter, that will tame down the sky.  It would be worth a try.


Getting ready to pick up a circular polarizer filter in 77mm, any brand you recommend, without breaking the bank?


----------



## greybeard (Dec 8, 2018)

I buy my filters from ebay and I buy either Hoya or B+W.   Most of the time they are used and I've never gotten burned (knock on wood).


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2018)

greybeard said:


> I buy my filters from ebay and I buy either Hoya or B+W. Most of the time they are used and I've never gotten burned (knock on wood).



Great go-to brands.

I have Tiffen brand CPLs, they are fine, but when I hold them up against this screen they can change the color hue based on the rotation.











they can have a HUGE affect on skies, so a good rule-of-thumb is to take multi-shots using them with different rotations:














you can see the green hue being cast here too.

problem with these are, look how much is also affects my subject, since they are reflecting white -- CPLs are great for reflection control.   So if you're using them for portraits, expect to lose some of the 3Dness of your model as it will reduce the highlights on foreheads/cheeks which give shape to the face.


----------



## RonAlv (Dec 8, 2018)

Looking at my UV filters, I have been purchasing Promaster HGX Prime. I was thinking on going this route with a CPL but not sure if it is over priced ?


----------



## RonAlv (Dec 8, 2018)

RonAlv said:


> Looking at my UV filters, I have been purchasing Promaster HGX Prime. I was thinking on going this route with a CPL but not sure if it is over priced ?



I should have mentioned in a 77mm. Seeing them on Amazon for $130. I have step up rings for my other lenses.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2018)

This brand always tests really well -- up there with HOYA and B+W

Formatt Hitech77mm Firecrest SuperSlim Circular Polarizer Filter


----------



## weaselfire (Jan 4, 2019)

The proper way to get exposure balanced between the subject and the background is fill flash.  The alternative is Photoshop.

Jeff


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 4, 2019)

Braineack said:


> I have Tiffen brand CPLs, they are fine, but when I hold them up against this screen they can change the color hue based on the rotation.



There are other considerations in play when you view a computer screen through the CPL. What happens if you remove the polarization filter from a computer monitor?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 4, 2019)

agreed. but i can see the same color cast in my images too... it's correctable, but lame.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 5, 2019)

Braineack said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > I buy my filters from ebay and I buy either Hoya or B+W. Most of the time they are used and I've never gotten burned (knock on wood).
> ...




If this happens it means your filter is backward.  A CPL is really a two layer filter.  The first layer is actually a linear polarizer.  The send layer is a quarter-wave plate.   If you hold the filter so that the side that threads to the camera is toward you (and if the vendor didn't install the glass backward) then it will work normally and you should see things get dark/light based on the polarization angle of the light.  But if you flip the filter around so the threads are facing away from you... you'll get a blue/gold hue shift as you rotate it.

You should *not* get a blue/gold hue shift if the threads that normally mount to the camera are facing you.  If you do, that means the glass was inserted backward (the quarter-wave plate is in front and the linear polarizer is in back instead of the other way around.)


----------



## Braineack (Jan 6, 2019)

well look at that.... I should have known better since it never went full black.

I still see a slight color shift on camera, you can see on the examples above there's a slight green hue shift.   But this makes me feel better about them.


----------



## aspen (Jan 6, 2019)

sometimes I buy my filters from ebay


----------

