# Why is the sky blown out??



## Soulshinephotographer (Sep 11, 2017)

I have a Nikon D750

Every time a shoot it always blows out the sky.

If I meter for the sky then my subjects are way too dark. I tried it in auto and it really didn't help much. It just equaled the subject and sky, which led to still dark subject and a little more detail in the sky but not enough.

I just got the camera a little while ago so I'm still learning it but I adjusted all my setting in manual (I shoot in Raw) and it still wasn't to my liking. I feel this task should be easy with a $2k camera. I know I can bracket but don't feel it should be necessary for what I'm trying to achieve.


Can anyone give some insight as to what's going on?


Thanks in advance!

Example picture attached. The sky was very pretty blue and had beautiful clouds. It's too bad it didn't show up in these photos.


----------



## pendennis (Sep 11, 2017)

What metering mode are you using?  In the first photo, the exposure range is pretty wide, and the subjects are well exposed.  In the second, you have a lot of bright subject matter (sky, sunflowers).  And if the metering is center-weighted, you'll get good subject exposure, but risk blown highlights.

If you haven't tried editing the photos, you should, since some "sins of original exposure" can be atoned for in Photoshop, etc.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2017)

You're fighting physics (and it's a battle you won't win).  You can come out on top in a few skirmishes and as mentioned, post-processing affords you some latitude, but at the end of the day, The only way to PROPERLY deal with this is to add supplemental light to the equation in the form of strobes or reflectors to reduce the dynamic range of the scene.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 11, 2017)

Soulshinephotographer said:


> I have a Nikon D750
> 
> Every time a shoot it always blows out the sky.
> 
> ...



Even a $10K camera can't adjust the lighting contrast range in the scene -- that's your job. You have to make sure the lighting contrast is appropriate before you trip the shutter.

Joe


----------



## ronlane (Sep 11, 2017)

In my opinion of the two photos you have given as example both are okay. I honestly would like to see some fill light in the first one but the second one I think is just fine.

As others have mentioned, metering for the sky and then adding fill flash (most likely with High speed sync) is the only way to get both background and foreground properly exposed in these two images.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 11, 2017)

On people you could try HSS but not sure if your camera can do it. With high speed sync flash, it provides the opportunity to control ambient light. Typically, you would shoot at faster shutter speeds like 4000, wide open aperture for subject isolation, and the flash pulsates at high output to quench the backlit ambient light. I have done it a few times with my fujifilm and when done right, works great.
hss with nikon d750 - Google Search


----------



## waday (Sep 11, 2017)

Soulshinephotographer said:


> I tried it in auto and it really didn't help much.





Soulshinephotographer said:


> I feel this task should be easy with a $2k camera.



The blown sky in the first doesn't immediately draw my attention. The second picture is cute, but the first is a real winner to me. It's a sweet photo with lots of emotion, and the processing is nice, albeit a little dark for my tastes (but that could be the dappled light). The first is a tad warm, but it does fit the photo.

Sorry to be harsh, but this is your welcome to photography 101. If you put your $2K camera on auto, you're getting similar results as my 7 year old point and shoot on auto. As a photographer, you need to learn how to control light for your photo (i.e., use the equipment and learn how to use flashes, strobes, and reflectors for fill light).

But, I'm just a hobbyist, so listen to the professionals above.

This is a great guide: Strobist: Lighting 101: Introduction


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 11, 2017)

tirediron said:


> You're fighting physics (and it's a battle you won't win).  You can come out on top in a few skirmishes and as mentioned, post-processing affords you some latitude, but at the end of the day, The only way to PROPERLY deal with this is to add supplemental light to the equation in the form of strobes or reflectors to reduce the dynamic range of the scene.



Or do a 2 shot composite of the picture, one for subject, and one for sky.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 11, 2017)

@jcdeboever, the OP says the camera is a D750. Honestly it better do HSS, although Nikon doesn't call it that.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 11, 2017)

ronlane said:


> @jcdeboever, the OP says the camera is a D750. Honestly it better do HSS, although Nikon doesn't call it that.



I changed it before your response....


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 11, 2017)

Isn't this what graduated neutral density filters were invented for? Or HDR?


----------



## ronlane (Sep 11, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Isn't this what graduated neutral density filters were invented for? Or HDR?



In the first one a GND filter would probably work but in the second one it would cover the subject and make the baby dark and under exposed.


----------



## Destin (Sep 11, 2017)

tirediron said:


> You're fighting physics (and it's a battle you won't win).  You can come out on top in a few skirmishes and as mentioned, post-processing affords you some latitude, but at the end of the day, The only way to PROPERLY deal with this is to add supplemental light to the equation in the form of strobes or reflectors to reduce the dynamic range of the scene.



This. You need fill flash or some other form of lighting so that you can expose for the sky and raise the exposure of the subjects to match. 

Yes, you can fake it in post. But it will never look right. 

There is only one truly correct way to do this, and that's to use lighting of some sort and get it right in camera.


----------



## pendennis (Sep 11, 2017)

In the days before matrix metering came along (Nikon FA), I would take a number of readings with a 1 degree spot meter, getting values for each area of the scene.  That would tell me if one exposure, averaged among the readings would work, or if fill light would be needed.  I've had EV readings which no amount of averaging could handle, and in that case, you need to have a Plan B, with scrims or artificial lights.  Even digital sensors don't have huge amounts of latitude.

You can also fall back on the adage, "Expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows, and in this case go to Photoshop.  You can also bracket your exposures, but additional light sources are the way to go.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 18, 2017)

Soulshinephotographer said:


> I feel this task should be easy with a $2k camera. I


if you think it's tough on a $2,000 D750, try it on a $10,000 Leica


----------



## Destin (Sep 18, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Soulshinephotographer said:
> 
> 
> > I feel this task should be easy with a $2k camera. I
> ...



Screw it. Buy a $30k RED cinema camera. 

Still won't be able to defeat the laws of physics.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 18, 2017)

Destin said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Soulshinephotographer said:
> ...


Actually, a camera with a theoretical infinite dynamic range would make for really weird crappy photos. Everything will be grey and there'll be not absolute black and absolute white.

This thread should read: Buy $2k camera, unwilling to understand the zone system.
Understanding & Using Ansel Adam's Zone System


----------



## TheLibrarian (Sep 23, 2017)

It was disappointing to get a fancy camera and realize your old point and shoot or phone takes seemingly better pictures. iPhone automatically does hdr. Think I can turn it on on my d5300 but I hear it is not proper to do so and would amount to combining 2 pics in post I gather. My old point and shoot had what i thought was better zoom in a tiny attached lens and better autofocus/ crispness but I'm sure is user error... I hope at least. Giving us too much control might be a problem and back before if we had a blown out sky we probably wouldn't even have known or imagined there was a better way and wouldn't have hesitated to let the camera use it's on board flash if it wanted to.


----------

