Over exposure of sky problems (Page 5): For the love of God, listen to Captain C. These are snapshots. If anything, not as much detail in the sky, focuses on the actual subjects. These...

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

For the love of God, listen to Captain C.

These are snapshots. If anything, not as much detail in the sky, focuses on the actual subjects.

These shots are a wedding photographer's nightmare. Now that I'm digital, if I really need a beautiful sky, I just put one of my "collection" in. Nobody remembers the shape of the clouds that day.

As for the first 2 photos, wouldn't change a thing.
bk

achammar Loc: Idaho

bkyser wrote:

For the love of God, listen to Captain C.

These are snapshots. If anything, not as much detail in the sky, focuses on the actual subjects.

These shots are a wedding photographer's nightmare. Now that I'm digital, if I really need a beautiful sky, I just put one of my "collection" in. Nobody remembers the shape of the clouds that day.

As for the first 2 photos, wouldn't change a thing.
bk

Thanks for your suggestion. You have said the same thing many others have. Thanks for the ego boost (I don't plan on changing most of them). I also have a collection of skies that I use when I have too. Wedding photography is what I normally do and I agree, this is definitely not an ideal situation by a long shot. Hopefully I just won't have many of these and won't have to worry about it, but if I don't get it right in camera, I can always add the sky later.
Thanks again for you comment!

Croce Loc: Earth

Achmaar, just go to any camera shop, bring a body and lens along, ask to see a good quality "circular" polarizer (nothing to do with shape)screw it on your lens, go outside and look at the sky about 90 degrees from where the sun is and start turning the the outer ring. Then aim at a car or window with reflections on them and do the same. If there is water around, aim at the water and do the same. You'll figger it out. Good luck

achammar Loc: Idaho

Croce wrote:

Achmaar, just go to any camera shop, bring a body and lens along, ask to see a good quality "circular" polarizer (nothing to do with shape)screw it on your lens, go outside and look at the sky about 90 degrees from where the sun is and start turning the the outer ring. Then aim at a car or window with reflections on them and do the same. If there is water around, aim at the water and do the same. You'll figger it out. Good luck

Ok, that's exactly what I will do...I've read a lot about them here, and I need to try one of those out.

MikeOR Loc: Nottingham UK

The point is that, without HDR, it would have been difficult to have the sky AND the landscape properly exposed.

Croce Loc: Earth

Mike, don't mean to criticize or nit pik but there is a difference between blending and HDR. Blends or stacks do not need to be HDR'd. Did you apply tone mapping to that image?
The photo could have been blended by combining 2 or 3 shots to even out the lighting and increase dynamic range. So .. It certainly could have been done without HDR. HDR can produce somewhat garrish results a lot of times. That said, your photo is very nice, Mike.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Croce wrote:

Mike, don't mean to criticize or nit pik but there is a difference between blending and HDR. Blends or stacks do not need to be HDR'd. Did you apply tone mapping to that image?
The photo could have been blended by combining 2 or 3 shots to even out the lighting and increase dynamic range. So .. It certainly could have been done without HDR. HDR can produce somewhat garrish results a lot of times. That said, your photo is very nice, Mike.

Learn something new everyday here.
Never heard of blending, but it makes sense.
I always thought HDR was blending.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

If I may, your subjects are "back lit". Look were the sun is. Try shooting with the sun behind you and to your left. the sky will be blue and your subject lit by the sun w/o flah.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

If I may, your subjects are "back lit". Look were the sun is. Try shooting with the sun behind you and to your left. the sky will be blue and your subject lit by the sun w/o flash.

achammar Loc: Idaho

Bangee5 wrote:

If I may, your subjects are "back lit". Look were the sun is. Try shooting with the sun behind you and to your left. the sky will be blue and your subject lit by the sun w/o flah.

Thanks much for that advice. I realize I could change my position and get much better results, but I won't always have that choice and was just wondering what I might have done different in this exact situation to get a blue sky. Many suggestions have been made here, and also many that say there's not much I could have done, but I've decided that in the future I will get a polarized filter and try that, or expose for the sky and see if I can fix the rest with PS since I shoot in raw when I am in this situation...which shouldn't be too often.

Thanks!
achammar

jorgensene

This usually works well. I you have a Canon camera you can use ETTL and adjust the shutter speed for a good ambient light exposure and use f stop to control the flash exposure. There is a good video on Adorama TV showing how to do this.
barryb wrote:
You can also use a graduated filter in LR, starting with a darker blue at the top, and it gets lighter over the subjects so the blue doesn't distort the color on the subject. I recently learned how to fix this in a mentoring session, by shooting in manual, metering the sky, using fill flash (with a light bender to soften the flash, and upping the shutter to a higher speed. I've really liked the results.

Can you provide a link to the Adoramatv vid you mentioned?

tubby Loc: london england

in this situation, i always use a graduated filter, i know some people don't like using filters,but i love them. hope this helps.

tubby Loc: london england

in this situation, i always use a graduated filter, i know some people don't like using filters,but i love them. hope this helps.