Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Photo looks good, but sky and clouds look painted
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Feb 9, 2019 17:37:47   #
frankraney (a regular here)
 
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I worked for a living, as an employee for the power company. I worked in the Hydro PLants in the mountains. This photo was taken from a high road looking down at the camp where we stayed and some people live full time.

Taken with my Old Minolta Max 5D. Looks good except the sky, which looks like it was painted in. It really shows in the download...Would I be correct in guessing overexposed for the sky? I can make it look a little better in LR but not much.
Balch Camp, Fresno county, Ca.
Balch Camp, Fresno county, Ca....
(Download)

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 17:41:23   #
| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 17:46:55   #
orrie smith
 
frankraney wrote:
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I worked for a living, as an employee for the power company. I worked in the Hydro PLants in the mountains. This photo was taken from a high road looking down at the camp where we stayed and some people live full time.

Taken with my Old Minolta Max 5D. Looks good except the sky, which looks like it was painted in. It really shows in the download...Would I be correct in guessing overexposed for the sky? I can make it look a little better in LR but not much.
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I w... (show quote)


It would appear to be the sky is blown out, or overexposed.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 18:08:52   #
autofocus
 
frankraney wrote:
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I worked for a living, as an employee for the power company. I worked in the Hydro PLants in the mountains. This photo was taken from a high road looking down at the camp where we stayed and some people live full time.

Taken with my Old Minolta Max 5D. Looks good except the sky, which looks like it was painted in. It really shows in the download...Would I be correct in guessing overexposed for the sky? I can make it look a little better in LR but not much.
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I w... (show quote)


Actually, the clouds are not overexposed, just very flat looking. I took the image over to photoshop and checked the exposure on the clouds. Fully blown out to the point where detail is gone is usually around 250, with 255 on the scale being total lose of details. As I moused over the clouds I was seeing numbers in the 220's -240's range. I think the image, overall is underexposed, and would benefit by a levels adjustment and some contrast added. Also taking out some of the blue and cyan saturation in the sky would make it look more natural. The cloud patterns are a little wonky looking though, but it is what it was :)

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 18:15:54   #
UTMike (a regular here)
 
This is what you can do with Landscape Pro.


(Download)

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 18:18:55   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
UTMike wrote:
This is what you can do with Landscape Pro.
Well done

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 18:20:11   #
UTMike (a regular here)
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Well done


With my lack of skills, repairs are a must.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 18:53:24   #
frankraney (a regular here)
 
UTMike wrote:
This is what you can do with Landscape Pro.


Thanks Mike, for the tip. Had not heard of LP. I usually use Adobe PS. Haven't replaced Sky's before, but have thought about it.. looks like LP is easier for that? I found several photos taken with that camera, with the same results in Sky's. I was thinking the sky was overexposed.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 18:59:33   #
frankraney (a regular here)
 


No doubt Linda.....I was just curious as to what the problem is.....I think over exposed.... As I found a lot a photos taken with the same camera with the same problem......

Always appreciate your input Linda.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 19:04:39   #
autofocus
 
frankraney wrote:
No doubt Linda.....I was just curious as to what the problem is.....I think over exposed.... As I found a lot a photos taken with the same camera with the same problem......

Always appreciate your input Linda.


geez Frank, did you read my reply..? The image is actually underexposed, and yes, the clouds appear bright, but they are not overexposed

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 20:03:30   #
frankraney (a regular here)
 
autofocus wrote:
geez Frank, did you read my reply..? The image is actually underexposed, and yes, the clouds appear bright, but they are not overexposed


Yes autofocus.....I read your reply..... They very well could be under, since my focus and measure was on the town.....I have never seen Sky's and clouds look like a water painting while the rest of ok....I tried what you suggested, no good results.. Did you DL and try.........it actually gets worse over all....it's easier to recover from over than under exposure. That's why I now expose to the right, rather than zero or less, and use histogram, which I did not have back then..... This photo is probably 20 -25 years ago....

I think as Linda and Mike have said, Time for replacement.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 20:48:20   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
frankraney wrote:
...I think as Linda and Mike have said, Time for replacement.
The two links in my reply are to recent topics in PP Forum regarding sky replacements. There are some good tips and lots of fun examples. Note that MinnieV's is a "share thread" with several participants posting. Hope to see you there!

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 20:54:59   #
autofocus
 
frankraney wrote:
Yes autofocus.....I read your reply..... They very well could be under, since my focus and measure was on the town.....I have never seen Sky's and clouds look like a water painting while the rest of ok....I tried what you suggested, no good results.. Did you DL and try.........it actually gets worse over all....it's easier to recover from over than under exposure. That's why I now expose to the right, rather than zero or less, and use histogram, which I did not have back then..... This photo is probably 20 -25 years ago....

I think as Linda and Mike have said, Time for replacement.
Yes autofocus.....I read your reply..... They very... (show quote)


the clouds are what they are, and unfortunately they did not have much coloration or details in them to start with..so, a transplant would certainly help. And, sorry, I can't agree that over exposures are easier to fix than underexposures. If data is lost, aka blown out by over exposures, there is no recovering from that scenario, 255 is lost data, totally gone. If you are metering off a dark area, or a dark subject, and go by that meter reading and shoot, you will assuredly overexpose some parts of the image. Blown skies are one thing, but blown faces is when it really becomes a problem. Picture the following, you're shooting a wedding and it's time to shoot the grooms men, all in black tuxedos and leaning against a black limousine. If you set your camera's exposure off the meter, or shoot it in some auto mode, you will wind up with gray tuxedos, a gray limo, and blown out faces. The solution in that kind of situation is to manually underexpose the shot. BTW, it's just the opposite for very bright, or predominantly white subject matter. In that case you would want to overexpose the shot...it's all about reading the light and being smarter than the meter.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 22:30:36   #
frankraney (a regular here)
 
autofocus wrote:
the clouds are what they are, and unfortunately they did not have much coloration or details in them to start with..so, a transplant would certainly help. And, sorry, I can't agree that over exposures are easier to fix than underexposures. If data is lost, aka blown out by over exposures, there is no recovering from that scenario, 255 is lost data, totally gone. If you are metering off a dark area, or a dark subject, and go by that meter reading and shoot, you will assuredly overexpose some parts of the image. Blown skies are one thing, but blown faces is when it really becomes a problem. Picture the following, you're shooting a wedding and it's time to shoot the grooms men, all in black tuxedos and leaning against a black limousine. If you set your camera's exposure off the meter, or shoot it in some auto mode, you will wind up with gray tuxedos, a gray limo, and blown out faces. The solution in that kind of situation is to manually underexpose the shot. BTW, it's just the opposite for very bright, or predominantly white subject matter. In that case you would want to overexpose the shot...it's all about reading the light and being smarter than the meter.
the clouds are what they are, and unfortunately th... (show quote)


You are correct..... When I say ettr, I should say, in cases like this, landscapes ...but not point of blowing out anything. That would be worthless....

I may get a chance to take photos at a local Luxery car dealer with models next week. That will, I'm sure, have models in white dress and white car, or black dress and black car..... This and weddings, as you say are different than landscapes, which is what I shoot mostly.

Thanks again for the feed back and suggestions. It's just that I've not seen skies like mine before, they look so fake, like water color.....I didn't notice it when I took the photo 20-25 years ago...... But never look at my photos at 100% back then... Makes a big difference when you do.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 23:08:28   #
autofocus
 
frankraney wrote:
You are correct..... When I say ettr, I should say, in cases like this, landscapes ...but not point of blowing out anything. That would be worthless....

I may get a chance to take photos at a local Luxery car dealer with models next week. That will, I'm sure, have models in white dress and white car, or black dress and black car..... This and weddings, as you say are different than landscapes, which is what I shoot mostly.

Thanks again for the feed back and suggestions. It's just that I've not seen skies like mine before, they look so fake, like water color.....I didn't notice it when I took the photo 20-25 years ago...... But never look at my photos at 100% back then... Makes a big difference when you do.
You are correct..... When I say ettr, I should say... (show quote)


you're welcome Frank...do you know I've been replying on your other thread about shooting cars? I enjoy shooting cars, and do a lot of it. You might want to visit my flickr page to see some of them, the link to flickr is under my name below. Maybe it'll give you some ideas when you shoot some Jags and models :)

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.