Beginner How to NOT blow out a sky?

IMHO, once the sky is blown there is little you can do about it, unless you are able to do the photoshop trick mentioned.

But despite that the phot in question is able to be bettered by a bit of post processing, as has been shown earlier. Reducing highlights does most of the job.

The photo is then quite acceptable........

Otherwise, you might have changed the background before taking the shot.

But if its not broke, don't fix it :):):):)
 
Thanks for this Dave!
Please don't follow that link...

There's a time and a olace for Photoshop, and replacing the sky in either a perfectly acceptable or out of focus portrait isn't on the list :).

What Dave said, and Beth.

That shot done well and exposed correctly us fine.

If you really want to go for the bluer sky you need to add light to your subject, there's lots of ways of doing that.
 
Please don't follow that link...

There's a time and a olace for Photoshop, and replacing the sky in either a perfectly acceptable or out of focus portrait isn't on the list :).

What Dave said, and Beth.

That shot done well and exposed correctly us fine.

If you really want to go for the bluer sky you need to add light to your subject, there's lots of ways of doing that.

Hi Phil,

Thanks for that point. I just added it as a reference point should I had and chose to replace this. IMHO, this was more of a learning post for me and seeing how I could have improved this during the initial shooting process. As you pointed out I royally screwed it 1st instance. I think the OCF fill light would had made a better option in this instance, and im sure I will have lots more opportunities in the near future :)
 
IMHO, once the sky is blown there is little you can do about it, unless you are able to do the photoshop trick mentioned.

But despite that the phot in question is able to be bettered by a bit of post processing, as has been shown earlier. Reducing highlights does most of the job.

The photo is then quite acceptable........

Otherwise, you might have changed the background before taking the shot.

But if its not broke, don't fix it :):):):)

Good point. I know obviously in this respect there is not alot I could do, but in the future, this post has most definitely showed me what I can do to improve this in the future :)
 
Looking at this shot, and after feedback previously I am fully aware that the sky is completely blown (the SOOC was relatively underexposed as well). After adjusting exposure obviously this then completely wiped my sky.

Some erm 'mixed' advice on here!

Fwiw I don't think the shot is too far off as it is. It's a nice image, your subject is well exposed. I don't think shots like this are in anyway spoilt by blown sky detail.

I did pick up on something you said in the quoted bit though. You mentioned that you adjusted the exposure and therefore lost the sky detail. You could have tried instead tweaking the shadow and highlight tones instead of the whole picture, that may have retained some sky detail, especially if you were using the raw file. But beware, it can all start to look very unnatural and lacking in contrast so beware! Like I say though in my opinion it's just fine as it is.
 
Some erm 'mixed' advice on here!

Fwiw I don't think the shot is too far off as it is. It's a nice image, your subject is well exposed. I don't think shots like this are in anyway spoilt by blown sky detail.

I did pick up on something you said in the quoted bit though. You mentioned that you adjusted the exposure and therefore lost the sky detail. You could have tried instead tweaking the shadow and highlight tones instead of the whole picture, that may have retained some sky detail, especially if you were using the raw file. But beware, it can all start to look very unnatural and lacking in contrast so beware! Like I say though in my opinion it's just fine as it is.

Yes I adjusted the photo as a whole as he was well underexposed. I guess I would had liked to retain the sky detail, but imho, the sky was blown pretty much from the start, so I didnt have alot to grab onto. It is a complete learning curve and i am just really learning most of this either way :D
 
Hi Phil,

Thanks for that point. I just added it as a reference point should I had and chose to replace this. IMHO, this was more of a learning post for me and seeing how I could have improved this during the initial shooting process. As you pointed out I royally screwed it 1st instance. I think the OCF fill light would had made a better option in this instance, and im sure I will have lots more opportunities in the near future :)
It's not royally screwed - it's slightly over, but not a big deal.
 
Ok the pic may be a little over exposed, I'm looking at the child's skin for reference, the blown out sky doesn't bother me in the slightest. You've got great eye contact with the youngster and that's what makes the picture.
No filter, UV or otherwise, is going to remedy the sky being blown. As others have said, the only thing to do is retake it, expose for the sky and fill in the inevitable shadows with some extra light from somewhere, I would suggest a reflector in this case, but a bit of fill flash is another solution.
Be aware that going down the "Fill in the shadows" route is going to result in a very different picture indeed.
Really all it comes down to is positioning your subject and taking care with the framing and these two things don't cost or weigh anything.
Without seeing the original it's hard to see if the pic could be more balanced in post production or not.
I've seen lots of perfectly exposed pics of kids that lack the connection with the subject that you have here. It's good to be critical of your own work but don't just see the negatives.
 
Ok the pic may be a little over exposed, I'm looking at the child's skin for reference, the blown out sky doesn't bother me in the slightest. You've got great eye contact with the youngster and that's what makes the picture.
No filter, UV or otherwise, is going to remedy the sky being blown. As others have said, the only thing to do is retake it, expose for the sky and fill in the inevitable shadows with some extra light from somewhere, I would suggest a reflector in this case, but a bit of fill flash is another solution.
Be aware that going down the "Fill in the shadows" route is going to result in a very different picture indeed.
Really all it comes down to is positioning your subject and taking care with the framing and these two things don't cost or weigh anything.
Without seeing the original it's hard to see if the pic could be more balanced in post production or not.
I've seen lots of perfectly exposed pics of kids that lack the connection with the subject that you have here. It's good to be critical of your own work but don't just see the negatives.

Hi Graham, thankyou for the feedback. Here was the original picture. Im still learning about composition etc :)

View attachment 93141
 
Not a problem. If you want us to have a play in PP we would need the biggest version possible, preferably just as it came out of the camera with no re-sizing.
I'm happy to PM you my email address so you can send me the original original if you want me to have a go.

Hi Graham, Happy with any editing, im just not sure what i did with the original imho, and tbf im not sure anything would come of it because it was just me messing. I think its one of those things where it is just for learning :) Your comments are welcomed thou :)
 
I'd try to make the most of what you have in this instance, Kirsty

my simple edit in LR - without Photoshop would be

Boy_Edit.jpg
 
I'd try to make the most of what you have in this instance, Kirsty

my simple edit in LR - without Photoshop would be

Thanks for this. Yep I know i had not a great lot to work with on this one. I was really at the beginning
 
it was more of a case of him smiling like a plank as usual and attempting to make sense of my new found freedom and settings with a DSLR.
Fair enough, but that's the point... 'practicing' with settings, 'going manual', you are falling into the trap of looking AT the camera rather than through it... And, the bigger trap of looking at the wrong 'thing' in how to make the photo 'better'.. considering the 'exposure' which wasn't far off, and changing wont do much to improve the results.. while, to make that shot so much 'better' what you might have done is all outside the camera, and away from knobs and buttons and twiddly bits....

'Sat like a Plank'.. yup, that's kids... when you want'em to sit still, they do nowt but fidget, when you want them to do 'something' they sit like a plank! Contrary creatures they is!
BUT, if there' a lesson in this... that's the hint, so much of people pictures is in managing the 'people' not not in setting the camera.*

Like I said, best things to have in the gadget bag for kiddie pictures is not filters or flashes or lenses, BUT bubbles, sweeties, magic-cream and a towel! Involve them, entertain them, ENGAGE with them, draw them into the picture.. Like I said, a soccer ball or comic, some 'prop' that reveals or suggests something about the boy, his interests his character, add hugely to the composition and offer depth and meaning and context.. but YOU have to put it there, or put in the work to include it. Suggestion about the glasses, and 'playing' with them, was something that could have been done, there working with what you had, even if you couldn't pull a soccer ball or Frisbee or comic out of the 'Activity Bag' ...

Divorsed Dad talking here... the 'Activity Bag' was a small school sized sports bag, containing an assortment of portable, bag sized activities, that could be kept in the car, lugged about a park, into a restaurant, carried o a train, or pulled out when visiting friends or family and they were 'bored', ad cat escape to their room to zombifie on X-box! Some indoor activities, some outdoor; some quiet some loud! Some solo some group. There was a soccer ball, and a Frisbee, but daughter rather took to cricket, so a child's cricket set went in it for a while! A kite.. takes up little room and is endless entertainment on a beach or big park.. especially if there's no wind! Indoors, a pack of playing cards is always something, many, things to do! Some small toys; A doll or a car! My son, was, and still is mad about trains! A little plastic battery operated train-set about the size of a dinner plate that cold be set up on a restaurant table, from the pound-shop was in the bag for a very long while! Comics got added to it weekly, and some crayons let them do the puzzles, and some paper, play naughts and crosses or do drawings. An Enid Blyton compendium, offered 'story time' or something for them to read on a train. A packet of biscuits and some sweets, provided a treat or sugar boost when they were getting crabby; the 'magic cream' tended all ills when they fell over or felt hurt; a bottle of pop, is essental to keep them happy and hydrated... and wet wipes to clean them up when accidents inevitably happen! and the 'towel'... invaluable to have when kids are about!

This was the 'preparation' of being a parent, rather than a photographer, BUT that's where you begin; cater for the kids first, and the photo's will follow naturally. Put the photo' an the camera first and you wont get much at all!

But its THERE, outside the camera, engaging with the subject, managing the scene, that 'better' results are most to be found, NOT in faffing with f-stops! Stick the thing an appropriate auto and THEY can pretty much take care of themselves! Its what the cameras good at! Its NOT very good at coping with kids! so let the camera deal with what ts best at, whist you deal with the stuff only you can! This 'Real Photographers Go manual' Makarkie is a lot of, it really is! A-N-D I bet you only 'Go-Manual' as far as the metering... no one seems to say 'Go Manual - turn off the Auto-Focus!" (except perhaps me!) Which is ironic, as the auto metering in most cameras is probably one of the most reliable easements they offer! Auto Focus the least! And making exposure settings manually, you are likely doing nothing the camera wouldn't do for you in appropriate auto-mode, with or without a little exposure compensation. Auto-Focus will NOT focus on thin air to put the DoF where you really want it around your subject and get most front to back sharpness or effect focus isolation, no matter how much you play with the red-dots, it HAS to have something it can triangulate 'range' off!... which is a little off topic 'rant'... but point is DONT be conned into believing its 'all in the camera' and how well you know your f-stops... it just ISN'T! Pay attention to the subject! Pay attention to your composition, manage THAT and don't let the cameras knobs divert your attention from that! That s where you will find the difference between 'nice' pictures and 'great' pictures... not in 1/3 of a stop of exposure difference or a little more shutter and a little less aperture!

* This was a lesson I learned from a fellow student at Photo Class. He was a 'professional' photographer, mostly weddings and events for the local paper. He was, at the time, I suppose in his early fifties, and had been at the job since he left school at 16 and been 'placed' with the local pro by his school science teacher and leader of the school camera club. So I was stunned, he was on a beginners photo course! Eh?!?! WHY you do this for a living! He grinned sheepishly... "Yeah, but I want to learn how to use a camera!" he said. And elaborated, that starting out as 'assistant' he got a lot of hands on lugging cameras and tripods about, and loading film, and even developing it; BUT when it came to taking photo's 'The Boss' had told him not to worry about all that! He had a 'program'. Three basic 'set ups', for indoor and outdoor shots, with individuals couples ad groups; three focus distances, three apertures and three shutter speeds.. varied ONLY on the shutter by one or two stops depending on 'on the day' incident light meter readings.... that was it. Shot to script; worry about the PEOPLE.. I think I recall Phil, here commenting about the job as being like herding cats! And that was certainly what my fellow student reported! But, as amateurs, indulging our interests and getting 'involved' with photography and discovering these 'fancy cameras' and all the twiddly bits, it's a trap we can easily fall into, thinking that that is where the 'job' is at; playing with the camera, NOT in what we are pointing the camera at, and coping with those people we want (or don't!) in our shot! So very little is actually 'in' the camera... everything else is outside it, and, if you want better pictures, THAT is where you are most likley to find it!
 
So very little is actually 'in' the camera... everything else is outside it, and, if you want better pictures, THAT is where you are most likley to find it!
Patronising claptrap! I wish my first attempts were anyway near as good! If you want better pictures, you also need to understand the tools. This is a remarkably good composition for a first attempt.
 
I think all the images that has been posted, (on a couple of threads), of this little guy are really good, his smile shines through
 
I agree with woof, on the exposure issue... I would probably have exposed for the boy, and let the sky blow, it's not 'really' adding much to the shot, or adding context or interest. But I'd back up a bit and say that's probably least of the worries. Composition, composition, composition! Composition isn't 'bad', but you'd do more to make a better shot looking at that, than you would exposure.

What in your shot is 'subject', what is 'detail, and of the 'detail' what is useful detail adding context to the subject, and what is distracting detail confusing the picture and detracting from impact?''

And WHY oh WHY haven't you turned the camera sideways to portrait mode?

What in that big space to the right, is adding interest, context or 'anything' to the picture? OK, so you have placed boy on the 1st vertical of the 3rds grid... and you have given him some breathing space, but still there's almost half a frame of just vacant 'space'.. doing nothing... and my eye is drawn to, I think its a chateau style hotel. oof, in the far back-ground, and and trying to resolve that 'ambiguity' rather than look at the lad! There's a lamp-post I think, chopping a back-ground tree a little to the left of the chateau; you could have cropped there, and cut out that incongruity and the chateau from frame, and still left him space to breath and a pleasant contextual 'scene' around him.

Looking at the setting.. I would probably.. if I was being that bit pretentious about the job.. re-composed it completely.. lads looking at and smiling for the camera, it's not a candid or action shot, so I would probably have looked to move him around so he was sitting more obviously in front or against the tree to his right (left of pic), turned the camera through 90 Deg and got down even lower and the played with positioning, to get the 'feature' tree more in frame, and find the shadows through the leaves falling on the lad, and let 'them' tell the story of a sunny day, rather than any sky, and then depending on camera->boy->tree distances, try and work some nice moody 'oofing' into the light falling through the tree, or keep it crisp and let the shadow contrast emphasize the 'sunniness'.

Fill in flash, is a cheap trick, and possibly what I would have used to brighten up the boy in the shadows and darken up the back-ground & if I kept much if any in frame, retain sky detail.... B-U-T...

Alternatively, appropriate place to use a reflector....... which would probably be more natural and neutral and 'pleasing' than 'harsh' flash...... A-N-D in similar situations I have done! Doesn't have to be a studio reflector... A white T-Shirt or light colored towel (always handy to have in the bag of you are working with kids BTW!.. along with a bottle of blowie bubbles and a bag of haribo, and some anti-septic 'magic cream' lol), can be quite effective improvisations!...... Having stripped off white T-Shirt and got some-one else to hold it as a reflector..... my Lilly white torso, , might also play a part...lol! ....Yeah.. take a towel! lol.lol. BUT, it was a bright day, plenty of natural light about, just not where you necessarily wanted it; why start chucking harsh artificial into that when you could just redirect a bit of what's already there?

B-U-T as a relatively posed and staged shot? You might as well, exploit that staging to get the 'best' effect....A-N-D... I would probably have been inclined to be a bit naughty, and actually TRY and get some leaf shadow playing on his face and arms, so 'suggest' summer sun, and sunny skies, rather than show it directly, try and emphasis the 'mood' rather than the subject..

On which topic... 'props' might add to the shot. What's the lad 'in to'? A soccer ball, at his feet, or a comic book on his lap, or 'something' to hint at his interests or character, need not be large, or dominating, or distracting from the picture, BUT would add another dimension, offering a connection to the subject, some added context and reason to the picture, telling the viewer 'more' than just what he looks like on a sunny day.

As posed, I'm drawn to the his glasses... and that offers suggestion... does he 'like' having to wear spex? With nothing else to had, I might have asked him to play with them.. take a few shots with them 'incidental', on his knee or in his hand, rather than on his face, or even doing something with them, pulling a face whilst he tries cleaning them, or 'something'... again, playing with the staging and composition, looking to draw more out of the 'scene' as a whole.

As said, as is, it's a pleasant picture, and it's not badly composed OR exposed... but its in that composition, engaging with the boy, looking to extract more of 'him', rather than playing with the camera looking for better settings, I'd expect to find that difference that takes it from a photo you glance at and smile, to a picture that holds your gave and MAKES you want to look at it, and understand it.

As said, exposure? Near enough. Little improvement might be found there; but more attention to composition & staging, could kick it into a different league.

Towel, bubbles, sweets and magic cream! Those are your key accessories, rather than flash guns and slave sells! Especially when it comes to kidz!


Jesus dude. It's just a casual shot of her nephew.
:tumbleweed:


rusticblonde - the original photo looks fine. Don't worry about the blown out sky in this one. In future, if you do want a perfect background exposure, just set the camera to expose for the background (or slightly under exposure) and use flash to light the person. Job done (y)
 
Last edited:
I have dropped the light on this using curves in Photoshop CS 5 to suit that fact he is sitting in shade under a tree


gmKjRvP.jpg


Les
 
I have dropped the light on this using curves in Photoshop CS 5 to suit that fact he is sitting in shade under a tree


gmKjRvP.jpg


Les

But now there are horrible artefacts in the trees and background which is far more distracting that the blown sky in the first place.

I agree with others, sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to blow out the sky.
 
Last edited:
you can't have everything- and I agree a blown sky is not the end of the world :p

I was more intent on getting the main subject right

Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have dropped the light on this using curves in Photoshop CS 5 to suit that fact he is sitting in shade under a tree


gmKjRvP.jpg


Les

I prefer it as it was, it's overcooked now and just detracts from the subject. It's nice if you to have a go though for the OP.
 
Last edited:
It's a nice photo. Don't think there's much you could have done better without a lot more work.

He's in shade and wearing glasses so blasting him with direct flash (on or off camera) would have made the shot look a bit artificial (sorry to say, i think the speedlite example you posted above suffers from this).

A white reflector would have let you put a bit more diffused light on the subject without it being too overpowering, and thereby bring the exposure down on the sky enough to get some blue in there. Looking for a spot where there was some naturally reflected light (near a wall, light-coloured floor, e.t.c.) would achieve the same.

Personally, I would have just bracketed the shot to get a darker/bluer exposure of the sky and comped it in with Photoshop. Not the most refined way of doing things but often the best when you've just got your camera with you and nothing else.
 
It is strange what people see when looking at a photograph. I didn't notice the blown sky at all and just saw a very nice portrait. I think the exposure on the child was maybe just a little over but not by a lot. Everyone has already given great suggestions about avoiding the blown sky in future (mine would have been use a reflector or fill flash) but personally I would have been really happy with that, as if the option are a blown sky or missing the moment, it is better to have a blown sky than nothing at all. One other thing to try would be to crop off at the right hand side where most of the blown sky is to make it a square but I wondered if that might look a bit too cramped. Lastly have you tried this in black and white too? I think it might look quite good.
 
It is strange what people see when looking at a photograph. I didn't notice the blown sky at all and just saw a very nice portrait. I think the exposure on the child was maybe just a little over but not by a lot. Everyone has already given great suggestions about avoiding the blown sky in future (mine would have been use a reflector or fill flash) but personally I would have been really happy with that, as if the option are a blown sky or missing the moment, it is better to have a blown sky than nothing at all. One other thing to try would be to crop off at the right hand side where most of the blown sky is to make it a square but I wondered if that might look a bit too cramped. Lastly have you tried this in black and white too? I think it might look quite good.

Hi Nguss, No i havent but i will try totally :)
 
Hi Kirsty,

A few ways you can deal with the sky issue.

1. Let it go. So it blows out it's not the most important part of the photograph.
2. Use a reflector to kick more light on to your subject which will result in you being able to up the shutter speed to compensate and the sky will become darker. You probably won't recover that sky fully this way even with a silver reflector.
3. Light your subject separately with off camera flash. At this point you have 2 exposure to deal with in the one shot and have more control. Since he is sat in the shade the light source/modifier would work best if it was large and close to provide the soft light you get in shade.

Lighting the subject with flash will give you options regarding that background and Sky.

In this image below I show a scene where I shot an available light exposure and one lit with off camera flash to give me control over the sky.

View media item 12615
The EXIF and technical info is on the image.

Rick
 
Hi Kirsty,

A few ways you can deal with the sky issue.

1. Let it go. So it blows out it's not the most important part of the photograph.
2. Use a reflector to kick more light on to your subject which will result in you being able to up the shutter speed to compensate and the sky will become darker. You probably won't recover that sky fully this way even with a silver reflector.
3. Light your subject separately with off camera flash. At this point you have 2 exposure to deal with in the one shot and have more control. Since he is sat in the shade the light source/modifier would work best if it was large and close to provide the soft light you get in shade.

Lighting the subject with flash will give you options regarding that background and Sky.

In this image below I show a scene where I shot an available light exposure and one lit with off camera flash to give me control over the sky.

View media item 12615
The EXIF and technical info is on the image.

Rick

Perfect example Rick and this is exactly what i was looking for. Thankyou for the feedback and brilliant advice and example :) Can i ask where you placed the speedlite?
 
Perfect example Rick and this is exactly what i was looking for. Thankyou for the feedback and brilliant advice and example :) Can i ask where you placed the speedlite?

You are welcome.

The light was not a speedlite. More like a speedlite on steroids that gives out 360ws compared to a speedlites 60ws of power. If I had shot this with a speedlite my Fstop would of been at F5.6 at best, you can do a lot with a speedlite but for some situations you will need more light.

The light was placed in a Westcott 28" Apollo softbox that was boomed over the subject by an assistant, it places the light over head and slightly infront of your subject. I shoot that pattern of light quite a bit because I really love it, you will see it in a lot of fashion and beauty work also.

Rick
 
You are welcome.

The light was not a speedlite. More like a speedlite on steroids that gives out 360ws compared to a speedlites 60ws of power. If I had shot this with a speedlite my Fstop would of been at F5.6 at best, you can do a lot with a speedlite but for some situations you will need more light.

The light was placed in a Westcott 28" Apollo softbox that was boomed over the subject by an assistant, it places the light over head and slightly infront of your subject. I shoot that pattern of light quite a bit because I really love it, you will see it in a lot of fashion and beauty work also.

Rick

oh, fair point :)
 
Back
Top