Beginner whıteness ın the sky

mine

mine

Messages
33
Name
elçin
Edit My Images
Yes
hıı to all members

ı have a problem about whıteness ın the sky . how can ı avoıd thıs whıteness of my photo ?

thanks for the answer ın advance
 
thanks for the lınks proud2btaff , you have great photoes but ı took thıs photo usıng manuel as well trıed everythıng but ı cant avoıd thıs whıteness ıf ı use hıgher shutter speed the photo becomes darker and when ı use lower shutter ıt becomes lıghter and whıteness ıs always there ((
 
Proud2btaff said:
more info on settings used would help ie shutter speed, iso etc.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't help.

The image shown has a larger dynamic range than can be recorded by the camera.

The answers to the bright sky are:
  1. Expose for the sky and lose detail in the land
  2. Use a graduated ND filter to darken the sky whilst keeping detail in the foreground
  3. Use multiple shots (at a range of exposures for the foreground and sky) and blend them with software
  4. Buy a very expensive medium format camera with greater dynamic range
  5. Live with it.
I'd recommend 3:)
 
You're shooting a high contrast scene where the dynamic range is greater than the ability of the sensor to capture. Shooting shadows against a backlit sky you're either going to blow the sky or block the shadows - unless you do something fancy such as multiple exposure HDR.

The easy option is to frame the shot to exclude the sky when you get this sort of scene and you've no choice about where to shoot from. That reduces the dynamic range within the frame and gives the sensor a chance to record it. If the horizon was flatter you could use neutral density graduated filters, but I don't think this would have helped in this circumstance.
 
Phil V said:
It wouldn't help.

The image shown has a larger dynamic range than can be recorded by the camera.

The answers to the bright sky are:
  1. Expose for the sky and lose detail in the land
  2. Use a graduated ND filter to darken the sky whilst keeping detail in the foreground
  3. Use multiple shots (at a range of exposures for the foreground and sky) and blend them with software
  4. Buy a very expensive medium format camera with greater dynamic range
  5. Live with it.
I'd recommend 3:)
Click to expand...
my Bad Phil, not really something I am used to so thought it may have been over exposing due to the shutter speed but I will take note of what you said also for future reference.
 
thanks for the answers :)))) ı thınk ı must exclude the sky because ı wıll have no chance to carry my trıpot everywhere :)) or lıke phıl saıd ı have to learn to live wıth ıt maybe ı can try the nd fılter as ı havent trıed it before . thanks againn
 
There is a 6th option to Phil's list, which is come back when the sun isn't high in the sky and re-shoot. That way you'll get some detail in the sky & the land, and colours may be nicer too. :)
 
yes ancient timing is very important but sometımes we cant fınd the rıght tıme to shoot if we have limıted tıme and when we we away from home :):
 
mine said:
yes ancient timing is very important but sometımes we cant fınd the rıght tıme to shoot if we have limıted tıme and when we we away from home :):
Click to expand...

I know THAT feeling only too well - my wife has started talking about me taking my mistress along when we go out. :(

But seriously, sometimes the only thing that can be done is a simple record shot that will go in the album, but never really WORK as a great photo. The answer is to be aware of the light and shoot accordingly, and if you want great images then you'll have to chose when you take them, rather than taking them as you're walking past. It sucks, especially if you're on a tour somewhere.

Call me AM. :)
 
Nawty said:
An easy alternative is to shoot in raw and use either digital filters or dodge and burn.
Click to expand...

There's a limit to how much can be recovered in raw before halos start to be intrusive or you end up with muddy grey skies. It's probably easier to recover slightly under exposed areas than blown highlights.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There's a limit to how much can be recovered in raw before halos start to be intrusive.
Click to expand...


There is a limit but modern cameras have pretty insane levels of headroom - easily able to replicate using ND grads - and low level noise is getting much less so boosting shadows is another option.

The key is to know your sensor and expose accordingly.
 
Nawty said:
An easy alternative is to shoot in raw and use either digital filters or dodge and burn.
Click to expand...

ı have never trıed raw shootıng and ı must gıve it a try too . thanks for all the answers :)
 
Nawty said:
An easy alternative is to shoot in raw and use either digital filters or dodge and burn.
Click to expand...


:banghead:

At the expense of quality.

Phil's first post in this thread says all you need to know.

Also.. good lighting, Even if you used any of Phil's suggestions, it wouldn't mean the image has great lighting, and that's the most important aspect of what makes a great photo (technically).
 
Last edited:
When I shoot with a digital camera, I usually take the RAW file and add a graduated filter over the sky to darken it slightly. I do this in Lightroom, but most image editors will allow something similar. If you only reduce the exposure in the sky by 0.5 to 1 stop, then there is rarely a loss of detail. It's not a perfect solution, but it helps. If you want a better solution: shoot film :)
 
Seriously, think about the type of light when you're shooting - as Toni and David say. Photography is all about capturing the light - and that is the very simply job that the camera does. However, it is the photographer who looks at the scene and decides it will make a good photograph (or not). Generally speaking, harsh light with huge dynamic range across the image and contrasty shadows is going to look less pleasing to the eye than shooting when the sun is not high in the sky.

I should know: I spent the first 6 months not understanding (or not wanting to believe) this simple point and wondering why my photos often didn't look good.

On the one hand, you want to be taking as many photos as you can to develop your skills, but equally there are times when it will be verging on "wasted effort", frankly. The best piece of advice I could give someone is to stop taking the camera out at midday! I realise that is a bit extreme but, seriously, it is our natural instinct to think, "ooh, lovely blue sky" when the photographer will be thinking, "eurgh, horrible high sun... where's the shade?"

If you are on holiday and want to take holiday snaps then, sure, fire away when you're there... but they will probably look like holiday snaps. Endeavour to get out around sunrise and sunset - tougher in the summer perhaps, but even a few hours after sunrise and before sunset will have far better light than midday. Also go out when the sky is overcast... especially if it has been raining.

However, if you can simply only be there at midday then there are lots of things you can do to rescue an image you want to keep which has been taken in harsh light, but 95% of the time it will look precisely that - rescued. Phil et al have given you some pointers here. Another option is to convert to black & white where high contrast might suit the image better. Ok, blown highlights will still be blown, but it might be more acceptable to your eye.

Hope that helps - please do get out there and take lots of photos but learn from all of our mistakes and focus on getting the right light first and then capturing the right scene after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top