DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Help! Having blow-out issues STILL!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/13/2005 09:34:05 PM · #1
I asked a couple days ago and got a few great possible answers to this little "issue" I keep having. I tried those suggestions (diff. filters/spot metering, etc.) to no avail... I still can't take a picture that includes sky without it being completely blasted-out white. ARGH! (Stupid Indiana overcast!)
Does PS offer something/way to edit just the sky? If so, are pics like that legal for challenges? Is there another way to get the effect I'm so desperately searching for? I can't help the sky (darnit!) but I can learn as a photog.-in-training.
Any advice would be welcomed

10/13/2005 09:34:41 PM · #2
10/13/2005 09:35:37 PM · #3
That one's an example... Gorgeous picture (toot-toot!)... blasted sky!
 10/13/2005 09:36:32 PM · #4
Where is the sun in the sky relative to you when you take the pictures that are blown-out, specifically the one you just posted?
 10/13/2005 09:38:01 PM · #5
behind me, around 6 or 7pm.. I stuck around for about an hour and then the subject was way too dark
:(
 10/13/2005 09:48:14 PM · #6
A -1 or -2/3 Exposure compensation would solve this problem. Can you post the EXIF data?
 10/13/2005 09:51:24 PM · #7
woah - dumn that down a little, please
:)
 10/13/2005 09:53:22 PM · #8
Use the camera in P-mode then dial in a -2/3 exposure compensation, this will tell the camera to expose less and render the sky darker.
 10/13/2005 09:55:06 PM · #9
I'm afraid there is nothing you can do about it.

There isn't an exposure value that will let you get a proper exposure on the foreground without blowing out the sky. Can't be done.

Your photo looks great though. The blowout may be bugging you but it really looks fine :)

But, if you are adventurous, there are some advanced techniques that will allow you blend a couple of exposures together.

//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml
 10/13/2005 09:55:22 PM · #10
and it won't make everything else too dark??
2/3 exposure comp. - i can go as far down as -2, is that what you mean?
 10/13/2005 10:01:40 PM · #11
*noggin shakes her head and takes down notes*
Thanks guys!!
Anybody wanna bootleg a copy of PS for me? J/K!!
 10/13/2005 10:21:38 PM · #12
Now I can't wait to go back out and take more pics!!
 10/14/2005 11:29:34 AM · #13
Originally posted by Noggin:
and it won't make everything else too dark??
2/3 exposure comp. - i can go as far down as -2, is that what you mean?


i think that was meant to be "two-thirds" rather than "two or three"


10/14/2005 11:32:34 AM · #14
If it's darker, remember you can bring the darker up, but you can't darken the blowout.
 10/14/2005 12:01:59 PM · #15
Some, but bringing up the darker areas also introduces noise - at least that's been my experience. I use the +/- EV settings frequently, it can help tremendously.

Originally posted by Beach_mel:
If it's darker, remember you can bring the darker up, but you can't darken the blowout.

10/14/2005 12:05:47 PM · #16
See if your camera has exposure lock, which will let you expose for a specific area of your shot, then recompose and refocus...still using the exposure reading for what you locked it on previously. I hope that made some semblence of sense! :)
 10/14/2005 12:22:55 PM · #17
if you want to get the foreground exposed properly you will often have a blown out sky. its part of life. the only real ways to fix this are to have the sun like directly behind you, so the sky and foreground are both at a similar level of exposure, or use a graduated neutral density filter (which basically is a filter that has a dark to clear gradient, so the sky will be darker while your foreground is not affected ...but i dont think they make that for your camera) or to put your camera on a tripod, make two seperate photos, one exposed for the sky (ie blue sky with silhouettes) and one exposed for the foreground (ie green grass blown sky) and then blend the two together in photoshop. the key with this, however is that your photo has to be the exact same composition, you cant blend photos smoothly if the camera has moved even in the slightest degree really.
 10/14/2005 12:24:09 PM · #18
In photoshop or similar programs this problem is fixable. In the following images (both VERY quickly done, 30 secs or so each, it can be done better) the first is basic-editing-legal and the second is advanced-editing-legal:



In the first, a selective color adjustment layer was used and the white channel was adjusted to provide color. The color is even throughout the blown areas.

In the second, the magic wand was used to select a bright area, then "select similar" was used to collect them all. A duplicate copy of BG layer was created, and a blue-to-transparent gradient was applied twice, from the top down and fromt he bottom up. Then hue/saturation layer was created ont he selection and the blue was fine-tined, and finally the duplicate layer was faded to 64% to mute the effect. The gradient job, especially, could be done better if more timne was spent on it and if it were working on a hi-res original.

R.
 10/14/2005 12:48:59 PM · #19
Sounds like the dutch sky i look at every day. Im gonna pick up a polarizingfilter tomorrow hoping that'll help.
 10/14/2005 12:52:31 PM · #20
Watch the histogram on your camera. If you have a mode where it shows up when you see the thumbnail of your shot, that's easiest.

Start with a regular exposure. Does the histogram reach all the way to the right? Anything at this edge is blowout. Reduce by 1/3rd exposure and snap again (ain't digital great?). Is it still all the way to the right? Repeat until you see that there is space between the edge of the histogram and the right edge of the graph (even a tiny bit). Now, look at the left side. If you now have graph reaching all the way to the left you are screwed and basically need to either use PS to blend a picture, or need a graduated ND filter to try to lower the brightness of the sky. The graph all the way to the left represents blacks with no detail.

So, in the end, if you have a picture with even a little bit of space to the right and left of the histogram, you have a shot which can be worked with in PS to make look better. It may take a little work, but it can be done. Histograms with graphs either touching the left or right will have areas of either white or black (without detail), no matter what you do.
 10/14/2005 01:11:45 PM · #21
Learn about digital blending as mcmurma suggested. It will give you more dynamic range.
10/14/2005 01:49:36 PM · #22
Originally posted by bear_music:
In photoshop or similar programs this problem is fixable. In the following images (both VERY quickly done, 30 secs or so each, it can be done better) the first is basic-editing-legal and the second is advanced-editing-legal:

I don't think we can guarantee that filling a blown sky with a blue gradient will be ruled challenge-legal under the Advanced Editing rules -- I suspect there might be some difference of opinion, since you are not enhancing existing detail but creating new detail.

If you can capture any color at all in the sky, I've had some success at creating a gradient mask -- selecting the sky and masking the foreground -- and then applying extreme Curves adjustments through the mask. It seems to mimic a graduated ND filter to a reasonable extent, with the advantage that you can paint the mask to exactly match the scene contents, whereas a "real" graduated ND filter offers only a crude horizon line with a fixed gradient pattern.
 10/14/2005 02:50:01 PM · #23
edit..dang, nevermind. Just noticed that the General mentioned Advanced not Basic. My bad.

Message edited by author 2005-10-14 14:51:34.
 10/14/2005 03:01:32 PM · #24
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bear_music:
In photoshop or similar programs this problem is fixable. In the following images (both VERY quickly done, 30 secs or so each, it can be done better) the first is basic-editing-legal and the second is advanced-editing-legal:

I don't think we can guarantee that filling a blown sky with a blue gradient will be ruled challenge-legal under the Advanced Editing rules -- I suspect there might be some difference of opinion, since you are not enhancing existing detail but creating new detail.

If you can capture any color at all in the sky, I've had some success at creating a gradient mask -- selecting the sky and masking the foreground -- and then applying extreme Curves adjustments through the mask. It seems to mimic a graduated ND filter to a reasonable extent, with the advantage that you can paint the mask to exactly match the scene contents, whereas a "real" graduated ND filter offers only a crude horizon line with a fixed gradient pattern.


I can take a blown sky and use white-channel adjustment in selective color to make it any color I want to, and i can do this legally in any editing rules. Agreed?

Stipulating that, I can take that same image, with the colorized sky, and (in advanced editing) select the sky and then use carefully application of the burning tool to make it progressively darker at the top than at the bottom. This is a fundamental photographic technique that's been around forever in film photography/darkroom work.

Photoshop's gradient tool, using "color-to-transparent" gradations, is simply an automated way of doing that. It's MORE than that of course, it can be used for some extremely agressive effects, but as we're talking about using it here it's a much more subtle effect. I'd be astonished if SC ruled that such simnple sky gradations are "illegal" under advanced editing, and a LOT of my submissions would be DQ'd if that were the case. These come to mind:



Robt.
 10/14/2005 03:10:52 PM · #25
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I am just of the opinion that at least some SC members would view creating detail in an area of totally flat color -- by dodging/burning, using a gradient fill, using the "render Clouds" filter, or any other means -- as violating the "creating major elements" rule.

I'me sure I have a few images which have skirted the edges of the rules myself, although only a couple were flagrant enough to trigger a DQ review (passed -- whew!).

I have no "artistic" objections to any of the many techniques I've seen you so ably demonstrate, but some of them just don't fit within the challenge rules. Hopefully, a couple of other SC members will opine on this matter, as my own opinion is often on the minority end of those votes, at least on many of the "subjective" DQ rulings ... I prefer to leave those decisions to the voters.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 05:23:20 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 05:23:20 PM EDT.