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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Sun/Sky Scenic Shots
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/11/2002 06:43:55 PM · #1
I can''t do it because I don''t have the expertise, but could somebody please, please, step up and give us poor slobs a tutorial on "how to avoid blank skys". The void just kills me. I try to ignore it, but it''s so prevailant and it really hurts some terribly great photos.
Any volunteers?
Please help us (me, included!)

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/11/2002 6:44:15 PM.

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/11/2002 6:44:32 PM.
06/11/2002 06:57:38 PM · #2
What do you mean by blank? No clouds? Washed out white?
06/11/2002 07:01:30 PM · #3
Blank as in washed out, lacking color of any kind or suggestion that there might be clouds or some other reason that blue is missing.
Examples this week:
Line Painting
Mini Chase
Cruising at 50
(sorry to single these out, first ones I saw just now)

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/11/2002 7:04:31 PM.
06/11/2002 08:09:03 PM · #4
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
Blank as in washed out, lacking color of any kind or suggestion that there might be clouds or some other reason that blue is missing.
Examples this week:
Line Painting
Mini Chase
Cruising at 50
(sorry to single these out, first ones I saw just now


I might be speaking out of turn, but, washed out may be due to
1) dreary weather,
2) long exposure time (needed for the blur, but over exposes the sky
Hey you "guys"! Is this correct? (Am I learning, or still off base).



06/11/2002 08:21:00 PM · #5
Karen is right... if the sky is not blue in real life, it won't be blue in the photo either....

A lot of the photos i see here are trumped up on the blue curve before posting... a polarizing filter helps with color saturation as well...
06/11/2002 08:24:07 PM · #6
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Karen is right... if the sky is not blue in real life, it won't be blue in the photo either....

A lot of the photos i see here are trumped up on the blue curve before posting... a polarizing filter helps with color saturation as well...


Yeah! I AM learning! *grin*.
Thanks John!


06/11/2002 10:40:33 PM · #7
Also, if you're using an automatic exposure setting, set the white/bright point first (it's usually above the center) so you'll expose for the brightest values. You can usually bring out the details in the underexposed darker areas, but once you've lost the detail in the bright parts (clouds, especially) it's gone forever.
06/11/2002 11:08:27 PM · #8
If I am composing a shot that contains a lot of sky, I try to underexpose about a half stop sometimes... If i'm not sure, I do a little bracketing and go down one or two increments on the aperture. If I'm lucky enuff to have my tripod with me I will go manual and find an exposure that works...

It's usually in my best interest to fix brightly lit outdoor shots with the levels adjustement and hue/saturation adjustments in the software when I'm finished takin pitchers :)
06/11/2002 11:26:32 PM · #9
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If I am composing a shot that contains a lot of sky, I try to underexpose about a half stop sometimes... If i''m not sure, I do a little bracketing and go down one or two increments on the aperture. If I''m lucky enuff to have my tripod with me I will go manual and find an exposure that works...

It''s usually in my best interest to fix brightly lit outdoor shots with the levels adjustement and hue/saturation adjustments in the software when I''m finished takin pitchers :)



The two things that help are a polarising filter and also a graduated neutral density filter. I know several of my shots I''ve been asked if I ''fiddled'' the blue channel, but they are as shot.

With a polariser you can get shots like this, without any real fiddling
in an editor. You just have to pay attention to the direction and also turn the polariser correctly.

06/11/2002 11:27:45 PM · #10
I haven't purchased any ND filters yet but I do use a polarizer almost always when I'm outside...
06/11/2002 11:36:36 PM · #11
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
I can''t do it because I don''t have the expertise, but could somebody please, please, step up and give us poor slobs a tutorial on "how to avoid blank skys". The void just kills me. I try to ignore it, but it''s so prevailant and it really hurts some terribly great photos.
Any volunteers?
Please help us (me, included!


Well for one, there has to be a nice blue sky. The other thing you have to realize is that the human eye can see much more variation in brightness then a camera can. I went to a workshop this weekend and they said the human eye can pick up 11 stops difference in lighting, while a film camera can pick up 5 and a digital camera can only pick up about 3. So what happens is that if you take a picture of a dark object under a bright sky and you meter on the object the sky is going to be washed out. If you meter for the sky the object may be too dark. Its a matter of finding the right setting somewhere in between. If you can try to throw some light on your object then you may be able to get to a point where the brighness levels are close enough to capture both. If you are shooting a still subject take two photographs, one metered on the dark subject and one metered on the light subject while your camera is on a tripod (to make sure the framing doesn't change). Then open up both images and layer them on each other in photoshop and then use a mask to bring out the elements of the lower picture that are preferable. I've never tried this but thought it would be a good idea. Your mileage may vary.

06/11/2002 11:51:07 PM · #12
Yeah, I read an article the other day that suggested just that kind of overlay. Of course, can't do that for the challenges. I would be interested to see the overlayed version if someone made one of a photo they submitted, or even just the two befores and the after if someone can post them.

Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]I can''t do it because I don''t have the expertise, but could somebody please, please, step up and give us poor slobs a tutorial on "how to avoid blank skys". The void just kills me. I try to ignore it, but it''s so prevailant and it really hurts some terribly great photos.
Any volunteers?
Please help us (me, included!


Well for one, there has to be a nice blue sky. The other thing you have to realize is that the human eye can see much more variation in brightness then a camera can. I went to a workshop this weekend and they said the human eye can pick up 11 stops difference in lighting, while a film camera can pick up 5 and a digital camera can only pick up about 3. So what happens is that if you take a picture of a dark object under a bright sky and you meter on the object the sky is going to be washed out. If you meter for the sky the object may be too dark. Its a matter of finding the right setting somewhere in between. If you can try to throw some light on your object then you may be able to get to a point where the brighness levels are close enough to capture both. If you are shooting a still subject take two photographs, one metered on the dark subject and one metered on the light subject while your camera is on a tripod (to make sure the framing doesn't change). Then open up both images and layer them on each other in photoshop and then use a mask to bring out the elements of the lower picture that are preferable. I've never tried this but thought it would be a good idea. Your mileage may vary.

[/i]


06/12/2002 12:21:23 AM · #13
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]Blank as in washed out, lacking color of any kind or suggestion that there might be clouds or some other reason that blue is missing.
Examples this week:
Line Painting
Mini Chase
Cruising at 50
(sorry to single these out, first ones I saw just now

I might be speaking out of turn, but, washed out may be due to
1) dreary weather,
2) long exposure time (needed for the blur, but over exposes the sky
Hey you "guys"! Is this correct? (Am I learning, or still off base).



[/i]

A criticism of one of my pictures was that the sky was a dull gray color, but I live in the Pacific Northwest, and the sky is a dull gray color. :) If I wait for blue, I won''t get any pictures taken.



* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 12:25:43 AM.
06/12/2002 12:24:23 AM · #14
Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]I can''t do it because I don''t have the expertise, but could somebody please, please, step up and give us poor slobs a tutorial on "how to avoid blank skys". The void just kills me. I try to ignore it, but it''s so prevailant and it really hurts some terribly great photos.
Any volunteers?
Please help us (me, included!


Well for one, there has to be a nice blue sky. The other thing you have to realize is that the human eye can see much more variation in brightness then a camera can. I went to a workshop this weekend and they said the human eye can pick up 11 stops difference in lighting, while a film camera can pick up 5 and a digital camera can only pick up about 3. So what happens is that if you take a picture of a dark object under a bright sky and you meter on the object the sky is going to be washed out. If you meter for the sky the object may be too dark. Its a matter of finding the right setting somewhere in between. If you can try to throw some light on your object then you may be able to get to a point where the brighness levels are close enough to capture both. If you are shooting a still subject take two photographs, one metered on the dark subject and one metered on the light subject while your camera is on a tripod (to make sure the framing doesn't change). Then open up both images and layer them on each other in photoshop and then use a mask to bring out the elements of the lower picture that are preferable. I've never tried this but thought it would be a good idea. Your mileage may vary.

[/i]

Thanks to you and the others for the suggestions. I'll try working on them.
06/12/2002 01:25:03 AM · #15
Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
Well for one, there has to be a nice blue sky. The other thing you have to realize is that the human eye can see much more variation in brightness then a camera can. I went to a workshop this weekend and they said the human eye can pick up 11 stops difference in lighting, while a film camera can pick up 5 and a digital camera can only pick up about 3. So what happens is that if you take a picture of a dark object under a bright sky and you meter on the object the sky is going to be washed out. If you meter for the sky the object may be too dark. Its a matter of finding the right setting somewhere in between. If you can try to throw some light on your object then you may be able to get to a point where the brighness levels are close enough to capture both. If you are shooting a still subject take two photographs, one metered on the dark subject and one metered on the light subject while your camera is on a tripod (to make sure the framing doesn''t change). Then open up both images and layer them on each other in photoshop and then use a mask to bring out the elements of the lower picture that are preferable. I''ve never tried this but thought it would be a good idea. Your mileage may vary.


Another interesting possibility is if your camera can do raw format is to take the picture is to process it once as a 8 bit .tif as shot, and after changing the file name process it to 8 bit .tif with no gamma (linear). Adjust the first one to just show the darkest areas and let the highlights blow out, and the second one the opposite. Then composit them as mentioned above. You can sometimes do the same thing with one .jpg if it''s maybe 2/3 - 1 1/3 stop under exposed by duplicating it, adjusting one copy for the highlights and one for the shadows then compositing. Depends on your subject but I''ve sometimes gotten maybe two more stops latitude from a .jpg that way. Another thing is that if you only use one image, it becomes possible to do it with non static subjects.



* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 1:29:49 AM.
06/12/2002 01:32:41 AM · #16
As a possible alternative to compositing two different shots...

If you have Photoshop and an image which is either over or underexposed (or portions thereof exposed poorly), isolate the elements that are exposed incorrectly and create another layer with them. Then change the layer mode to multiply if overexposed or screen if underexposed (hope I got that the right way round...). You may have to create a few more multiply/screen layers and or play around with the layer opacity, but it''s a pretty amazing little trick. (Prolly need to write this up as a tutorial with some pictures.)

Edit: Of course, that doesn''t really do us much good here. *grin*



* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 1:34:04 AM.
06/12/2002 08:13:57 AM · #17
re, sky: dreary day plus deliberate desaturation is why my sky looks washed out ...i was attempting to be 'creative' which folks never seem to get...oh dwell, the experience has and will continue to be very interesting ;o)
06/12/2002 09:02:25 AM · #18
Originally posted by gr8photos:
Yeah, I read an article the other day that suggested just that kind of overlay. Of course, can't do that for the challenges. I would be interested to see the overlayed version if someone made one of a photo they submitted, or even just the two befores and the after if someone can post them.

An attempt to show that technique
06/12/2002 09:09:47 AM · #19
Well, I was taking my photo with an umbrella in one hand and the camera in the other . . . hence my sky isn''t all that blue, either! ;)



* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 9:09:44 AM.
06/12/2002 09:10:24 AM · #20
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I know several of my shots I''ve been asked if I ''fiddled'' the blue channel, but they are as shot.

Not only that, G, but the G2 is 'known' for hyper-blue.
06/12/2002 11:00:51 AM · #21
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by gr8photos:
[i]Yeah, I read an article the other day that suggested just that kind of overlay. Of course, can't do that for the challenges. I would be interested to see the overlayed version if someone made one of a photo they submitted, or even just the two befores and the after if someone can post them.

An attempt to show that technique
[/i]

Thanks for the lesson. I always look forward to this kind of thing. This is a wonderful site for learning.

06/12/2002 12:59:56 PM · #22
First, I want to thank everyone for participating in this forum. I probably wasn''t as eliquent with my introduction of this subject as I could be, but you all took it the exact right way.
I have a number of new techniques to try now. I appreciate it!
JM - You are way ahead of the curve.
Gordon - As alwasy, the best tools.....You have great tools, both camera and brains.
Jan - I too live in the Great NW. I started this forum because I (underscore three x) want to produce the best possible pics. I get this all the time with my shots, blue sky or not. Clouds are beautiful, like it or get used to it. I like grey, wear grey, but don''t eat grey. (not tasty)
Sheyingshe & Patella - interesting software solutions, I''ve avoided TIFF due to the large file size (10MB on mine), I''m often on photo expeditions, don''t have Gigs of space. Does TIFF get less photo quality trade off effect than JPG? By that I mean, most alterations to JPG data have a negative trade-off. Like turning up the color saturation will introduce areas of graininess, and so on. Spot editing isn''t legal on this site. (This didn''t read as funny as I wrote it)
Lecook - sorry! Remember I like grey, it''s just that if the sky just plain appears cr@ppy, it hurts the good parts. If we can squeeze some detail into it, it can save the shot.

Thank you all once again. I really appreciate the support. Gratefully alive, Rob


* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 1:01:31 PM.
06/12/2002 01:08:54 PM · #23
Rob,

Another technique you may consider is one that Barbara Martin taught me.

If you have a dull or uninteresting sky, consider masking it with some other object when you compose the shot, if possible. For example, in the US Capitol Building photo in my photo gallery, the tree in the foreground serves to cover a relatively flat and grey section of the sky, as well as to bring the eye back in to the main subject.

-Terry


* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 1:18:42 PM.
06/12/2002 01:28:48 PM · #24
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Rob,

Another technique you may consider is one that Barbara Martin taught me.

If you have a dull or uninteresting sky, consider masking it with some other object when you compose the shot, if possible. For example, in the US Capitol Building photo in my photo gallery, the tree in the foreground serves to cover a relatively flat and grey section of the sky, as well as to bring the eye back in to the main subject.

-Terry



That is a technique that I use when I can, but you will notice from this picture that it is not alway possible.

Flat Grey Sky
06/12/2002 02:47:02 PM · #25
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Rob,

Another technique you may consider is one that Barbara Martin taught me.


Blue skies can be boring too. But I have a question, does this picture
look too contrived/ set-up, or does the tree help the composition. There are others there that just have the pure blue sky.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:14:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:14:59 PM EDT.