Blown out skies

[sunshiinedays]

I've noticed that on a lot of my outdoor pictures, the sky appears very pale, blown out and lacking in contrast. How do I fix that?

 

[sunshiinedays]

Here's an example. The sky wasn't white that day

 

[Pete Harcoff]

There are a few options, but it will depend on what kind of camera setup you are using.

Selective adjustment in post-processing software

Sometimes I find that images with mostly blown-out areas, can be selectively adjusted in Photoshop to preserve detail. The idea is that you crop certain areas of the image, then lower brightness or boost contrast to bring out details in those specific areas. This technique, however, will not work for completely blown out areas.

Multiple exposures

The first is to take multiple exposures of the scene. Take one shot exposed for the foreground and another shot exposed for the sky. Then you'd combine parts of the two images (i.e. sky and foreground) in software like Photoshop. This method will require a tripod or at the very least, an extremely steady hand.

Multiple exposures - HDR

In addition to stitching composite images by hand, there is now software emerging that can automatically create HDR (high dynamic range) images. These work by taking multiple exposures (typically at least 3) then automatically combining them in a manner to provide detail in otherwise shaded and blown-out areas. However, this method can also result in images that look a bit surreal (example here). There is specific software, like Photomatix designed for producing HDR images. This method also requires a tripod.

Graduated neutral density filters

Depending on what type of camera you have, you might be able to use filters. Graduated neutral density filters are filters that are half-dark, half-clear. The dark portion is used for the sky, thus blocking some of the light and providing a more even exposure. There's an article on them here.

Polarizing filters

While polarizing filters won't help with a blown out sky, they do tend to darken blue skies and provide a more contrasty look (particularly if there are clouds in the sky). Again, being able to use a polarizer will depend on what kind of camera setup you have.

 

[sunshiinedays]

So what you're saying is that without a polarizer I need to fix the images afterward....? Is that what the professionals do or do they do most of their effects with the camera alone?

 

[sunshiinedays]

I also just read somewhere that if you don't have a polarizer you can use sunglasses over the lens??

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So what you're saying is that without a polarizer I need to fix the images afterward....? Is that what the professionals do or do they do most of their effects with the camera alone?

I'm by no means an expert on what professionals do with their images, but a lot of them do seem to do a decent amount of post-processing afterwards. And in today's era of digital imagry, it's even easier to do so.

Also, I should stress that a polarizer alone doesn't fix blown out skies. It can darken blue skies, but it won't change anything if the sky is overcast.

I also just read somewhere that if you don't have a polarizer you can use sunglasses over the lens??

I wouldn't recommend that myself.

 

[Southern Cross]

Most of the time cameras will take a "best guess" at proper exposure. Your camera's metering system can only average together all of the light and color values of the scene you are trying to shoot. It thinks you want the people in the foreground properly exposed, so it is willing to sacrifice the detail in the sky to achieve this.

Combine that with the fact that cameras can only read and record a certain range of light values as it makes the exposure. It's called exposure latitude. With most film, you have 6-10 stops of variance that can be recorderd and still hold detail, with digital it's much less - 5-7 depending on the type of camera you are using, with some exceptions. Even then you will still have blowout issues or unacceptably dark shadow areas depending on how the scene is exposed.

Anyway, all this means is that your camera cannot hope to capture all the detail across such a broad spectrum of light values.

Pete Harcoff above had some good suggestions. My solution for static scenes is to take two or three exposures (one for shadow detail, one for highlight detail, and one for proper exposure of my subject) and then merge those three files in Photoshop CS2. It's a standard procedure for my commercial clients when I'm shooting products. If needed, I've merged 5-6 files, but it's a pain.

For scenes where I cannot expect the exact same image from frame to frame, I simply underexpose a tiny bit, then selectively adjust specific areas of the image to taste. There are certain tools one can use to retrieve the details in blown highlight areas, but it doesn't always work. Once the image is captures, the blown highlight areas are usually "lost" data. There is no detail to recover, because the scene was way too far out of hte capabilites of your camera to capture.

One other solution you can look into is flash sync. If you were using a DSLR, like a Nikon D70 for instance, it syncs at 1/500 second with a SB-800 or SB600 flash unit. This allows for the much faster shutter speeds necessary to properly expose both your foreground subject and the sky. Most typical cameras sync flash at only 1/60-1/180 second., too slow for those bright sky shots. Flash sync is pretty foreign to most people, so I'll stop there!

Does all that make sense?

 

[sunshiinedays]

Yes, it makes sense. Except that I can't see using a tripod very often and taking multiple pictures. But I'm pretty good with graphics. Perhaps I should just try adjusting them afterward.

Thanks everyone for the advice =)