Help with this picture...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Michael, Dec 20, 2003.

  1. Michael

    Michael Guest

    I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of it
    to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible, or
    better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all? The color was
    gray and kind of dark...and in the picture it's bright white but nothing is
    displayed. What kind of balance is needed to pick up the sky also. Overcast,
    not sunny??

    http://www.photopiks.com/nosky.jpg




    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Michael, Dec 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michael

    Jim Waggener Guest

    "Michael" <> wrote in message
    news:3fe4a8aa$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of it
    > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible, or
    > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all? The color was
    > gray and kind of dark...and in the picture it's bright white but nothing

    is
    > displayed. What kind of balance is needed to pick up the sky also.

    Overcast,
    > not sunny??
    >
    > http://www.photopiks.com/nosky.jpg
    >


    Maybe a polarizer. The rest of it looks well exposed. Do you have a
    cloudy/overcast setting?




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Jim Waggener, Dec 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael

    Bill Guest

    Possibly the large darker area (foregroud left trees) caused some
    overexposure of the sky. You might try setting exposure compensation to a
    slight negative (-) value. It might help if you said what camera you used,
    and what type of metering you used.

    Bill

    "Michael" <> wrote in message
    news:3fe4a8aa$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of it
    > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible, or
    > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all? The color was
    > gray and kind of dark...and in the picture it's bright white but nothing

    is
    > displayed. What kind of balance is needed to pick up the sky also.

    Overcast,
    > not sunny??
    >
    > http://www.photopiks.com/nosky.jpg
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

    Newsgroups
    > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

    =---
     
    Bill, Dec 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Michael

    Nils Rostedt Guest

    Michael wrote ...
    > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of it
    > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible, or
    > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all? The color was
    > gray and kind of dark...and in the picture it's bright white but nothing

    is
    > displayed. What kind of balance is needed to pick up the sky also.

    Overcast,
    > not sunny??
    >
    > http://www.photopiks.com/nosky.jpg
    >


    It's slightly overexposed. Look at the image histogram in Photoshop or
    whatever image editor you use.

    Overcast weather can be a tough lighting condition for digicams. Their
    dynamic range is not as good as traditional print film. The camera evidently
    tried to expose for the dark areas, leaving the sky overexposed.

    The solution would be to set the camera to a mode where you can dial in some
    exposure compensation. On my Canon 10D, I use -1/2 stop exposure
    compensation as my default (using "P" or program mode) to avoid overexposing
    the sky. Check the image histogram to get it right. Changing your color
    balance from "sunny" to "overcast" will alter the color tone somewhat, but
    not the exposure AFAIK.

    Do some experimenting with various exposure compensations and other mode
    settings, it costs nothing.

    I played a little with that image in Photoshop. By first reducing the
    overall brightness and then boosting the darker tones with the Curves tool,
    I was able to make the sky a natural-looking grey and even could retrieve
    some cloud structures.
     
    Nils Rostedt, Dec 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Michael

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    the camera tries to average the amount of light to let in. I assume that
    because of the dark pines, the sky got overexposed.
    If you have Adobe Elements or a similar editing program use the magic want to
    select the sky, go to Enhance and use the Adjust Brightness/Contrast sliders
    to darken the sky.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Dec 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Michael wrote:

    > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of it
    > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible, or
    > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all? The color was
    > gray and kind of dark...and in the picture it's bright white but nothing is
    > displayed. What kind of balance is needed to pick up the sky also.
    >
    > http://www.photopiks.com/nosky.jpg


    Color balance won't help you here. The sky is simply over-exposed and
    "blown out." At this level of exposure, the pixels/sensors (or
    circuitry that converts sensor data to digital data) are nearly saturated.

    To compensate, you could have reduced the overall exposure by about one
    stop. This would have preserved more sky detail, but would have pushed
    the trees at lower left, and some of the shadow areas, to near-black.

    In short, your camera (any camera of any sort) has limited dynamic
    range. The trick is to shoehorn all the important subjects into that
    limited zone.

    -Greg
     
    Greg Campbell, Dec 21, 2003
    #6
  7. Michael

    Michael Guest

    Damn, so in other words no matter what took this shot, it would have been
    almost impossible to get the sky just right and the appropriate shadows
    around the trees? I don't think the camera adjusts for certain areas on the
    sensor...maybe photo editing is necessary with some shots then....

    "Greg Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:GIaFb.35769$m83.8021@fed1read01...
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of

    it
    > > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible,

    or
    > > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all? The color was
    > > gray and kind of dark...and in the picture it's bright white but nothing

    is
    > > displayed. What kind of balance is needed to pick up the sky also.
    > >
    > > http://www.photopiks.com/nosky.jpg

    >
    > Color balance won't help you here. The sky is simply over-exposed and
    > "blown out." At this level of exposure, the pixels/sensors (or
    > circuitry that converts sensor data to digital data) are nearly saturated.
    >
    > To compensate, you could have reduced the overall exposure by about one
    > stop. This would have preserved more sky detail, but would have pushed
    > the trees at lower left, and some of the shadow areas, to near-black.
    >
    > In short, your camera (any camera of any sort) has limited dynamic
    > range. The trick is to shoehorn all the important subjects into that
    > limited zone.
    >
    > -Greg
    >





    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Michael, Dec 21, 2003
    #7
  8. Michael

    stacey Guest

    Michael wrote:

    > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of it
    > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible, or
    > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all?


    What about the purple color fringing around the limbs?

    As to what you noticed, it's about a stop overexposed but might be hard to
    capture this dynamic range on your digicam?

    --

    Stacey
     
    stacey, Dec 21, 2003
    #8
  9. Michael

    Michael Guest

    Even at 4:1 blown up I can't see what you mean. The overexposed sky and at
    the same time shadow in/near the trees is a hard picture to capture just
    right. Make the sky look good, then you wouldn't even be able to see some
    trees probably cause it will be too dark.

    "stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:bs3hu1$8r476$-berlin.de...
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of

    it
    > > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible,

    or
    > > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all?

    >
    > What about the purple color fringing around the limbs?
    >
    > As to what you noticed, it's about a stop overexposed but might be hard to
    > capture this dynamic range on your digicam?
    >
    > --
    >
    > Stacey





    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Michael, Dec 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Michael

    Mark Herring Guest

    Take it twice at two different exposures. About an hour--or less with
    Photoshop to put the sky from one into the foreground from the other.


    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:42:19 -0500, "Michael"
    <> wrote:

    >Even at 4:1 blown up I can't see what you mean. The overexposed sky and at
    >the same time shadow in/near the trees is a hard picture to capture just
    >right. Make the sky look good, then you wouldn't even be able to see some
    >trees probably cause it will be too dark.
    >
    >"stacey" <> wrote in message
    >news:bs3hu1$8r476$-berlin.de...
    >> Michael wrote:
    >>
    >> > I took a picture today. Set my camera to landscape mode for the hell of

    >it
    >> > to see what would happen. I need help with why the sky looks terrible,

    >or
    >> > better yet, why the sky didn't even come out right at all?

    >>
    >> What about the purple color fringing around the limbs?
    >>
    >> As to what you noticed, it's about a stop overexposed but might be hard to
    >> capture this dynamic range on your digicam?
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Stacey

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    >http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    >---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Dec 21, 2003
    #10
  11. Michael wrote:

    > Damn, so in other words no matter what took this shot, it would have been
    > almost impossible to get the sky just right and the appropriate shadows
    > around the trees? I don't think the camera adjusts for certain areas on the
    > sensor...maybe photo editing is necessary with some shots then....


    To a point...
    You can only adjust data that is actually there to begin with. I tried
    to tweak the contrast curve of your picture, but there is no sky
    contrast to stretch. It's nearly solid white.

    See http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml
    for a discussion of how to blend multiple exposures to capture a subject
    that features very high dynamic range. More examples at:
    http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?gallery=1
    (Be sure to check his GIGApixel stitched image while you're there.)

    In general, overcast skies are a real bugger, no matter what the media.
    I scan 35mm slides and have (reluctantly) resorted to blatant sky
    transplants to rescue overcast landscape pics.


    -Greg
     
    Greg Campbell, Dec 21, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fanta
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,841
    Fanta
    Aug 31, 2003
  2. Need opinions - good picture - bad picture

    , Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    902
    yonzie
    Mar 17, 2005
  3. Ace
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    551
    Randy Berbaum
    Sep 17, 2005
  4. Harlen Ng
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    775
    GregS
    Nov 11, 2005
  5. Daniel Rocha

    (June, 19th) Picture of the Picture

    Daniel Rocha, Jun 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    419
    George Kerby
    Jun 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page