I was trying some landscape photography today and my dilemma is, I can't seem to find a way to balance the color of the sky. The pictures were coming out fine, but the sky gets "blown out" and is just white. I played with some settings, but no luck yet. What's the issue here and how can I fix it? Currently using a NIkon D3000.
@bmovieshow when you take a meter reading try exposing for the sky first and see if that helps...for landscapes I range between f/11 and love f/22 for focus on a side note
@bmovieshow If your editing skills are up to the task, another option would be to take a second photo with more sky/less land in the composition. In auto modes, this would close your aperture somewhat and should prevent sky blowout. You could then combine the new shot's sky with the old one's land! (Making the first shot's sky transparent in something like Photoshop should be easy if it gets blown out to one colour.)
Have you got a polarizing filter on your lens? They help quite a lot in keeping the colour in the sky when shooting in bright sunlight, such as in landscape situations. @bmovieshow
@bmovieshow
I always carry a set of hard grad and soft grad filters to help prevent over exposure in bright skies. If you are serious about landscape photography then a set of filters will be a worthwhile investment.
Looks really amazing, I especially like how it helps with glare and reflections. I would love to try one out. It might be a while before I can afford to add another piece of equipment. I'll keep it in mind for the future!
If you're going to go with a graduated ND filter, consider a square slide in filter system like the Cokin line. A circular filter seems more natural, but with the square slide in filters, you can put the divider any where you like, not just at the halfway line.
I'm considering a set for myself... what brands of square filters are other people here using?
I have a d3000 and in the desert we have "clear skies" more than clouds. I usually use my polarizer filter and check my ISO settings to make sure they are at 100 or 200. Also have you tried to shoot in RAW format?
I have found that the program I use, when you shoot in RAW there is a nice editing to make an HDR picture out of a single RAW issue. It has saved some of my pictures that I felt were too "bright"
Polarisers are expensive. Don't buy one unless you are absolutely sure you know how it works and if you want one. The best would be if you have a chance to try one first.
I stopped using polarisers years ago. They only work when you shoot at a 90 degree angle to the sun. If you shoot landscapes with a wide angle lens your angle of view is very large so the effect of the polariser will be uneven. You could end up with an almost black sky on one side of the image and a pale blue sky on the other end. To me, it just looked too unnatural.
Like others have said, using grey grads are the way to go.
Another idea is to try to shoot earlier or later in the day. Natural light around mid day is often very strong and harsh. The best and most interesting light is usually a couple of hours after sunrise and a couple of hours before sunset (and it is much cheaper than buying a polariser ;-)
@bmovieshow Bri, yes, that's what I'm talking about. Name-brand CPLs will cost you quite a bit of money, it's true, but if you're a hobbyist and are just looking to add a little something to the photos you shoot for your own pleasure, you can get away with non-professional grade filters. The ones I use cost me between €25 and €35, depending on the diameter of my lens (check Amazon, or similar, for what's available near you), and the resulting blue skies are satisfying to me.
The use of graduated neutral density (ND) filters that was suggested by others, is actually the best option for getting great skies in landscape photography. Here, though, cost is indeed an issue. Inexpensive ND filters will almost invariably tinge your scenes pink! (I've got some -same cheap brand as the CPLs- and the results are worthless in colour; though "OK" if I convert to B&W) To get unadulterated photos with these types of filters, you need to make sure they are glass (and not plastic) and that they're from a reputable manufacturer; otherwise, instead of a problem of white skies, you'll start getting pink ones! :-P
Of course, others have mentioned the free options, based on blending different exposures in photo processing software. This is definitely a valid option if you are handy with post-processing work, and can give you amazing results.
Here's an example of what can happen if you use a poor-quality ND filter... ;-/
If you want to be able to edit your photos properly (and who doesn't) you can download GIMP. Think of it as Photoshop, but for free. It's designed for Mac, but there are Windows conversions that work just fine. That said, the actual photography related solutions to this problem posted by the experts above will probably work out better. :)
@gaston_palmer I think it was "designed" for Linux and other Unix-like systems first.
When I do editing, which is rarely, I use it, and have a "love/hate" relationship with it. Love how powerful it is, but hate the user unfriendliness. "Designed"..? I don't know. I get the idea it was all just kind of lashed together.
@Cheesebiscuit You're right, it was for Linux originally. I got mixed up.
Haha I know what you mean about the "lashed together" feeling. I'm a CAD designer by profession, so it came to me a bit more naturally, but there are still features that make me wonder what was going through the programmer's head at times. :)
Personally, I use a circular polariser about £25 worth as mentioned, not only for enhancing the colours, (yes only around 90 degrees to the sun) but also for the boost of being able to adjust the reflections in non-metallic surfaces. In Landscape photography, I'd never leave home without the CPL for anything involving water. I don't use graduated filters, because for a decent quality filter the expense wouldn't be justified when I shoot landscapes so infrequently. I just meter from the ground for one shot, then the sky and blend the two in Photoshop with my (pretty poor) editing skills.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Thanks for your help, I'll give it a try!
you could also use a gradual ND filter. In that way your sky gets a lower exposure than your landscape.
I always carry a set of hard grad and soft grad filters to help prevent over exposure in bright skies. If you are serious about landscape photography then a set of filters will be a worthwhile investment.
I don't have photoshop, but that is a great idea.
@davidchrtrans @luka365
I assume that you're talking about something like this? http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Lens-Filters/2233/52mm-Circular-Polarizer-II.html
Looks really amazing, I especially like how it helps with glare and reflections. I would love to try one out. It might be a while before I can afford to add another piece of equipment. I'll keep it in mind for the future!
I'm considering a set for myself... what brands of square filters are other people here using?
I have found that the program I use, when you shoot in RAW there is a nice editing to make an HDR picture out of a single RAW issue. It has saved some of my pictures that I felt were too "bright"
I stopped using polarisers years ago. They only work when you shoot at a 90 degree angle to the sun. If you shoot landscapes with a wide angle lens your angle of view is very large so the effect of the polariser will be uneven. You could end up with an almost black sky on one side of the image and a pale blue sky on the other end. To me, it just looked too unnatural.
Like others have said, using grey grads are the way to go.
Another idea is to try to shoot earlier or later in the day. Natural light around mid day is often very strong and harsh. The best and most interesting light is usually a couple of hours after sunrise and a couple of hours before sunset (and it is much cheaper than buying a polariser ;-)
The use of graduated neutral density (ND) filters that was suggested by others, is actually the best option for getting great skies in landscape photography. Here, though, cost is indeed an issue. Inexpensive ND filters will almost invariably tinge your scenes pink! (I've got some -same cheap brand as the CPLs- and the results are worthless in colour; though "OK" if I convert to B&W) To get unadulterated photos with these types of filters, you need to make sure they are glass (and not plastic) and that they're from a reputable manufacturer; otherwise, instead of a problem of white skies, you'll start getting pink ones! :-P
Of course, others have mentioned the free options, based on blending different exposures in photo processing software. This is definitely a valid option if you are handy with post-processing work, and can give you amazing results.
Here's an example of what can happen if you use a poor-quality ND filter... ;-/
And this is with a cheap CPL...
If you want to be able to edit your photos properly (and who doesn't) you can download GIMP. Think of it as Photoshop, but for free. It's designed for Mac, but there are Windows conversions that work just fine. That said, the actual photography related solutions to this problem posted by the experts above will probably work out better. :)
When I do editing, which is rarely, I use it, and have a "love/hate" relationship with it. Love how powerful it is, but hate the user unfriendliness. "Designed"..? I don't know. I get the idea it was all just kind of lashed together.
Haha I know what you mean about the "lashed together" feeling. I'm a CAD designer by profession, so it came to me a bit more naturally, but there are still features that make me wonder what was going through the programmer's head at times. :)
Thank you for your help, everyone! You've given me plenty of options to experiment with.
ps. @davidchrtrans -- I actually like the one with the pink sky. ;)