Posted by Terry Bare on February 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I was wondering if anyone could help with images where my clouds get burned out as I call it. The rest of the image is exposed nicely. Is there filters I should be using? Is there articles I can read on this issue? Any help would be great.
A 'graduated neutral density filter' can be used. It is darker at the top and so will reduce the exposure of the sky. Problem is with dark objects that stick up into the sky are affected as well.
If you shoot raw, you can recover a lot of sky detail during post processing.
Chris
Posted by John Mumaw on February 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM
You can also expose one image that keeps the bright white clouds in check, expose one for the rest of the image and then combine them and choose the best of both with your postprocessing software.
Ditto what Chris said shooting RAW. It won't save all overexposed areas, but has much more latitude for doing so than JPEG format.
Posted by Rod Barbee on February 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Terry,
I'm assuming you're referring to clouds on a mostly sunny day?
Frankly, unless it's all the clouds and it's a big portion of the picture, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Clouds are often just plain pure white. If it's a bright sunny day and the clouds are white, then the clouds are white.
On the other hand, if the clouds should have texture and they are taking up a major portion of the image, you can try a couple of things. The easiest is to use a graduated neutral density filter. The other way is to take two shots, one exposed for the clouds, the other for the rest of the image. Then blend them in Photoshop.
The problem with using a grad nd is that your pretty light blue sky will also be darkened.
Another solution is to expose specifically to keep detail in the clouds and keep them from blowing out. This means the rest of the picture will be darker and you'll have to make adjustments in Photoshop. I generally don't like doing this because there's noise in the darker parts. When you make the dark parts lighter, you'll also be making the noise more visible.
If it's an overcast day, then that's a different story. You'll can get skies that are completely blown out on overcast days. My solutions to this are:
1) don't include the sky. It's flat and overcast and boring anyway. This eliminates the problem entirely.
2) If you have to include some sky, then use a grad nd or the two exposure method.
Posted by Terry Bare on February 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Thanks for all the info. I think this will help me out. I live in Anacortes, WA. I find that the overcast days are boring. lf you have been here in spring you have seen those big white fluffy clouds that can add to an image. Just want to do my best at showing them off. Thanks again.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Also, not knowing the time of day you are shooting, try to be out in the morning and evening. Noon on a sunny (even with puffy white clouds in the sky) pretty much gaurantees that that something will either blow out (clouds) or be essentially black (whatever might be in shadows). Digital won't cure this as the contrast range will greatly exceed the what the sensor can handle.
Overcast days can be great for forest detail, waterfalls, barns, etc. Anything where you can exclude the sky from the image.
Besides, noon is time for lunch
Posted by Gene Lugo on February 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Photoshop ACR is the best I've seen at recovering detail in otherwise blown highlights. I believe it uses information from the least blown out channel to rebuild the information in the others. However, when I am confronted with a situation where I have to retain sky details, I either use the spotmeter mode to take a reading of the brightest area and then add one to one and a half stops to that reading, or take several exposures, one that is correct for the sky others that are correct for the rest of the scene and use a mask to lift the clouds and add it to the otherwise properly exposused image, or I will use a series of bracketed exposures and merge them as an HDR image. Tripods are extremely helpful, but you can get good results if you brace your camera well and use autobracketing.
Discussion
6 repliesIf you shoot raw, you can recover a lot of sky detail during post processing.
Chris
Ditto what Chris said shooting RAW. It won't save all overexposed areas, but has much more latitude for doing so than JPEG format.
I'm assuming you're referring to clouds on a mostly sunny day?
Frankly, unless it's all the clouds and it's a big portion of the picture, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Clouds are often just plain pure white. If it's a bright sunny day and the clouds are white, then the clouds are white.
On the other hand, if the clouds should have texture and they are taking up a major portion of the image, you can try a couple of things. The easiest is to use a graduated neutral density filter. The other way is to take two shots, one exposed for the clouds, the other for the rest of the image. Then blend them in Photoshop.
The problem with using a grad nd is that your pretty light blue sky will also be darkened.
Another solution is to expose specifically to keep detail in the clouds and keep them from blowing out. This means the rest of the picture will be darker and you'll have to make adjustments in Photoshop. I generally don't like doing this because there's noise in the darker parts. When you make the dark parts lighter, you'll also be making the noise more visible.
If it's an overcast day, then that's a different story. You'll can get skies that are completely blown out on overcast days. My solutions to this are:
1) don't include the sky. It's flat and overcast and boring anyway. This eliminates the problem entirely.
2) If you have to include some sky, then use a grad nd or the two exposure method.
Overcast days can be great for forest detail, waterfalls, barns, etc. Anything where you can exclude the sky from the image.
Besides, noon is time for lunch