- Messages
- 229
- Name
- Kirsty
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you have PS, have a look at this at it is very helpful if you really want to keep a shot
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/replace-sky/
Thanks for this Dave!
If you have PS, have a look at this at it is very helpful if you really want to keep a shot
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/replace-sky/
Thanks for this Dave!
Please don't follow that link...Thanks for this Dave!
Please don't follow that link...
There's a time and a olace for Photoshop, and replacing the sky in either a perfectly acceptable or out of focus portrait isn't on the list .
What Dave said, and Beth.
That shot done well and exposed correctly us fine.
If you really want to go for the bluer sky you need to add light to your subject, there's lots of ways of doing that.
IMHO, once the sky is blown there is little you can do about it, unless you are able to do the photoshop trick mentioned.
But despite that the phot in question is able to be bettered by a bit of post processing, as has been shown earlier. Reducing highlights does most of the job.
The photo is then quite acceptable........
Otherwise, you might have changed the background before taking the shot.
But if its not broke, don't fix it
Looking at this shot, and after feedback previously I am fully aware that the sky is completely blown (the SOOC was relatively underexposed as well). After adjusting exposure obviously this then completely wiped my sky.
Some erm 'mixed' advice on here!
Fwiw I don't think the shot is too far off as it is. It's a nice image, your subject is well exposed. I don't think shots like this are in anyway spoilt by blown sky detail.
I did pick up on something you said in the quoted bit though. You mentioned that you adjusted the exposure and therefore lost the sky detail. You could have tried instead tweaking the shadow and highlight tones instead of the whole picture, that may have retained some sky detail, especially if you were using the raw file. But beware, it can all start to look very unnatural and lacking in contrast so beware! Like I say though in my opinion it's just fine as it is.
It's not royally screwed - it's slightly over, but not a big deal.Hi Phil,
Thanks for that point. I just added it as a reference point should I had and chose to replace this. IMHO, this was more of a learning post for me and seeing how I could have improved this during the initial shooting process. As you pointed out I royally screwed it 1st instance. I think the OCF fill light would had made a better option in this instance, and im sure I will have lots more opportunities in the near future
It's not royally screwed - it's slightly over, but not a big deal.
Ok the pic may be a little over exposed, I'm looking at the child's skin for reference, the blown out sky doesn't bother me in the slightest. You've got great eye contact with the youngster and that's what makes the picture.
No filter, UV or otherwise, is going to remedy the sky being blown. As others have said, the only thing to do is retake it, expose for the sky and fill in the inevitable shadows with some extra light from somewhere, I would suggest a reflector in this case, but a bit of fill flash is another solution.
Be aware that going down the "Fill in the shadows" route is going to result in a very different picture indeed.
Really all it comes down to is positioning your subject and taking care with the framing and these two things don't cost or weigh anything.
Without seeing the original it's hard to see if the pic could be more balanced in post production or not.
I've seen lots of perfectly exposed pics of kids that lack the connection with the subject that you have here. It's good to be critical of your own work but don't just see the negatives.
Not a problem. If you want us to have a play in PP we would need the biggest version possible, preferably just as it came out of the camera with no re-sizing.
I'm happy to PM you my email address so you can send me the original original if you want me to have a go.
I'd try to make the most of what you have in this instance, Kirsty
my simple edit in LR - without Photoshop would be
Fair enough, but that's the point... 'practicing' with settings, 'going manual', you are falling into the trap of looking AT the camera rather than through it... And, the bigger trap of looking at the wrong 'thing' in how to make the photo 'better'.. considering the 'exposure' which wasn't far off, and changing wont do much to improve the results.. while, to make that shot so much 'better' what you might have done is all outside the camera, and away from knobs and buttons and twiddly bits....it was more of a case of him smiling like a plank as usual and attempting to make sense of my new found freedom and settings with a DSLR.
Patronising claptrap! I wish my first attempts were anyway near as good! If you want better pictures, you also need to understand the tools. This is a remarkably good composition for a first attempt.So very little is actually 'in' the camera... everything else is outside it, and, if you want better pictures, THAT is where you are most likley to find it!
I agree with woof, on the exposure issue... I would probably have exposed for the boy, and let the sky blow, it's not 'really' adding much to the shot, or adding context or interest. But I'd back up a bit and say that's probably least of the worries. Composition, composition, composition! Composition isn't 'bad', but you'd do more to make a better shot looking at that, than you would exposure.
What in your shot is 'subject', what is 'detail, and of the 'detail' what is useful detail adding context to the subject, and what is distracting detail confusing the picture and detracting from impact?''
And WHY oh WHY haven't you turned the camera sideways to portrait mode?
What in that big space to the right, is adding interest, context or 'anything' to the picture? OK, so you have placed boy on the 1st vertical of the 3rds grid... and you have given him some breathing space, but still there's almost half a frame of just vacant 'space'.. doing nothing... and my eye is drawn to, I think its a chateau style hotel. oof, in the far back-ground, and and trying to resolve that 'ambiguity' rather than look at the lad! There's a lamp-post I think, chopping a back-ground tree a little to the left of the chateau; you could have cropped there, and cut out that incongruity and the chateau from frame, and still left him space to breath and a pleasant contextual 'scene' around him.
Looking at the setting.. I would probably.. if I was being that bit pretentious about the job.. re-composed it completely.. lads looking at and smiling for the camera, it's not a candid or action shot, so I would probably have looked to move him around so he was sitting more obviously in front or against the tree to his right (left of pic), turned the camera through 90 Deg and got down even lower and the played with positioning, to get the 'feature' tree more in frame, and find the shadows through the leaves falling on the lad, and let 'them' tell the story of a sunny day, rather than any sky, and then depending on camera->boy->tree distances, try and work some nice moody 'oofing' into the light falling through the tree, or keep it crisp and let the shadow contrast emphasize the 'sunniness'.
Fill in flash, is a cheap trick, and possibly what I would have used to brighten up the boy in the shadows and darken up the back-ground & if I kept much if any in frame, retain sky detail.... B-U-T...
Alternatively, appropriate place to use a reflector....... which would probably be more natural and neutral and 'pleasing' than 'harsh' flash...... A-N-D in similar situations I have done! Doesn't have to be a studio reflector... A white T-Shirt or light colored towel (always handy to have in the bag of you are working with kids BTW!.. along with a bottle of blowie bubbles and a bag of haribo, and some anti-septic 'magic cream' lol), can be quite effective improvisations!...... Having stripped off white T-Shirt and got some-one else to hold it as a reflector..... my Lilly white torso, , might also play a part...lol! ....Yeah.. take a towel! lol.lol. BUT, it was a bright day, plenty of natural light about, just not where you necessarily wanted it; why start chucking harsh artificial into that when you could just redirect a bit of what's already there?
B-U-T as a relatively posed and staged shot? You might as well, exploit that staging to get the 'best' effect....A-N-D... I would probably have been inclined to be a bit naughty, and actually TRY and get some leaf shadow playing on his face and arms, so 'suggest' summer sun, and sunny skies, rather than show it directly, try and emphasis the 'mood' rather than the subject..
On which topic... 'props' might add to the shot. What's the lad 'in to'? A soccer ball, at his feet, or a comic book on his lap, or 'something' to hint at his interests or character, need not be large, or dominating, or distracting from the picture, BUT would add another dimension, offering a connection to the subject, some added context and reason to the picture, telling the viewer 'more' than just what he looks like on a sunny day.
As posed, I'm drawn to the his glasses... and that offers suggestion... does he 'like' having to wear spex? With nothing else to had, I might have asked him to play with them.. take a few shots with them 'incidental', on his knee or in his hand, rather than on his face, or even doing something with them, pulling a face whilst he tries cleaning them, or 'something'... again, playing with the staging and composition, looking to draw more out of the 'scene' as a whole.
As said, as is, it's a pleasant picture, and it's not badly composed OR exposed... but its in that composition, engaging with the boy, looking to extract more of 'him', rather than playing with the camera looking for better settings, I'd expect to find that difference that takes it from a photo you glance at and smile, to a picture that holds your gave and MAKES you want to look at it, and understand it.
As said, exposure? Near enough. Little improvement might be found there; but more attention to composition & staging, could kick it into a different league.
Towel, bubbles, sweets and magic cream! Those are your key accessories, rather than flash guns and slave sells! Especially when it comes to kidz!
I have dropped the light on this using curves in Photoshop CS 5 to suit that fact he is sitting in shade under a tree
Les
I have dropped the light on this using curves in Photoshop CS 5 to suit that fact he is sitting in shade under a tree
Les
It is strange what people see when looking at a photograph. I didn't notice the blown sky at all and just saw a very nice portrait. I think the exposure on the child was maybe just a little over but not by a lot. Everyone has already given great suggestions about avoiding the blown sky in future (mine would have been use a reflector or fill flash) but personally I would have been really happy with that, as if the option are a blown sky or missing the moment, it is better to have a blown sky than nothing at all. One other thing to try would be to crop off at the right hand side where most of the blown sky is to make it a square but I wondered if that might look a bit too cramped. Lastly have you tried this in black and white too? I think it might look quite good.
Hi Kirsty,
A few ways you can deal with the sky issue.
1. Let it go. So it blows out it's not the most important part of the photograph.
2. Use a reflector to kick more light on to your subject which will result in you being able to up the shutter speed to compensate and the sky will become darker. You probably won't recover that sky fully this way even with a silver reflector.
3. Light your subject separately with off camera flash. At this point you have 2 exposure to deal with in the one shot and have more control. Since he is sat in the shade the light source/modifier would work best if it was large and close to provide the soft light you get in shade.
Lighting the subject with flash will give you options regarding that background and Sky.
In this image below I show a scene where I shot an available light exposure and one lit with off camera flash to give me control over the sky.
View media item 12615
The EXIF and technical info is on the image.
Rick
Perfect example Rick and this is exactly what i was looking for. Thankyou for the feedback and brilliant advice and example Can i ask where you placed the speedlite?
You are welcome.
The light was not a speedlite. More like a speedlite on steroids that gives out 360ws compared to a speedlites 60ws of power. If I had shot this with a speedlite my Fstop would of been at F5.6 at best, you can do a lot with a speedlite but for some situations you will need more light.
The light was placed in a Westcott 28" Apollo softbox that was boomed over the subject by an assistant, it places the light over head and slightly infront of your subject. I shoot that pattern of light quite a bit because I really love it, you will see it in a lot of fashion and beauty work also.
Rick