Blue sky with 10D

[lkkoh]

Hi,

When I shoot landscape in a day with blue sky, I always realise that the sky the appear on my computer screen is not same blue as I see during the shoot. Does this has something to do with the temperature setting on the camera or is it a generic with all DSLR?

thanks
LK

[maderito]

You raise an important question that deserves a complete (and long) answer. This, however, will be relatively short.

In typical landscapes on a sunny day, the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the digital sensor (and film transparencies). As one of the lightist objects in the scene, the sky tends towards white. That is, the sky color tends to be "blown out" -- or captured at a higher luminosity (and thus paler blue) than you desired.

Temperature refers to the balance of blue and red light that illuminates a scene. Adjusting an image to a cooler temperature will make the sky bluer, but may also make the rest of the image, well... cold. Best, to shoot in RAW if you want to adjust temperature.

Using a polarizer enhances blue skies. It's the best friend of the casual and serious landscape photographer (along with a tripod and wide angle lens).

Capturing good landscape images and blue skies with any camera - but especially with 35 mm slide transparencies and with digital SLRs - is a challenge.

Snapshots of your friends and relatives are relatively easy compared to landscape photography. I am consistently humbled in the presence of someone who aims to become a competent landscape photographer.

Invest in a polarizer for your favorite lens. A small investment with a big return. :D

[chris.bailey]

Hi,

When I shoot landscape in a day with blue sky, I always realise that the sky the appear on my computer screen is not same blue as I see during the shoot. Does this has something to do with the temperature setting on the camera or is it a generic with all DSLR?

thanks
LK

I always find this to be the case with film as well, its not just a digital thing. Two options, a polariser, as Woody mentions above OR a set of digital filters such as though NIK produce. I now use the latter as being more flexible and able to produce far more stunning shots such as totally unbelievable one shot in the UK. We NEVER get skies like that :lol:

http://www.pbase.com/image/22708715.jpg

[drisley]

I will have to look at the digital filter. Sounds cool.

I got lucky yesterday. I took this picture of a statue atop a 15 story building without a polarizer, and got a great blue sky with my Rebel and 70-200mm F4L.

http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/statue.jpg

[PacAce]

In typical landscapes on a sunny day, the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the digital sensor (and film transparencies). As one of the lightist objects in the scene, the sky tends towards white. That is, the sky color tends to be "blown out" -- or captured at a higher luminosity (and thus paler blue) than you desired.


Just my 2 cents but I think what you say is true only if there are clouds in the picture or if it's an overcast day. The blue sky by itself is generally, in terms of tone, on the mid-gray range or maybe a little darker. I have yet to blow out a blue sky without blowing everything else out short of the shadows.

[PekkaM]

This one was taken with G1 and B+W circular polarizer a few years ago. The sky sometimes got close to black in my photos.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pmm/pics/g1/20.jpg

[nosquare2003]

While maderito explains well, I would add one more filter: Gradual ND filter.

[diyjoe]

Polarizers and other filters are good advice, but I would also recommend shooting either in the hour just after sunrise, or the hour just before sunset (the 'golden hour'). This offers a number of benefits:-

- lower sun = longer shadows = more detail
- lower sun = lower light levels in sky = more even exposure (darker skies)
- lower sun = warmer light

If you shoot something at midday with the sun directly overhead and expose for what's on the ground (buildings, landscape, etc.) the sky will always be over exposed.

Hope that helps!

[Jim_T]

Another thing to consider is that even with no clouds the sky is normally a darker blue looking straight up than it is when looking at the horizon. ( A lot of the included dark blue sky shots in this thread are looking up).. If you have dust and or high humidity, the effect is even more pronounced..

You can see this a bit in the shot below... Note the slight change in darkness between the high and low parts of the sky.. It's darker at the top of the frame and ligher where it meets the building.. (Look familiar drisley :) )

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/leg.jpg

[chris.bailey]

In typical landscapes on a sunny day, the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the digital sensor (and film transparencies). As one of the lightist objects in the scene, the sky tends towards white. That is, the sky color tends to be "blown out" -- or captured at a higher luminosity (and thus paler blue) than you desired.


Just my 2 cents but I think what you say is true only if there are clouds in the picture or if it's an overcast day. The blue sky by itself is generally, in terms of tone, on the mid-gray range or maybe a little darker. I have yet to blow out a blue sky without blowing everything else out short of the shadows.

You obvously dont live in the UK :lol: Its very rare for us to have blue skies such that it somes out on photographs other than grey.

[PacAce]

In typical landscapes on a sunny day, the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the digital sensor (and film transparencies). As one of the lightist objects in the scene, the sky tends towards white. That is, the sky color tends to be "blown out" -- or captured at a higher luminosity (and thus paler blue) than you desired.


Just my 2 cents but I think what you say is true only if there are clouds in the picture or if it's an overcast day. The blue sky by itself is generally, in terms of tone, on the mid-gray range or maybe a little darker. I have yet to blow out a blue sky without blowing everything else out short of the shadows.

You obvously dont live in the UK :lol: Its very rare for us to have blue skies such that it somes out on photographs other than grey.

Yes that thought had occurred to me after I posted my reply. :mrgreen:

[slin100]

Another thing to consider is whether or not your monitor is properly calibrated. And even if it is, there's always the possibility that the colors are outside the gamut of the monitor and/or the camera.

[maderito]

Just my 2 cents but I think what you say is true only if there are clouds in the picture or if it's an overcast day. The blue sky by itself is generally, in terms of tone, on the mid-gray range or maybe a little darker. I have yet to blow out a blue sky without blowing everything else out short of the shadows.
On a beautiful day with a deep blue sky (i.e., not in England!), you can meter against the sky which will put it in your "mid-gray range" and give you a beautiful result. You still may have problems in the rest of the scene - blown highlights or blocked shadows, depending on the scene's dyanmic range. But, if I want to guarantee that at least the sky will look good, use it as your reference gray card.

Did I just hear Ansel Adams groan :?.

[chris.bailey]

Just my 2 cents but I think what you say is true only if there are clouds in the picture or if it's an overcast day. The blue sky by itself is generally, in terms of tone, on the mid-gray range or maybe a little darker. I have yet to blow out a blue sky without blowing everything else out short of the shadows.
On a beautiful day with a deep blue sky (i.e., not in England!), you can meter against the sky which will put it in your "mid-gray range" and give you a beautiful result. You still may have problems in the rest of the scene - blown highlights or blocked shadows, depending on the scene's dyanmic range. But, if I want to guarantee that at least the sky will look good, use it as your reference gray card.

Did I just hear Ansel Adams groan :?.

I dont want to labour the point but...

And if you live in the UK, for 364 days a year, ignore the sky and point it in afterwards

[drisley]

JimT, what's the chances of you being in my hometown!?
When did you take that? Last summer?

[horqua]

Instead of buying a polarizer and losing 1.5 stops or some sort of gradient filter set losing $50+ , stop down! Use an aperature higher than f4.5 or 5.6. Try 11, 16 or 22. A highly respected photographer of the Jackson Hole, Tetons and the Gros Ventre range (Abi Gariman) told us his secret to the brilliant skies in his landscapes. Although I don't recall his specific rationale, it has to do with controlling the contrast range of a full sun/daylight scene. The greater the aperature, the darker the sky. So what if you have to lean against a tree or ("God forbid!") use a tripod. Yousef Karsh pointed out long ago that no great photograph of any substance was ever taken without the aid of a tripod. (He created the very famous image of Winston Churchill glowering into the camera, resembling an English bulldog.) Now remember, he was a portrait photographer in the days of much slower films. But, his philosophy still holds true. Besides, if you're shooting a 10D, you've got the advantage of variable ISO (100-1600). If you have to handhold for the scene, run up the ISO and lean against a tree or a wall or lean over your car or sit on the ground. You can make an excellent tripod out of yourself. I even remember seeing one old boy give a half-day seminar on the use of a 4x4x6" block of wood (quite beat up, no less) as a camera postioning device and his results (using film) were quite impressive. Where there's a will, there's a way.

For what it's worth. :wink:

[drisley]

Horqua, it's funny you should say that.
The picture I posted above was indeed taken at a higher f-stop number (I think f8 or f11), and the blue sky was better than some of the pictures I've taken with a polarizing filter.

[roebuck]

Hi
To add my two cents worth. Last weekend I tackled a similar problem with blown out skies but instead of using a polariser I used AE lock and the accompanying centered weighted metering on the horizon with part sky and part landscape with good results.

[defordphoto]

You can always take two shots and layer them. One for the sky and then one for the subject. Polarizer's are much easier though...;)

[Jyoti]

I reckon for us Brit snappers, a polariser is damn near compulsory for blue skies. But hey, even in Derby you can get a sky like this:

http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/phpgallery/albums/Oakwood_Late_September/sepwalk1.sized.jpg

:)

But yeah... for every lovely blue shot I get, I have stacks of bleached out greys :(

[robertwgross]

For normal photographers shooting in normal locations, the circular polarizer can be helpful in accenting the blue sky with white clouds. However, as you go up to higher and higher elevations, this function gets weird. At very high elevations, there isn't much haze in the sky. For a few cameras, there is excess ultraviolet light coming into the camera to fool the meters and sensors. But if you aim skyward very much and then crank in the polarizer, you can produce a dark blue sky to the point of it looking almost black. With nice white snow or ice around, it starts looking more and more awesome, so often we have to avoid the maximum polarizer setting and maybe use just a little.

---Bob Gross---

[nosquare2003]

Polariser does have limitation. It depends on angle of light. For a super wide angle lens, the uneven colour is sometimes unpleasant (though someone may like it).

In such case, a gradual ND filter may be better -- though some cost is involved.

Otherwise, doing it in the digital darkroom is the way to go: digital filter, blending...

[Jim_T]

JimT, what's the chances of you being in my hometown!?
When did you take that? Last summer?

If you live in the same city where the building is, then we both live in the same city :wink:

Yes.. It was taken last June..

[picnic]

Hi,

When I shoot landscape in a day with blue sky, I always realise that the sky the appear on my computer screen is not same blue as I see during the shoot. Does this has something to do with the temperature setting on the camera or is it a generic with all DSLR?

thanks
LK

I read all the replies--but I actually read the question differently. I'm guessing that what he means is that the blue sky he sees on the monitor is not the same SHADE of blue--this often seems to be true of Canons, be they P & S or the DSLRs. I often select the sky in PS and adjust it closer to reality. Now--if you're talking about a beautiful blue sky--you get them with Canon LOL--but they often aren't quite 'reality' as far as the shade goes. But then--I could have misinterpreted his question also. (I also need to add that often I don't particularly care about 'reality' but sometimes what is closer to what I 'see' in my own mind for the final image).

I use a polarizer, ND grad, stop down and/or meter off the sky/do 2 layers from RAW and combine--whatever I think I need to do.

[PekkaM]

Here's a quick test shot right out of my window. Canon EOS 300D with Sigma EX 17-35 @ f/8. Pretty nice sky if you ask me:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pmm/sample/bluesky8.jpg

Bigger f-ratio than 8 didn't give me notably different results.

[picnic]

This one is without polarizer, no correction in PS---taken in Feb. 2003 and a good blue from a D60--what you saw is what you see.
http://www.pbase.com/image/12141365.jpg

[diyjoe]

This one is without polarizer, no correction in PS---taken in Feb. 2003 and a good blue from a D60--what you saw is what you see.

Look at the length of those shadows – low sun = better balance between ground and sky.

[picnic]

Look at the length of those shadows – low sun = better balance between ground and sky.

Right--I purposely shot when the sun was in the west (this is east coast USA) and I didn't have to deal with blown sky to get the ground correctly exposed. Besides which, there is often a lot of haze prior to noon along the coast. The winter skies (this was February) are often much deeper blue here than summer--primarily because of that haze that comes with oppressive humidity in the summer.

[PekkaM]

Few more without filter:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pmm/sample/181_8172.jpg
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pmm/sample/181_8175.jpg