Dramatic sky- HSS, gels or polarizer

How do you achieve the dramatic looking sky for portraits.

By underexposing the ambient by at least two stops. I use a 3-stop ND grad and studio flash.

Either ND filter or TTL depending on circumstances.
I generally use TTL. Fast and easy without having to dig into my bag for an ND filter.

silvermesa1 wrote in post #18044096
How do you achieve the dramatic looking sky for portraits.

Heya,

All of the above.

Sometimes I use HSS to avoid using filters.
Sometimes I use ND filters to be able to not use HSS, and stick to sync speed (I do this so that I can use a light meter and get it right, fast, without just chimping; great for when time is of the essence).
I use gels often (1/4th CTO gel works for me universally), both on speedlites & on my monolight. I buy big sheets and cut it myself, attached with velcro tape.

I use camera settings + any filters to achieve ambient exposure, and I generally under-expose by about 1 stop or so. This is separate from flash exposure. Flash exposure is for subject, a different exposure all together, usually fill (-2/3rds of a stop below ambient), sometimes key (full exposure).

+++++++++++

Just as a demo, here's an example of two speedlites with 1/4th CTO gels being used as key exposure on subject, with camera settings for ambient:

MalVeauX wrote in post #18044123
... I use ND filters to be able to not use HSS, and stick to sync speed (I do this so that I can use a light meter and get it right, fast, without just chimping; great for when time is of the essence)....

That's one reason I generally use TTL and HSS, save lots of time once one has practiced enough to be confident with it.

Either HSS or shoot stopped down to under expose the ambient.
90% of the time with my wedding photos I'm shooting at f9 or above

The key to imcreased drama in the sky is to reduce the DIFFERENTIAL of brightness between the sky and your primary subject.
None of the three are suitable to do so as a general tool.

• HSS runs out of power too close to the camera/flash to serve any real benefit when your main subject is 20' away. Assuming you start with GN138 for normal lens coverage, HSS at 1/500 shutter speed is a loss of -3EV, or GN48...max distance 17' at f/2.8 shooting aperture -- but you need to shoot at 1/3200 with that f/stop for the sky to be properly exposed at ISO100!
  
• Gels fails to reduce the differential of brightness
  
• Polarizer somewhat reduces the differential of brightness, but only by the amount of reduction of 'glare' in the sky which is eliminated by the polarizer element.
  

Another downside of HSS is that you can't meter it with an incident meter: forcing you to eyeball it, which is not the best way to obtain consistent results, especially when you're chimping under bright daylight.

Wilt, I've been able to use the light reduction inherent in a polariser filter to underexpose the ambient, not by much, but it's workable. That's another area where the incident meter becomes invaluable: you can find exactly how many stops and fractions of a stop your particular filter blocks light. Even within the same brand there are variations: my 82mm B+W Kaesemann is ~2 stops, whereas my 67mm B+W Kaesemann is only 1 stop.

Alveric wrote in post #18045396
you can find exactly how many stops and fractions of a stop your particular filter blocks light. Even within the same brand there are variations: my 82mm B+W Kaesemann is ~2 stops, whereas my 67mm B+W Kaesemann is only 1 stop.

I just did a test with my B+W CPL filter, measurements taken with a Minolta spot meter, in relative brightness mode (not f/stop readings, but EV difference readings from some baseline)

1. Unfiltered 3.1
   
2. Filtered 1.6
   
3. Filtered at max reduction 0.9
   

With the 300 and 600Ws strobes available today that do HSS and TTL, it is possible to get dramatic skys using HSS.
It takes practice and an understanding that there are two distinct exposures involved. One is the ambient exposure for the background and sky. The second is the flash exposure for the subject.

The best skies are with clouds, sunset and deep blue which usually means northern sky.

Polarizer will help with dramatic blue, but HSS is really the key.

Use something like a basket ball that doesn't object to your fiddling, then experiment and practice till you have confidence that you can pull it off.

I've seen some environmental portraits that looked out of this world to me. You could say the background was enhanced a bit but looks believable and natural.

Some taken at the golden hour with the sun above the horizon have clouds separated in the sky and they may have pinks and dark gray's in the clouds along with highlighted whites. Sometimes there may be a bit of magenta in the sky or deep blue on the fringes.

The same time as above with the sun just above the horizon and no clouds in the sky were deep golden near the horizon line and gets lighter the higher in the sky you go.

Another example is on a portrait earlier in the day possibly around 4pm and sunny. The sky is a deep blue and the clouds have deep gray areas with white highlights.

On days with more of a cloudy sky, the blue hour portraits turn the sky to blue/gray.

Portraits taken at both times of day were utilizing off camera strobe. Just was not sure if HSS,gels, polarizer or post processing helped create the look?

Thank You All!

Something like this?
I shot this last Saturday. Its a combination of camera exposure for the sky, strobe exposure, via TTL for the key light on the couple and processing in Lightroom to get the image to what I visualized.

Thank you for posting photos dmward and MalVeaux! Nice photographs. Those are indeed, in the direction I want to head. They both have saturation and are believable.
Just as a personal preference, I'm looking to saturate the sky's a bit more even. Just imagine a landscape shot with saturated colors that push it a bit but you say to yourself, it could look like that. Then with the subject in the foreground exposed with off camera strobe.
I imagine, not everyday is created the same for this type of portrait. Cloud structure and the type of sunset vary with different parts of the country and the day.
Thank You!

Wilt wrote in post #18045414
I just did a test with my B+W CPL filter, measurements taken with a Minolta spot meter, in relative brightness mode (not f/stop readings, but EV difference readings from some baseline)

1. Unfiltered 3.1
   
2. Filtered 1.6
   
3. Filtered at max reduction 0.9
   

So while #2 - #1 (1.5EV) shows the overall reduction across the ENTIRE scene (i.e. neutral density), #2 - #3 (0.7EV) shows the change in differential between the sky vs. main subject due to action of polarization.

Admittedly, if I repeat the tests closer to midday, rather than close to dusk, the differential change may increase, but that is a test for another day.

I just did another measurement, this time at 2:30pm at a northern sky (vs. a southern sky about 7:30pm yesterday)

1. Unfiltered 0EV
   
2. Filtered -0.6EV
   
3. Filtered at max reduction -2.4EV
   

silvermesa1 wrote in post #18046162
Thank you for posting photos dmward and MalVeaux! Nice photographs. Those are indeed, in the direction I want to head. They both have saturation and are believable.
Just as a personal preference, I'm looking to saturate the sky's a bit more even. Just imagine a landscape shot with saturated colors that push it a bit but you say to yourself, it could look like that. Then with the subject in the foreground exposed with off camera strobe.
I imagine, not everyday is created the same for this type of portrait. Cloud structure and the type of sunset vary with different parts of the country and the day.
Thank You!

One thing to remember, if you want it to look realistic is that the sky is bluer the farther from the horizon because of atmosphere.