How do I fix blown out sky in post. Shit is supposed to be blue

Is it completely blown out, as in clipped into white? If it is, you can't bring that back, and this is a learning experience.

>>3122910
What should I do then ? Like what do I learn from this? How to not have it happen again

>>3122911
don't shoot in the middle of the day. the golden hours aren't just a meme, use them

>or just crush tf out of your blacks by underexposing

>>3122911
Learn what good lighting looks like, learn how to properly expose.

File: sky'n shit.jpg (778KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 800x1200px

>>3122907
go to the exact same spot and take a good photo of the sky then blend the two images.

Here is an example of either three or four images combined.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:29 17:21:21
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200

>>3122917
>>3122913
>>3122912

Is it just the pastime of this board to give bad advice at all times?

The only thing you need to know is: don't shoot into the sun, ever. If you're blowing out your sky, expose for the sky and boost the shadows, though that can look like total shit.

>>3122917
Do I use a tripod for this?
Or do I just use a rapid shutter shooting mode or whatever it's called and try to be very still?
What program do I use to combine the stacks?

File: decks.jpg (430KB, 1094x670px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1094x670px

>>3122975
>calls my advice bad
>give the same advice I did

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:20 13:51:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1094
Image Height	670

>>3122975
How do I expose for the sky. Please i am a noob and I want to learn!

>>3122978
Adjust your settings for the sky. Anything not well lit will be dark, but it'll probably look better to raise shadows than have a blown out sky.

>>3122977

which advice was yours? if it was "learn to expose", it's bad advice. it's the same as just saying "do it right."

>>3122979
What setting for sky. Please explain I have no idea what I'm doing.

>>3122911
>What should I do then ?
Shoop in a different sky.

>>3122983
It's not bad advice, it's just general advice, because as seen here >>3122988, he doesn't even know the basics. Doing basic research on lighting and exposure is where he needs to start.

>>3122907

In post?

Highlights: -100

Start from there.

>>3122907
polarizing filter my man. look it up.

>>3123017
that's not really going to help him.

Film my man.

>>3122911
expose for the highlights using your on-camera histogram
you need good dynamic range to be able to capture a daylight scene in one shot
though
>>3122917
fyi your postprocessing looks like hot garbage

>>3122907
expose for the highlights then recover the details in the shadows in lightroom.

you wont be able to recover details from blown out highlights

>>3122975
>don't shoot midday because lighting is hard and direct
>underexpose for sky
>bad advice
okay senpai

>>3123065
Just bracket and combine the exposures
Like HDR but not as overdone.

>>3123065

You can literally not blow out the sky in any time of day, you just need to not shoot into the sun. There are 3 other cardinal directions to choose from. You guys are overthinking this.

>>3122911
You can doctor a completely different sky into the image.

You learn that you should get a camera with better automatics.
Very hard to make an actually decent camera miss the correct exposure on a sky.

>>3123142
What if the thing you want to photograph is at a direction towards the sun?

>>3123146
Decent lens will prevent almost all flaring and most other effects, decent metering system will prefer to expose correctly for the large area rather than the extremely bright sun.

YMMV when you are shooting worse gear. Some cameras need to be told to meter on an area not containing the sun and some lenses get horrible when you point them at the sun.

>>3122917
>WALL
>TREE
>coma
>underexposure
>white balance
>shooting architecture wide open
>on a lense whith severe barrel distortion
This is an honest 2/10 you failed.

File: IMG_2410.jpg (122KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x800px

>>3122975
>The only thing you need to know is: don't shoot into the sun, ever
Fucking digiplebs.
Don't you know /p/ is a film board?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:05:05 00:37:49
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>3123146

Come back tomorrow when the sun is in another part of the sky and you aren't going to make a bad photograph.

>>3123163
As a beginner, could you explain
>underexposure
>white balance
>lens with severe barrel distortion
?

I'm trying to get better, and saw your criticisms. I didn't understand those specific ones though.

>>3123165

Cool silhouettes man.

>>3123172
literally everything he said is googlable. why don't you just use the device you used to post

>>3123186
I wasn't asking you. I was asking him.
The guy I asked can tell me to go Google the answers himself.
I don't need you here, living out your nerd fantasies of being an internet hall monitor screeching
>USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION!
>http://www.lmgtfy.com/
Don't cry about something so stupid, you little pussy.

File: willy-wonka-4.jpg (33KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x300px

>>3123194
its literally like you're sitting at a dinner table and you ask someone to pass you the salt all the way at other end when you have one right next you and someone goes

>anon, why don't you just use the one next to you

and then you launch into an autistic tirade about hall monitors

also
>accusing someone of crying when you're responding with a far longer and more whiny post about someone telling you to google
>BACKTRACKBACKTRACKBACKTRACK

>>3122988
>What setting for sky.

There is no specific setting. Expose so the sky isn't blown out. If you are losing all of your shadows beyond being able to recover them, try exposing the sky a little higher, but not blowing it out too much. If this fails, take multiple exposures (yes, you will need a tripod to have the exact same framing) and blend them in post.

>I have no idea what I'm doing
It's time to make mistakes and learn from them. If you're shooting digital, it's a lot less expensive than killing entire rolls of film.

>>3123017
A polarizing filter may be a good tool to use, but it is better to know how to use the tool. Just slapping one on the lens won't fix shit. The photographer needs to fix himself first.

>>3123142
Shooting into the sun is amazing when done right. Stop trying to make it your fix-all and an unbreakable rule.

>>3123206

For sunsets, maybe it looks good. The rest of the time it looks like shit. It's also a very common rookie mistake to shoot into the sun.

>>3123204
Has it ever occurred to you that even if I were to Google those things, that I still would not be able to notice all those faults like that anon did?

I've read articles on clipped highlights and crushed shadows. I still have moments where I'll think a photo looks good, only for a couple of anons to tell me that my highlights and shadows are shit.

I wanted to basically see that photo through that anon's eyes, so that maybe I could learn something. Then you come along on a high horse, contributing absolutely nothing towards my post or the thread itself.

I came here to learn about how to fix blown skies and why that particular photo of the house is awful. Instead I had to deal with your bored ass on a Saturday night. The fact that you have that Gene Wilder reaction image on hand for internet arguments tells me everything I need to know about how much of a smug, insufferable cunt you are.

>>3123194
>>3123172
Underexposure:
Exposure is an expression to describe how much of the light is recorded by the sensor or film. So-called correct exposure is at the center of the meter. Overexposure is a higher exposure value (closer to white) of that same light. Underexposure is a lower value (closer to black) of that same light.

White balance is what color the camera sees as white. Your brain is very good at interpreting what is right for white, or making its own even incorrect decision. But the tone of light can have a huge effect on how your image looks.

Lens with barrel distortion:
This is a description of how the lens transmits light to the sensor or film. Distortion is a change. Barrel distortion is the curving of straight lines as experienced by a lot of very wide lenses. This can be corrected in many different ways, from lenses designed to have less distortion but still with a wide angle view, to fixing lens distortion in post-processing.

>>3123207
Oh, you and your dichotomies.

You are not absolutely correct. Shooting into the sun can look good besides just sunset -- or sunrise, before you try to say that's the only other time.

>>3123212
i literally just told you the google something and then you short-circuited and started ranting and raving calling me a pussy and a bitch, so who's really the smug dick here?

it would be totally reasonable if someone said "your comp is shit" and then you asked what was shitty about it. But he didn't. he criticized the barrel distortion, your white balance, and your underexposure. Nothing in there is needing further explanation, it's literally just definitions (e.g. what is barrel distortion). You're not asking to "see that photo through anon's eyes", you're just asking for him to provide definitions that you could easily do yourself (as someone just did right here >>3123215). Those are all just definitions and explanations, nothing deeper.

Stop backtracking and deflecting about smugness when you're clearly being an arrogant asshole. You asked for super easy definitions that you could've googled and someone called you out for it and you got disproportionately triggered. So now you're backtracking and trying to deflect about it with a whole bunch of shit about high horses when all I did was tell you to google super easy googlable things.

>inb4 smug comment about how you can't be bothered to reply

>>3123217

Show me one photo where it looks good.

>>3123234
Go make some. Learn to break your own walls.

>>3123236

Really makes you think.

>>3123236
Why should they put in the work to prove your point for you

>>3122907
Just post the picture so we can all have a crack at it and then call each other bad at editing

>>3123165
Digital can handle this just fine. Actually it may work better if we pit decent current lenses against film lenses from back then.

File: 1363150484626.png (267KB, 381x424px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 381x424px

>>3122975
>>3123045
>>3123163
calm your horses. i was giving an example for how to combine multiple exposures not applying for the Magnum Photography Awards.

BTW...it seems like you forgot to post an image of yours, you lowlife cunts.

>>3122976
its on a tripod. to combine you use Photoshop, PTGUI, Corel or one of the other Software Suits. There's different types for different applications and aspirations.

File: qweeqwqeweqe.jpg (300KB, 1347x933px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1347x933px

Coincidentally I brought this image back from the dead last night, so I guess it really depends on how blown out you made er'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:29 17:18:17
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1347
Image Height	933