Best way to enhance the sky???

[sparkie1263]

I took several images of this shack and these 2 I like the best however i am not happy with the sky. I am new to digital and PS. I took a few images of just the sky on a nice day so I can put the sky behind the duck hunting shack. OOr is there a better way?
Thanks
Frank

PS fell free to edit if you wish.

[Jimmy B]

Try using a graduated neutral density filter to darken the sky so it isn't blown out.
Welcome to the Forum!
Jimmy B

[Medley]

Jimmy's right. There's no detail left in the sky, so there's nothing to enhance. Using the filter to capture the scene in-camera is the best option. The other option is to take two photos- one metered for the foreground, and one metered for the sky. The two exposures can then be combined in PS to form one image.

- Joe U.

[another view]

You could use a graduated neutral density filter but you'd wind up with this problem, but more in the second shot here than the first. Jimmy, I hope you don't mind me linking that thread. The problem is that GND filters graduate to neutral density across a straight line so part of the roof that's against the sky would be darker too - not just the sky.

I'd do two exposures; one for the building (or what's left of it!) and a separate one about two stops less to capture some detail in the sky, then merge them together in Photoshop. This way you can literally draw the line of what part of the shot gets which exposure wherever you want. It doesn't need to be a straight line, and in real life it usually isn't anyway. When I shot slide film I'd use a GND quite often but a lot of times it was a compromise of either having something too dark or too light depending on where I decided to put that line...

[AgingEyes]

You can use gradient in PS to get this result (I changed the colors but you could ignore that):



Right now you can see blocks in the sky. With your original file, it should look better. The sky in that shot is not blown out completely.

Or, replace this sky with another sky in another shot in PS. The sky in your shot is not very good looking anyhow. So while you're trying to make the sky looks better, you may as well find replace it with another one.

Otherwise, as suggested, shoot the sky and the ground differently and merge them together in PS or use gradient filter, polarizer when shooting.

[Jimmy B]

Another view no problem with the link. In the link that photo was 2 merged raw shots. I learned on that photo was to do more from the start with the 2 exposures before the merge. That would hopefully make the unmasking of the sky a little easier? I am going to give it another try over the weekend.
Jimmy

[reverberation]

Take the shot the light gives you. This means sometimes you will have to prostrate yourself (lie on your stomach in this case) so you can compose the best frame for your subject. I am saying that I would have shot the shack against the sky and exposed for the shack. Filters are great but given the details I see in this shot, I would say you would not have done any better with a filter. The clouds are simply not that interesting. Blow the sky out and shoot the shack, this is the best way to go, in my opinion.

[sparkie1263]

I want to thank everybody for there help. I am new to digital and am trying to learn how to use PS. Eyes that looks alot better than what I had. I will have to try working with PS.
Thanks again to everybody
Frank

[mjs1973]

I know it's not always an option, but my suggestion would be to go back and reshoot the scene with a better sky, and the light coming from behind you. That way you shouldn't have to worry about the sky blowing out so much.

Depending on the direction of the light, a polarizer could help bring out the sky as well. Not sure it would have helped this scene on this day, but worth a try.

If you're looking for a way to enhance the sky in Photoshop, it should be pretty easy to replace it with a different sky. Since the sky in this image is so bright, it's easy to make a selection of the sky. I used the magic wand tool and it did a pretty good job. There are other methods that would work better, but for demonstration purposes and to save time, I used the magic wand. Then I deleted the sky. I selected a better sky from a different photo, and pasted it behind the background layer and sized it to fit. Then I added a curves adjustment layer to the sky to darken it a bit and bring out some more blue. The sky doesn't really match the images all that well, and the horizon line is a little harsh, but you get the idea.

[sparkie1263]

Thanks I get the idea. I am going to reshoot the cabin in the summer. It is not far from my house. The funny thing is I always wanted to shoot this in BW but never had the film. Now that I can change it to BW I seem to be worried about the sky. Go figure !!
Thanks again
Frank

[another view]

Take the shot the light gives you.

This is the best advice for getting a killer shot. Since this place is nearby, you will have a lot more chance getting a great shot of it due to unusually good light than if it was a vacation shot from a thousand miles away. Shoot local and go to the same places often - one of these days it'll pay off.

As far as actually replacing the sky, be careful of the water in the the original shot. Water doesn't look like that on a sunny day. Also, the light on the building wouldn't be soft and even on a sunny day - it would be directional with shadows.

[sparkie1263]

Do you think I should compose the shot without showing the bay?? I am going try to shot the shack in the lower right side showing more of the grass to the left. I will post the new shots.
Thanks again
Frank

[Greg McCary]

I agree with AV a ND filter is a must for landscape photography. Try the Cokin System. I love mine and when I am out shooting it's on my camera 90% of the time.

[Mr Yuck]

HDR

Tonemap the RAW file or bracket your shots.

Use Photomatix or Dynamic Photo HDR to generate the HDR and tonemap it.

http://bsphotographs.com/hdr.htm

[AgingEyes]

HDR

Tonemap the RAW file or bracket your shots.

Use Photomatix or Dynamic Photo HDR to generate the HDR and tonemap it.

http://bsphotographs.com/hdr.htm

If you don't mind, could you tell me what tone map and bump map means?

[livin4lax09]

if you're opposed to taking the HDR route, you can shoot in RAW, edit one photo for the foreground, edit a different one for the sky (my advice is to drop the exposure in PS) then combine the two by putting the sky layer on top of the foreground layer, changing it to a mask, then using a graduation to keep the sky up top but erase the foreground of the top layer.

[Medley]

If you don't mind, could you tell me what tone map and bump map means?

Sorry, I must have missed this post earlier. It's a product of aging.....

Tone mapping is selcting a range of tones within an image and adjusting them to better suit the dynamic range of the output device. In the example at the beginning of this post, the sky could be selected darkened to better fit within the range of the computer screens. There are various ways to go about this, and it can be done for many different reasons. A favorite method of mine is to duplicate the layer, then use the "blend if:" sliders under the Layer>Layer Style> Blending Options menu. Used properly, these sliders allow you to not only control the exact range of tones to be adjusted, but also how much "feathering" to add at the ends of each range to produce a smooth transition back into the rest of the image. The sliders do have some limitations, but are good for those "quick and dirty" selections. When you really start delving into the subject, you'll find that there are as many techniques for tone mapping as there are for color correction, and each is more complicated and intricate than the last.

Bump mapping is a horse of a different color. Bump mapping is used to add a "height" measurement to each pixel in a CGI image before the addition of lighting effects. The best way I know to explain this is by example, and the best example I can think of right now is a golf ball. Consider a golf ball in a normal 3D rendering, and you likely come up with a 3D sphere that has had the detailed dimples of the ball painted on. You can add shadow and highlight detail to the dimples, but if you move or rotate that ball in relation to the light source, the shadows and highlights don't change -they simply move with the object.

A bump mapped golf ball, however, has had the peaks and valleys of each dimple included as part of the 3D object itself. So when the object is moved or rotated, the shadows and highlights of each dimple react with the light source accordingly. This adds a level of realism to 3D CGI animation, but it also requires (unless there have been advances I'm not aware of) a separate graphics processor to handle the complex calculations fast enough to render a smooth animation.

That's the short answer to both terms. We could talk about either one for a wekk and not cover all the facets, possibilities, or potential uses. Hope this has helped you some though.

- Joe U.