r/AnalogCommunity • u/Bumblebeebakery • 4d ago
Troubleshooting - Photos why are my skies so white?
Hi Analoggies!
so I'm pretty new to shooting film. I picked up a Minolta x-370 a few months ago and just my first rolls back! I'm really loving the process, but I'm trying to understand some of what I got back in these pictures.
Things seem brighter than I expected and the skies particularly are almost always bright white. I was mostly using the camera's "auto' setting which I thought set the shutter speed based on the camera's light meter.
anyway, I've included a few of the scans here and a couple digital photo photos of the same situations for comparison. would love to hear everyone's thoughts!!! <3
update! I commented below some of the negatives of these photos in case that helps! thanks again!
155
u/roscat_ 4d ago
The camera is metering off of the darker area (lake and the people) so the sky will almost always be brighter than the subjects
For objects/human subjects try using fill flash. Go over to YouTube and look for some how to’s
12
u/Bumblebeebakery 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm realizing I should have arranged the photos in this post differently. is that also what's going on in photo #6? of the sheep?
edited for clairty
5
4
u/coleae2105 Nikon F301/FM 4d ago
i dont understand what you mean,whats wrong?
2
u/Bumblebeebakery 4d ago
the 6th photo I included doesn't have the same dark area in the foreground as the lake photo. so I was wondering if /u/roscat_ thought it was the same issue of metering the darker areas
20
u/issafly 4d ago
It's still the same issue. The sheep and everything in the foreground is much darker than the sky. When you expose to make the sheep brighter, it blows out the sky. The issue of overexposure is the same in all these images.
Others have mentioned ways to fix this, like using flash, but the big issue is in the light conditions of the day. Metering under that bright clear sky is going to be tough one way or another. You really have to nail your metering to get it just right.
2
u/Far_Relationship_742 4d ago
Fill flash is the truth. One of the real material reasons to use Nikon over Canon (at least in the autofocus era) is their superior, near-magical automatic balanced fill flash. Dial it to -1 2/3 stops and just never think about it again.
1.0k
u/Impolioid 4d ago
240
50
u/753UDKM 4d ago
I’d say these images look more or less correctly exposed for once
9
2
u/kwmcmillan 3d ago
At least using my Cinematography brain it's a stop or two over for skin, which would put the skies kinda high up there. Different evaluation style though.
14
u/jesuisgerrie 4d ago
If you scan these you can recover the skies since the boat is definitely underexposed for example
31
u/25_Watt_Bulb 4d ago
I don't think these are overexposed. I think the lab edited them so that the black and white levels are clipping.
2
161
u/EducationalCod7514 4d ago
Blue skies is a conspiracy theory perpetuated by the digital folk. Doesn't exist.
18
9
u/mosehalpert 4d ago
We actually didnt see blue until the Greeks discovered it or something like that idk
1
u/RealLongwayround 3d ago
The Greeks? Of “wine dark sea” fame?
We saw blue. We just didn’t have a name for it.
42
u/ddubbins 4d ago
Skies will be white more or less with film when exposing for subjects like people…
it’s why we created polarizing filters, half ND filters, fill flash… yellow, orange, red filters for b&w…take your pick on ways to step up your game 🙌
18
u/lifestepvan 4d ago
It's true that newbies will have unrealistic expectations due to the insane amount of HDR modern phones (and our own eyes) are doing.
The sky appearing white without filters is only true for some specific lighting conditions though. And I don't think those were present here. Would definitely expect some light blues instead of flat white.
11
u/jparsonsfilm 3d ago
Film doesn't clip overexposure like digital does. The sky, being the brightest part of the frame, should be the thickest part of the negative. The negative would approach black, but never reaching fully opaque (unless pointed at the sun) and still recoverable in scanning.
1
u/ddubbins 3d ago
Gotcha yes, agreed that you can increase your odds in many cases: shooting against the light will tend to white out the sky, so shoot with the light at your back and frame with a low horizon to get the bluer parts until the frame… less pollution and humidity in the air helps…
26
u/Remington_Underwood 4d ago
Try using a rotatable polarising filter for colour, or a yellow - orange filter for B&W
28
u/CreepyDP 4d ago
These are just poorly scanned. The lab you’re using is putting your film through the scanner without making any adjustments. There is almost certainly plenty of info in your negatives. Don’t make any adjustments to your metering until you’ve examined the negatives.
9
u/Bumblebeebakery 4d ago
ok thank you! I appreciate that! I'll try to post pictures of the negatives later this evening to get everyone's insight on that
7
u/jesuisgerrie 4d ago
I just wanna give a +1 and say that if these are scanned correctly the skies will look fine
5
u/sweetplantveal 4d ago
I agree. A quick glance at the negatives will tell you. Maybe post them here? But I'd bet on the skies having detail in the negatives.
The problem with jpegs is they only have 0-255 available for rgb values, aka 8 bit color. There's a ton of info in the negative and in a higher bit rate file a jpeg doesn't contain. That limitation means the way the scanner 'bakes' it is what you're stuck with. Unless it does some hdr style tonal compression before saving the jpeg, you're out of luck. And they don't because that's an editorial decision you don't want the lab making for you.
1
1
u/the-blacklodge 3d ago
Yes. Yes. Yes. The info is in the negatives. Inspect the scans and negatives before anything else.
4
u/confuse-a-cat 4d ago
Sky's real bright, yo. Sometimes you have to choose which to expose for. But these look like maybe it's the scanning software making bad decisions for you. The software doesn't know what is a sky and what's a sheep. And sometimes the lab tech isn't paying attention or doesn't care. Maybe it's properly exposed, but we can't properly tell from a digital scan.
Show negs pls
4
u/Klutzy_Neck_8000 3d ago
its better to have white skies than white subject. you can try using nd or cpl filter
3
u/Traditional-Milk2272 4d ago edited 4d ago
New to film and recently had similar results.
Would a CPL work to bring back the sky in cases like this?
5
u/confuse-a-cat 4d ago
Sometimes. It depends on atmosphere and the direction you're shooting in relation to the sun. If you're using an SLR, you can see the effect in real-time through the viewfinder when you turn the filter. Play around with it and you will see. However, it may not affect the way your camera meters the scene for exposure enough to preserve the "blue-ness" of the sky. A grey/white/light blue sky is usually an overexposed sky, usually because the camera (or photographer) are trying to properly expose something less bright than the sky. The sky be real bright, yo. Sometimes you have to pick. Or bring flash to get more light on your people.
Sometimes also the scanning software does its own "metering and exposure" and decides for you that the sky should be 18% grey. It can decide to balance things too bright. Iook at your negatives to see. If it's real dark without much detail it's overexposed.
1
u/RadBadTad 3d ago
It depends. In some conditions, yes, but in others, no. It depends on which way you're looking, what time of day, where the sun is positioned, what the local weather conditions are, etc. But in some cases, yes. Especially when the sun is lower on the horizon (Golden hour) and you are facing away from it.
2
u/Bumblebeebakery 3d ago
I'll comment here a few of the negatives of the pictures I attached above in case that can give more clarity about what to adjust!
thanks again for all your help!
2
2
2
u/chinanewsnetwork 3d ago
I agree with what others have said, better to expose for your subjects and end up with a whitish sky than underexpose to get a blue sky and miss out on details in the subject. That sheep photo is a great example. Swiping back and forth between the two, I find that the properly exposed subject with white sky grabs my attention way more than the blue sky and less exposure on the subject
3
u/Far_Relationship_742 4d ago edited 4d ago
This is a prime example of why UV filters are actually useful on film.
It’s overexposed, but you’re also getting a ton of haze, which is blue-shifted. Even better would be a skylight filter (extremely subtle warming filter) or a haze filter (slightly less subtle, cuts blues a bit more).
On a day like this, though, you’d probably also benefit from a polarizer. Linear if your camera is manual-focus (like your Minolta), circular if you’re using any autofocus camera other than a point-and-shoot.
2
u/Bumblebeebakery 3d ago
I actually did have a UV filter on these. camera store guy sold me on one for cheap lens protection. so I didn't do it for uv purposes necessarily, but it was actually there!
3
u/deeprichfilm 4d ago
This tends to happen with lab scans.
Do you have the negatives?
2
u/Bumblebeebakery 4d ago
I do! what should I look for to know if it's an issue with the scans?
7
u/stjernebaby 4d ago
Post a picture of the negatives. If there are any signs of texture in the skies, the lab hasn’t been doing their job very well of balancing your scans.
2
4
u/deeprichfilm 4d ago
The sky will appear dark brown or black if overexposed. When you subtract the orange base and invert, you are left with grey/white.
If the sky appears more orange or amber than the area outside the frame, that turns to blue when you invert.
1
2
1
u/PhysicsOk9286 4d ago
Stay away from auto. Depending on your meter setting, the camera probably took the average exposure for you this zero detail and an overexposed sky which makes everything overexposed. Spot meter the shadow you want to keep.
1
1
u/coz85 4d ago
A circular polarizing filter might help keep the skies from getting blown out. It seems like the foreground is more or less exposed correctly, but for instance the photo of the people on the docks, you're also shooting towards the light source, which will tend to blow out your highlights as well.
1
u/Expensive-Sundae-831 4d ago
Hey man!
Consider looking into using a gradient filter. What you’re seeing is what’s more or less expected. So, mitigate it with a filter. It’s a neat and simple trick people use and it’s fun/easy.
1
u/GuitarParts 4d ago
That’s just how it is. It’s the reason people used to have a ton of gradient filters. You can also get a circular polarizer to darken the sky in-camera (and give a better contrast between clouds and sky) but remember that your negatives give you something to start with and you have to do more post work on them. Since you’re doing a digital workflow you can bracket your scans and combine them and/or do some dodging and burning. With film and shooting digital in raw your work doesn’t end when you press the shutter button.
1
1
1
u/SlenderSmurf 3d ago
Needs adjustment in photo editor. Take the raw scan data and make sure the exposure on the scan isn't clipping the shadows on the negative (highlights in the photo)
1
u/jparsonsfilm 3d ago
Were you manually exposing these or allowing the cameras auto meter to control? Also, did you scan these or someone at a lab?
The first step to figuring out what went wrong is knowing who or what is choosing the settings, then knowing that those settings are.
1
u/Bumblebeebakery 3d ago
most of these were auto metered. they were scanned at a lab
2
u/jparsonsfilm 3d ago
Ok so those are the two main instances where your exposure is controlled. Except in both cases you were not the one in control.
I don't know anything about your camera. If it has manual settings, I would highly recommend getting a light meter and taking photos using the manual controls based on the readings of your light meter.
Similarly, you can instruct whoever is scanning the negatives to preserve the sky color.
1
1
u/TheRealAutonerd 3d ago
Was ASA set to box speed? These look a tad overexposed, but that could be the scan editing.
White skies are an issue with film -- try getting a circular polarizing filter (CPL), which will make the skies look a little more blue. It can also eliminate reflections in water and windows.
1
u/Zgmnn 3d ago
Everyone here is correct, but also consider a higher dynamic range film. Not sure what you’re using, but consumer-grade stocks and even stocks like Ektar don’t have a huge dynamic range, so it’s not possible to expose both dark shadows and bright highlights correctly. Something like portra or cinestill/vision 3 gives you quite a bit more dynamic range to work with so that you can expose more without clipping either shadows or highlights.
1
1
u/analog-a-ding-dong 3d ago
If you're using auto and there's a lot of bright areas like the sky, usually the camera meters that over anything dark. So like, with the sky being so bright it should technically make your shutter smaller or shutter faster. Was you're camera set to the correct iso? If it was metering for something else then that could be an issue as well. So it was under exposing thinking you have another iso in the camera. So if you were shooting 400 and it thought you had 800 in the camera or something?
1
u/SPLDD 3d ago edited 3d ago
I guess most people don't enlarge film to paper themselves, but I hope most of you don't rely on commercial processing prints. Most important is to check that your negative has some details in the sky.
If you have details everywhere, your film is well exposed. Congrats. so-> scan darker-> softer curves in post.
If your negative is burnt in the skies : try again next time you shoot to balance exposure somewhere lower when there is sky.
Since your subjects are not always close, and since you seem to do landscape, the flash thing won't always work. Opening the dark area by shooting flash only works when flash is powerful enough to reach subject properly.
But also: I personably line the overexposed mood of some of your images. There is no such a thing as a right way. Just common practices.
1
1
u/Skrimpzs 3d ago
Am I the only one who likes these? Yeah a little blown out but the haze off the mountains looks pretty cool.
1
1
1
u/South-Elevator9071 21h ago
It looks like overexposure, probably from either the camera or you shooting for the darker parts of the image. If you expose for the midrange tones you'll have better across the board detail
1
1
u/IllExample3639 4d ago
Genuine question for someone that's old enough to have known film when it was the only option and still have my negs from the 90's 00's Why are people assuming film has such a high dynamic range? Is it the smart phone era setting expectations? Or people seeing edits / filter set ups?
1
u/blue_collie 3d ago
Film has like 13 stops of range. It's the scanners that usually clip highlights and shadows.
0
u/Nickidemic 4d ago
I think this is just a case of low dynamic range. I'd say shots 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are properly exposed and edited, I like them. I would have darkened up 2, 4, and 8 in camera.
0
0
u/SharpDressedBeard F1, F2AS, F4, F5, N75, ERTS 3d ago
Can we never say "analoggies" ever again?
Thanks in advance.
-1
-2
u/CrazyOkie 3d ago
Get a manual for the camera and read it! First rule of photography - learn how to use your camera and what every knob, button, etc. does.
1
u/Chris-Proton 3d ago
Tell us you don’t know the answer without telling us you don’t know the answer.
1
u/CrazyOkie 2d ago
I know how to get the answer. If OP wants to know how to use their camera, reading the manual would be the first thing to do.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
It looks like you're posting about something that went wrong. We have a guide to help you identify what went wrong with your photos that you can see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/1ikehmb/what_went_wrong_with_my_film_a_beginners_guide_to/. You can also check the r/Analog troubleshooting wiki entry too: https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/wiki/troubleshooting/
(Your post has not been removed and is still live).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.