Fixing skies in Lightroom

[havoc315]

Fellow cruise photographers....  I know a challenge with cruise landscapes is often capturing a detailed sky in a landscape, without underexposing the foreground. Too often, you get blown out white skies without detail.

I've created this step by step guide to using lightroom to fix skies:

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2019/01/26/fixing-skies-in-lightroom/

[angie7911922]

Thank you! I normally don't fiddle with the skies much, but now I'm going to go try a few and see what I can do!!

[pierces]

Nicely done Adam.

 

I'm going to add a quick adjust for non-RAW shooters

 

1. Sky is blue but lightened by a midday haze

 

2. Click "Auto". 

 

3. Adjust "Highlights" and "Shadows" sliders to suit.

 

4. Adjust "Vibrance" to taste. Don't overdo it.

 

5. Adjust "Dehaze" slider. You may have to increase overall brightness afterwards.

 

Since the Vibrance and Dehaze controls strongly affect the blue end of the spectrum, take note of Adam's instructions for gradient masking and such. you may want to adjust only the sky and not the blue sedan or something in the foreground.

 

Another note: If you don't shoot RAW, don't fret. The controls in Lightroom work on JPEG in exactly the same way. You may not be able to recover an extremely blown out sky, but a surprisingly wide range of adjustment its possible.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

21 hours ago, pierces said:

Nicely done Adam.

 

I'm going to add a quick adjust for non-RAW shooters

 

1. Sky is blue but lightened by a midday haze

 

2. Click "Auto". 

 

3. Adjust "Highlights" and "Shadows" sliders to suit.

 

4. Adjust "Vibrance" to taste. Don't overdo it.

 

5. Adjust "Dehaze" slider. You may have to increase overall brightness afterwards.

 

Since the Vibrance and Dehaze controls strongly affect the blue end of the spectrum, take note of Adam's instructions for gradient masking and such. you may want to adjust only the sky and not the blue sedan or something in the foreground.

 

Another note: If you don't shoot RAW, don't fret. The controls in Lightroom work on JPEG in exactly the same way. You may not be able to recover an extremely blown out sky, but a surprisingly wide range of adjustment its possible.

 

Dave

 Nice work by Dave....

I'll just add:

1-- yes, you can essentially make the same *types* of adjustments on jpegs as on RAW files in Lightroom. Same sliders will have basically the same effects. Just be careful, there is less latitude with jpeg files. You can push the sliders hard on raw files and retain great looking images. If you push the sliders too hard on jpegs, things can get nasty.  So just used some caution. 

2-- Dave starts with "auto" -- that is certainly fine. Though I recommend establishing your tastes, developing a pre-set, and using the pre-set as a starting point as opposed to "auto."

3-- Especially the dehaze slider... can become overly dramatic very quickly. It's a particularly good reason to use a gradient mask, process the sky separately from the rest of the image.

 

When your sky exposure is pretty close to your land/foreground exposure, as with Dave's image, you can definitely skip the masking and fine tune with shadows and highlight adjustments. 

 

[pierces]

2 hours ago, havoc315 said:

 Nice work by Dave....

I'll just add:

1-- yes, you can essentially make the same *types* of adjustments on jpegs as on RAW files in Lightroom. Same sliders will have basically the same effects. Just be careful, there is less latitude with jpeg files. You can push the sliders hard on raw files and retain great looking images. If you push the sliders too hard on jpegs, things can get nasty.  So just used some caution. 

2-- Dave starts with "auto" -- that is certainly fine. Though I recommend establishing your tastes, developing a pre-set, and using the pre-set as a starting point as opposed to "auto."

3-- Especially the dehaze slider... can become overly dramatic very quickly. It's a particularly good reason to use a gradient mask, process the sky separately from the rest of the image.

 

When your sky exposure is pretty close to your land/foreground exposure, as with Dave's image, you can definitely skip the masking and fine tune with shadows and highlight adjustments. 

 

 

This is a response to Adam's comment but the examples and most of the content is directed at the gentle readers who may not be as familiar with the world of Lightroom.

. 

It is correct that JPEG isn't as versatile as RAW, but it has far more range than one would expect when using Lightroom's arsenal of tools.

 

Original JPEG (note that the base range of exposure in the JPEG is already pretty good. (Love the new camera!):

 

Literally less than a minute of Auto, clarity, graduated filter from bottom with exposure and temperature and finished with a bit of Dehaze graduated from the top:

(It should be noted that less than a minute was mostly due to long familiarity with LR's controls and working with thousands of images over the years.)

 

There are cases where RAW would be needed to save a photo but in general, there's enough latitude in a decently exposed JPEG to shine up the vast majority of everyday images. 

 

My previous example was a quick fix for the majority of sky issues where a little pop is desired. And Adam was also right about Dehaze. It can make an image into a hypersaturated mess very quickly if you crank it up too far. However, it is the closest I've ever seen to a "Polarizer" slider. Judicious use can add a lot of dimension to a bland landscape. Especially scenes with an expanse of water or sky.

 

Personally, presets are great when working with controlled or consistent lighting but on a cruise or other vacation you can end up with 800 pictures with 400 different lighting conditions. I have found Auto to be a better starting point when working with a wide variety of image conditions. A single-click start with a few quick adjustments cuts a lot of time out of the process. Mileage may vary, but it works very well with the JPEGs from my Sony's and it's not unusual for "Auto" to make almost no changes at all.

 

Another "magical" setting isn't in Lightroom but exists in many modern cameras. JPEGs processed in-camera using multi-shot HDR can do some amazing things with scenes that have a wide variation in lighting. Sort of a JPEG/RAW hybrid! 🙂

 

I try to shoot as close to "film" exposure as possible but even with proper exposure, a little boost from the adjustment fairies can help almost any image.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

57 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

This is a response to Adam's comment but the examples and most of the content is directed at the gentle readers who may not be as familiar with the world of Lightroom.

. 

It is correct that JPEG isn't as versatile as RAW, but it has far more range than one would expect when using Lightroom's arsenal of tools.

 

Original JPEG (note that the base range of exposure in the JPEG is already pretty good. (Love the new camera!):

 

Literally less than a minute of Auto, clarity, graduated filter from bottom with exposure and temperature and finished with a bit of Dehaze graduated from the top:

(It should be noted that less than a minute was mostly due to long familiarity with LR's controls and working with thousands of images over the years.)

 

There are cases where RAW would be needed to save a photo but in general, there's enough latitude in a decently exposed JPEG to shine up the vast majority of everyday images. 

 

My previous example was a quick fix for the majority of sky issues where a little pop is desired. And Adam was also right about Dehaze. It can make an image into a hypersaturated mess very quickly if you crank it up too far. However, it is the closest I've ever seen to a "Polarizer" slider. Judicious use can add a lot of dimension to a bland landscape. Especially scenes with an expanse of water or sky.

 

Personally, presets are great when working with controlled or consistent lighting but on a cruise or other vacation you can end up with 800 pictures with 400 different lighting conditions. I have found Auto to be a better starting point when working with a wide variety of image conditions. A single-click start with a few quick adjustments cuts a lot of time out of the process. Mileage may vary, but it works very well with the JPEGs from my Sony's and it's not unusual for "Auto" to make almost no changes at all.

 

Another "magical" setting isn't in Lightroom but exists in many modern cameras. JPEGs processed in-camera using multi-shot HDR can do some amazing things with scenes that have a wide variation in lighting. Sort of a JPEG/RAW hybrid! 🙂

 

I try to shoot as close to "film" exposure as possible but even with proper exposure, a little boost from the adjustment fairies can help almost any image.

 

Dave

It may be somewhat personal taste -- I never like the Lightroom does when you click auto. I end up undoing 90% of the "auto" adjustments.

 

I've designed a few basic presets.. mostly use 2. 1 portrait preset for people pictures (low contrast, some desaturation), and 1 landscape preset (more saturation, most HDR-like with lifting of shadows and reducing highlights). I also have a low-light preset (more noise reduction, less sharpening).  

 

My workflow is basically:

1 Preset

2- Adjust the exposure level. (as you said, different photos may need different exposure adjustments)

3-- Adjust white balance is needed.

 

Then anything on the micro level.... masking for skies, brushes for portrait touch-ups, etc.

 

Yes, in many cases, jpegs have a surprising amount of flexibility. But the sliders simply react different than if using raw files, so for people who switch between both, need to be aware.  The differences are usually obvious in cases of extreme pushing (like pushing shadows +100, pushing exposure by +3, reducing highlights by -100, etc). 

 

[pierces]

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

It may be somewhat personal taste -- I never like the Lightroom does when you click auto. I end up undoing 90% of the "auto" adjustments.

 

 

I have found the chief offenders are the Highlights and Shadows. I knock them back from the "Auto" default which gives me a decent starting point. If, as you say, it just blows it on a particularly unusual situation, "Reset" is another powerful tool. 🙂

 

Yup. Personal taste.

 

 

Dave

[masterdrago]

I've a question since I don't use LR and do not shoot RAW that often, though that is slowly changing. I use something called Affinity Photo and an old version of PS6. My question is when shooting images like those mentioned, why not have the camera set for HDR? The DSLRs that I use have settings for auto, extra high, high, normal, & low and although I've not done a lot of experimentation with all those settings, it would seem to me that using HDR would prevent a lot of time at the desktop. I do understand that for a giant wall hanging, it might be prudent to spend a great deal of time tweaking everything we can from an image.

[pierces]

38 minutes ago, masterdrago said:

I've a question since I don't use LR and do not shoot RAW that often, though that is slowly changing. I use something called Affinity Photo and an old version of PS6. My question is when shooting images like those mentioned, why not have the camera set for HDR? The DSLRs that I use have settings for auto, extra high, high, normal, & low and although I've not done a lot of experimentation with all those settings, it would seem to me that using HDR would prevent a lot of time at the desktop. I do understand that for a giant wall hanging, it might be prudent to spend a great deal of time tweaking everything we can from an image.

 

Having used the in-camera HDR on my Sonys quite a bit, I have become a fan of using it when the situation fits within its capability. However, if there are people recognizably close who are moving or any other significant motion form wind or traffic, the multiple exposures needed will leave artifacts. In good light, the rapid fire exposures result in remarkably few artifacts but some are pretty noticeable like one-legged people and ghost branches.

 

Dave

[masterdrago]

I had never considered the ghosting effect of the two exposures. I had always thought I heard the two shots but never gave that much thought. I guess I believed that the exposure differential was done internally by software, not really two separate pix. I'll have to keep that in mind. Thanks. Most of the HDR shots I've done have been landscape and still portraits.

[nwillens]

I find that using a circular polarizing filter when I take the photo requires little or no sky postphoto editing so long as I've chosen the best settings for the scene using either program or auto aperture and done some bracketing.

[masterdrago]

34 minutes ago, nwillens said:

I find that using a circular polarizing filter when I take the photo requires little or no sky postphoto editing so long as I've chosen the best settings for the scene using either program or auto aperture and done some bracketing.

I find myself using such wide lenses so often, that even my circular polarizing filter leaves something to be desired. I've learned much reading this thread. And I've upgraded to the latest version of Photoshop Elements for my new laptop.

[pierces]

1 hour ago, nwillens said:

I find that using a circular polarizing filter when I take the photo requires little or no sky postphoto editing so long as I've chosen the best settings for the scene using either program or auto aperture and done some bracketing.

 

One point of failure on polarizer is when you use one on an ultra-wide or a panorama. Part of the sky usually wanders outside of the area of effect, creating an uneven shade. This is where Dehaze and Vibrance can really come in handy.

 

Dave