Even better!! Question about photographer's background effects.

It is exposure. Expose for direct sun, which is what is on the subjects with the blue sky, and you get a blue sky. Expose for the shady side of subjects backlit by sun, which is what the other photo is, and you get white, blown out sky.

There is no need to spot meter for direct sun exposure. It is pretty consistently ISO 100, f11, 1/250th if the sun is strong, direct, and it is not sun rise or sunset. How the other photo was metered is anyone's guess.

for the photo ....0007.jpg (white sky)

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Image Date: 2009:02:17 08:19:23
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm
CCD Width: 5.45mm
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
Aperture: f/2.5
ISO equiv: 200
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

and

for the photo .....0005.jpg (blue sky)

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Image Date: 2009:02:17 08:15:01
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm
CCD Width: 5.45mm
Exposure Time: 0.0003 s (1/3200)
Aperture: f/2.5
ISO equiv: 160
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

*******************************

As you can tell from the data: the camera was in Matrix metering mode so it's evaluating the entire area and the Exposure was done manually. No tricks here unless the photographer added the blue sky later which is a possibility. 50mm lens and both shots at f2.5 and the ISO were about the same. The only relevant difference is the shutter speed. This photographer has already created a base line exposure and is merely making small tweaks in shutter speed to get the exposure correct for the subjects.

~Not the same location by looking at the backgrounds but even if they are the same location if you stand in one location and take 12 photographs at each hour on a clock (if you were standing in the center of the clock) then you could have a wide range of exposures ... sometimes the sun directly into the camera lens and sometimes from the side and sometimes the sun at the back or creating nice shade: all these from one location depending on where photographer stands and where subject stands.

~The photo with the blue sky also has more shadow area on the guys body as well as a great deal of the background filled with buildings and the photographer is Not shooting directly into Direct and Strong sunlight. Side note: I really am not fond of the top of the building coming out of the guys head on this shot either.

She used a faster shutter speed in the first one, which captures more of the bright sky detail. She used a slower shutter speed in the second one which blows out the highlights in favor of rendering detail in the foreground subjects. I can also say with almost certainty that this photographer is not working in manual mode and managing exposures for consistency, but rather is shooting in wide aperture to defocus the background, and probably Aperture priority mode, letting the camera decide the shutter speed depending on exposure compensation. You get some inconsistent results that way.

Now, let me say that there are some times when you want to blow out the sky, and sometimes when you don't. Adjusting the shutter speed up or down will help you accomplish this.

However, I find other issues with each of these photos. The first one is a nice photo, but the off-center composition would have worked better if the photographer had utilized the background better by eliminating the distracting yellow bollard posts, traffic cabinet, and crosswalk button, and getting a more impressive building off in the distance. Also distracting is the shadow across the male subject. If she had used some fill flash with high speed shutter, or moved them somewhat, she could have eliminated the shadow.

The second one is so blown out with the sun, and it didn't have to be. Using a higher shutter speed with HSS, she could have used the wide aperture with fill flash and faster shutter to retain the sky details. And if she had moved them away from the distracting traffic lights, she would not have a traffic pole growing out of the girl's head, or a traffic signal sitting in front of her face. To me, the off-center composition simply does not work, and looks like a haphazard "artsy" shot, and certainly nothing I would print as an enlargement. I also hope she was not staring into the viewfinder too long into the sun!

I guess I'm wondering what it is about this girl's work that impresses you so much, Kay? Sure, she has a few nice shots with this cute couple, but some of them are just chopped up and haphazard looking. And in my personal opinion, if she were using an off-camera strobe, either handheld or held by an assistant, her photography could be taken to a whole new level, and beyond that of the "artsy" art major with a Canon. I also question why she would go to a street photo shoot in heels, but I guess some prefer style to comfort.

Well, WW read the Exif, so we do know she was in manual mode. My statement to the contrary above was only a guess based on the inconsistency I saw from shot to shot, where I assumed she was letting the camera do the thinking, which can lead to inconsistent results. However, if you don't manage Manual mode properly, the same thing can happen.

In the first photo the sun is in front of me and behind me in the second.

In the first photo the sun is in front of me and behind me in the second. Looks like a similar situation.

.

So now that William has peeked at the exif, we see that the blue sky photo is 1 1/3 stop overexposed from sunny 16/bright sun exposure--still going to give a blue sky (particularly with PS help). The white sky photo is 3 2/3 stop overexposed from sunny 16/bright sun exposure--going to give the blown out, white sky. Don't take my word for it. Do the test yourself.

Just because the exif says the camera was set to manual camera mode doesn't mean the settings used were what the camera metered, whatever the metering mode is set to, or that the photographer even metered with the camera at all. If you want to know how and if she metered, ask her.

Please understand, Kay, that I'm not trying to be too harsh or mean in my comments about Jasmine's photos (or your appreciation of them), I just feel that they could have been so much better with better technique and composition. She obviously has a good eye for many shots, and is obviously doing work people like, but for me, it's nothing earthshaking.

As for Eliza Beth's examples, the look is not only the position of the sun, but in how you shot these images. If you used fill flash on the top one, you must not have used enough, and you used too slow of a shutter speed in an effort to get some details in the subjects. The image is still too blown out for most folk's taste (at least mine). You could have used a higher shutter speed with proper fill flash, and had a stand-out shot that would have been much better. Again, my opinion, but it all comes down to technique. As for the bottom image, the sun is clearly not behind them, but less than 90 degrees to your right.