Need help with the image

Without seeing the original it i s hard to know what might/should be possible.......................I am sure others with PS experience of layers will chime in but here is a quickish attempt to show what might be doable simply using the Highlights/Shadows tool in PSCS6

As it affects the whole image I did not adjust too far as the light on the face was losing the nice touch it has. NB I have hosted this so please tell when you want it removed.

Hope this go has helped? :)

Edited image removed (re above note) as per Irina's request below in post #6.
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything wrong with the original image. Looks great as is. Don't fret about the minor details (y)

However, using Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop you could just select an adjustment brush and drop the highlights down. If the highlights are at the point where the detail is lost, there won't be anything to recover unfortunately (unless you shot in RAW).
 
Last edited:
If it was shot in raw you may have a chance of revealing the detail, but if the highlights realy have "Blown" then there will be no detail to reveal.
Maybe the content aware* tool in PS could help disguise it.

* Other "Cloning" tools are available.
 
A few approaches..
  1. Just chill. It's fine.
  2. If shooting raw, drop the highlights in Lightroom with a brush or radial adjustment. If you can't recover the detail in the highlights 'cos it's totally gone then don't drop them anyway or you'll just end up with grey mush.
  3. Disguise it with some processing, e.g. contrasty b & w or a matte (faded) effect.
  4. If you really need to recreate that kind of detail it can be done but it's not easy.. a frequency separation-based approach in photoshop would allow you to copy the texture from elsewhere on the shirt and apply whatever colour you want.
 
Box Brownie said:
Without seeing the original it i s hard to know what might/should be possible.......................I am sure others with PS experience of layers will chime in but here is a quickish attempt to show what might be doable simply using the Highlights/Shadows tool in PSCS6

As it affects the whole image I did not adjust too far as the light on the face was losing the nice touch it has. NB I have hosted this so please tell when you want it removed.

Hope this go has helped? :)

image_edit.jpg
Click to expand...

Thank you, you can remove image now
I have put highlights -40 already.
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
I don't see anything wrong with the original image. Looks great as is. Don't fret about the minor details (y)

However, using Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop you could just select an adjustment brush and drop the highlights down. If the highlights are at the point where the detail is lost, there won't be anything to recover unfortunately (unless you shot in RAW).
Click to expand...

Thank you! Ive dropped highlights by -40 already, do you mean using brush to do it in selcted area?
Now i see why i should start shooting in RAW
 
I probably should take first approach :) but i am seriouselly having problems with white clothing, it always comes overexposed :/

Will try matte processing, never done it before (just downloaded PS and LR to my laptop yesterday, so need to look through few tutorials) and now i see why i should start shooting in raw.
B&w version, using LR presets and reducing shadows a bit
image.jpeg

juggler said:
A few approaches..
  1. Just chill. It's fine.
  2. If shooting raw, drop the highlights in Lightroom with a brush or radial adjustment. If you can't recover the detail in the highlights 'cos it's totally gone then don't drop them anyway or you'll just end up with grey mush.
  3. Disguise it with some processing, e.g. contrasty b & w or a matte (faded) effect.
  4. If you really need to recreate that kind of detail it can be done but it's not easy.. a frequency separation-based approach in photoshop would allow you to copy the texture from elsewhere on the shirt and apply whatever colour you want.
Click to expand...
a
 
It works well in B&W.

In LR you can stack adjustments on top of global adjustments in order to apply it much more heavily... i.e. it's possible to reduce highlights well over 100%. But if the highlights are clipped then that will only turn them grey, and it doesn't matter if it's a raw file or not... it's just that raw files often have a little more DR/room for adjustment.
The best thing to do is expose the image so that the brightest part you want to retain is not clipping... checking the image review with highlight warnings enabled is a good way of doing that.
 
I can see why you love that photo, if it was one of mine I probably would too :)

I'm with Simon and Oliver, nothing wrong with the original imo. As for shooting in raw, it may have given you more latitude to recover the blown highlights in the shirt (it may not also ;)). As Steven says, enabling highlight warning - sometimes called blinkies - in the camera can help here.
 
sk66 said:
It works well in B&W.

In LR you can stack adjustments on top of global adjustments in order to apply it much more heavily... i.e. it's possible to reduce highlights well over 100%. But if the highlights are clipped then that will only turn them grey, and it doesn't matter if it's a raw file or not... it's just that raw files often have a little more DR/room for adjustment.
The best thing to do is expose the image so that the brightest part you want to retain is not clipping... checking the image review with highlight warnings enabled is a good way of doing that.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, not sure i understood the last sentence, highlight warnings in camera? And how to make sure its not clipping? Wont other parts be underexposed then? Or its envitable if i use natural light only?
 
PaulButler said:
I can see why you love that photo, if it was one of mine I probably would too :)

I'm with Simon and Oliver, nothing wrong with the original imo. As for shooting in raw, it may have given you more latitude to recover the blown highlights in the shirt (it may not also ;)). As Steven says, enabling highlight warning - sometimes called blinkies - in the camera can help here.
Click to expand...

So the camera will warn me if something is too bright?! Will check if mine has this option, thanks
 
You may be exaggerating the blown highlights when you reduce the highlights surrounding the blown area. It may be best to make a high key version of the picture and see what that looks like.
 
Iren said:
So the camera will warn me if something is too bright?! Will check if mine has this option, thanks
Click to expand...
Quick google search and i found video how to enable this option in my camera..but how i can use this knowledge now, what settings do i need to adjust to make sure the highlights wont be blow? Can you point me to the right direction?!
 
Iren said:
Quick google search and i found video how to enable this option in my camera..but how i can use this knowledge now, what settings do i need to adjust to make sure the highlights wont be blow? Can you point me to the right direction?!
Click to expand...
When the highlight clipping warning shows (blinkies) it means you have or are about to clip the highlights, sometimes this is inevitable and you live with. A blown highlight is an area of overexposure, to deal with it you need to reduce the exposure. The risk here is that you end up under exposing and having to lift it in post, this often introduces noise. The warning should show you where the clipping will take place in the image, you then have to decide if that is acceptable or not.

I'm not familiar with Canon, but in the Nikons I've used there has often been recoverable data when the blinkies are showing, I generally use them as a warning that I am pushing the limits. Hopefully someone familiar with Canon will comment as to how close to true clipping the warning is.
 
PaulButler said:
I'm not familiar with Canon, but in the Nikons I've used there has often been recoverable data when the blinkies are showing, I generally use them as a warning that I am pushing the limits. Hopefully someone familiar with Canon will comment as to how close to true clipping the warning is.
Click to expand...
It really depends on which camera more than brand... I think *most* cameras will show clipping warnings if any one of the three channels are in excess of ~ 95%. Which usually means there is a little room left in a raw file. And single channel clipping isn't as bad as having all channels clipping.
 
Thanks Steven, I don't have enough experience of Canons, but what you describe is how all of the Nikons I've owned work, i.e. around 95% it starts to clip a channel.
 
I know the 5D, 1D, and others behave similarly... I don't think any histogram/highlight warnings can be entirely trusted w/o testing for yourself. But IME they are generally on the conservative side so they're *generally* safe to use.
 
sk66 said:
I know the 5D, 1D, and others behave similarly... I don't think any histogram/highlight warnings can be entirely trusted w/o testing for yourself. But IME they are generally on the conservative side so they're *generally* safe to use.
Click to expand...
Yep, I just think of them as a guide not a definite, but useful nonetheless.
 
As said by several above, a histogram on the cam's rear screen with clipping warnings, or actioned 'blinkies' on the review image there, are not definitive for raw file output and processing - you might have a stop or more 'headroom'. All you can do is use your experience to interpret them, and guess what gives. In the end it's a synthesis of experience and judgement - spotting the extreme tones in what you're looking at (by eye) & hazarding a guess about what might 'blow' will help. Try things and cultivate an attention to what breaks, exposure-wise. If it's hyper-important (an essential image that can't be repeated), you can choose to bracket. If it's mildly important, you can choose to wing it, and maybe dial in exposure compensation - normally reducing exposure to avoid blown highlights. There are other, increasingly bizarre / laborious solutions.

With a modern full-frame camera you can opt to reduce exposure acording to your perceived risk of blown highlights, and still pull what you need out of the resultant shadows without huge degradation, in a single shot.
 
PaulButler said:
When the highlight clipping warning shows (blinkies) it means you have or are about to clip the highlights, sometimes this is inevitable and you live with. A blown highlight is an area of overexposure, to deal with it you need to reduce the exposure. The risk here is that you end up under exposing and having to lift it in post, this often introduces noise. The warning should show you where the clipping will take place in the image, you then have to decide if that is acceptable or not.

I'm not familiar with Canon, but in the Nikons I've used there has often been recoverable data when the blinkies are showing, I generally use them as a warning that I am pushing the limits. Hopefully someone familiar with Canon will comment as to how close to true clipping the warning is.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clear explanation! Will take this into consideration and try to adjust acordingly and play around to see what result i will get. But till now i was dreading when people wear something white.
 
Just to ask~

What metering setting are you using? Evaluative, Centre Weighted, Spot???
 
Iren said:
Partial metering
Click to expand...
I don't have a Canon but I find the most useful modes either evaluative (matrix) metering where you let the camera do all the work or spot metering which gives you much more precision. The inbetween modes are more confusing than helpful.

With spot metering if you aim to have the whites read about +2 then they should appear white but not blown.
 
Iren said:
Partial metering
Click to expand...
Partial seems to be similar to Spot metering from what I can see. It looks as though the 6D only meters in the centre of the scene and not where the focus point is with both Spot and Partial. Either way, I only use Matrix (Evaluative in Canon-speak) and Spot modes. With your camera, when spot metering (probably true of Partial as well) you may need to meter on the subject, set the exposure (aperture, shutter speed and if necessary ISO) then re-compose and shoot. This may mean shooting in manual, which isn't always doable, but you should be able to lock exposure - look for the AE Lock button. The other option is to get familiar with using exposure compensation and use evaluative metering and use one of the semi-automatic modes (e.g. Av ...).

If shooting in raw you will have a little more latitude to recover apparently blown highlights. It isn't a get out of jail free card, but it can help, and whilst we shouldn't have the "fix it in post" mentality, sometimes we have to.
 
PaulButler said:
Partial seems to be similar to Spot metering from what I can see. It looks as though the 6D only meters in the centre of the scene and not where the focus point is with both Spot and Partial. Either way, I only use Matrix (Evaluative in Canon-speak) and Spot modes. With your camera, when spot metering (probably true of Partial as well) you may need to meter on the subject, set the exposure (aperture, shutter speed and if necessary ISO) then re-compose and shoot. This may mean shooting in manual, which isn't always doable, but you should be able to lock exposure - look for the AE Lock button. The other option is to get familiar with using exposure compensation and use evaluative metering and use one of the semi-automatic modes (e.g. Av ...).

If shooting in raw you will have a little more latitude to recover apparently blown highlights. It isn't a get out of jail free card, but it can help, and whilst we shouldn't have the "fix it in post" mentality, sometimes we have to.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the detailed reply. I shoot in manual and alway adjust aperture, shutter speed and ISO, however I need to try different metering mode as well as AE lock button.
 
juggler said:
It locks the current exposure which the camera has calculated for you. If you're changing everything manually then it's already locked.
Click to expand...

Looks like i've been setting up things incorrectly previouselly or at least did not pay attention on exposure or meetering...ooops.
I usually set up f first, then shutter speed and then ISO amd dont look at anything else
 
Apologies if this was inappropriate to comandeer it without permission, but it's a very simple thing to fix in photoshop for this particular image. I wasn't sure if you wanted it corrected, or were looking to avoid similar mishaps in future.

2017-01-30_15-40-34.jpg


I've only got the small file you posted to work from, if you'd like the original fixed, or would like a live tutorial on the process used just get in touch. This is a very rough 2 minute edit, obviously you'd spend a bit more time on the final work!
 
Last edited:
Denyerec said:
Apologies if this was inappropriate to comandeer it without permission, but it's a very simple thing to fix in photoshop for this particular image. I wasn't sure if you wanted it corrected, or were looking to avoid similar mishaps in future.

2017-01-30_15-40-34.jpg


I've only got the small file you posted to work from, if you'd like the original fixed, or would like a live tutorial on the process used just get in touch. This is a very rough 2 minute edit, obviously you'd spend a bit more time on the final work!
Click to expand...

Oh wow! Thank you, i really like it. Would be great to know how to do it myself for the future and to correct this image (large file) as well.
 
Hi Irina .. I've just stumbled on your post and thought I'd try something similar to Denyerec above (I hope you don't mind), although your original picture is lovely anyway!

I opened your jpeg image in ACR (in PSE13). I started by selecting 'Auto', before reducing the overall exposure a tad and adjusting the highlights to the point that the highlight clipping warning no longer showed red. The result is very slightly darker overall but pleasing nonetheless. Only you know how your little boy should look!

The processing parameters, if you're interested, are (in ACR): Exposure -0.5, contrast -6, highlights -41, shadows +33, whites +17, blacks 0.

Untitled-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top