Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: couleur on September 16, 2007, 10:17:26 am
-
Recently I was working as an assistant photography under a well known company. But I have a problem during post processing, I couldn't find a way to recover the blown off highlights on the windows. Does anyone know how can I get this naturally fixed?
I took a few different exposures just to ensure nothing goes wrong, but I did not make a HDR.
Canon 350D @ 10mm
-
I think it's nice looking as it is but this is a good case for HDR imaging. If you shot multiple exposures for HDR then that's clearly the way to bring in more highlight detail.
-
Short answer: you can't.
With film, the response curve had a gradual roll-off of sensitivity in the highlights and shadows, and unless you were several stops off from correct exposure, you could coax some kind of detail out of overexposed highlights.
With digital, this is NOT the case. Digital has a linear response to exposure, right up to the point where color channel(s) clip, and then increasing exposure further makes no difference whatsoever in the digital values output by the sensor/ADC. No matter what you do, you can't dig detail out of a featureless matrix of 255,255,255; it's mathematically impossible.
This is the foundation of the "expose to the right" doctrine when shooting digital; get as much exposure as you can, but DO NOT overexpose the highlights, or you have lost them, and cannot get them back. When you see a spike on the right side of the histogram, that is a danger sign indicating you have a problem. Either you need to reduce exposure (which runs the risk of increasing noise levels in the image) or else you need to use a multi-shot HDR technique to blend multiple frames with different exposures together to capture all of the dynamic range of the subject.
You have two options:
1: Reshoot.
2: Paste an outdoor scene image into the blown-out window and try to make it look realistic and hope the client doesn't notice or care about your incompetence.
-
looks like i would need to cut and paste the curtains and windows.
-
2: Paste an outdoor scene image into the blown-out window and try to make it look realistic and hope the client doesn't notice or care about your incompetence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ouch!
I don't necessarily think it's a lack of ability here per se, simply a limitation of the equipment used.
As it is, given that there is netting covering the windows, this would suggest to me the view is not of importance anyway?
-
looks like i would need to cut and paste the curtains and windows.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's harder then it sounds and rarely comes out well. If you shot several exposures why not use File>automate>MergeToHDR and make a true HDR file? If your exposures don't cover a wide enough range why don't you re-shoot it intentionally for HDR? Save the current non-HDR shot (which I think looks great just like it is) and compare it to your HDR version. That might be a really good exercise.
-
Ouch!
I don't necessarily think it's a lack of ability here per se, simply a limitation of the equipment used.
Nonsense! The 350D has a histogram no less accurate or readable than that found on the 1Ds or any other "pro" digital camera, and it also has a manual mode that can be used to bracket exposures until clipping isn't happening any more. The camera used has nothing to do with the dilemma presented here; I could make a better-looking image with my Olympus SP-350 digicam. I'd have to do HDR bracketing and blending, and then make a stitched panorama from the bracketed blends to get that wide of a FOV and an acceptably low noise level, but I could create a better image than what was posted here with a $350 pocket camera and a tripod and an L bracket and some time post-processing. It's not the equipment, it's knowing how to use it effectively and work around its limitations. More capable equipment can make one's workflow much more efficient, but is never a substitute for knowing your gear (whatever it is) well enough to effectively accomplish the task.
If I was the client paying for the job, I'd be upset, and justifiably so. I can understand and respect differences of artistic opinion over matters such as how warm or cool to set white balance or whether a window should be centered or slightly off to the left in a particular shot, but if you're going to charge people money for your photography, you ought to at least understand the basic skills of your trade, like how to focus properly and achieve proper exposure, and what to do in situations where that may be difficult. It's no different than hiring a mechanic to change a tire on your car; you don't want the tire to fall off shortly after pulling out of the garage. That's basically what has happened here.
Hopefully coleur will use this as a learning experience, and will be a better photographer as a result.
-
Digital capture has not done away with the need for supplemental lighting in interior architectural photography, nor has HDR. This is especially true for inside/out shots. HDR rarely gives believable tonailties (it works better on landscapes). Utilizing Highlight Recovery and Fill Light in ACR on a well exposed raw file can work well if the dynamic range is not too extreme. Generally, we need less lighting with DC, but there is still no substitute for knowing how to light a room.
-
Recently I was working as an assistant photography under a well known company. But I have a problem during post processing, I couldn't find a way to recover the blown off highlights on the windows. Does anyone know how can I get this naturally fixed?
I took a few different exposures just to ensure nothing goes wrong, but I did not make a HDR.
Canon 350D @ 10mm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Was this converted from a raw file?
Marc
-
If I was the client paying for the job, I'd be upset, and justifiably so. I can understand and respect differences of artistic opinion over matters such as how warm or cool to set white balance or whether a window should be centered or slightly off to the left in a particular shot, but if you're going to charge people money for your photography, you ought to at least understand the basic skills of your trade, like how to focus properly and achieve proper exposure, and what to do in situations where that may be difficult. It's no different than hiring a mechanic to change a tire on your car; you don't want the tire to fall off shortly after pulling out of the garage. That's basically what has happened here.
Hopefully coleur will use this as a learning experience, and will be a better photographer as a result.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're correct, but appear to have forgotten that the guy did not ask for critique - he asked for help.
Without more information from couleur your chosen analogy may not be so accurate also - we do not know that he's been paid at all, and if so, to what level/expectation.
So maybe the tyre hasn't quite fallen off yet, maybe it just doesn't quite have the correct pressure which may lead to earlier than expected failure
-
You're correct, but appear to have forgotten that the guy did not ask for critique - he asked for help.
And there is no help for this situation. The advice I gave (learn how to expose properly and how to deal with high-DR situations in the future) is all he can do. There is no real cure here, other than the cut-and-paste kludge I already suggested. The best he can do is learn how to prevent this situation from happening in the future, and that requires becoming a more competent photographer.
Without more information from couleur your chosen analogy may not be so accurate also - we do not know that he's been paid at all, and if so, to what level/expectation.
He says he was working as an assistant photographer for a well-known company in the original post. If he's NOT getting paid, he's not working for a company (which customarily involves payment), he's volunteering.
And in this situation, the tire is blown, just like the window highlights...
-
On the former - 100% agree.
On the latter - you and I have differing opinions
couleur - good look sorting it!
-
Maybe we can help the guy a bit ?
Now, my take is that if this was a Raw file, then highlight recovery is a standard feature in some software, and the file can probably be processed well.
If it is a Jpeg, then the floor highlights can possibly be improved by rebuilding channels a bit, and the windows can be drawn in or left as such.
Edmund
-
Maybe we can help the guy a bit ?
Now, my take is that if this was a Raw file, then highlight recovery is a standard feature in some software, and the file can probably be processed well.
If it is a Jpeg, then the floor highlights can possibly be improved by rebuilding channels a bit, and the windows can be drawn in or left as such.
Highlight recovery only works when one of the color channels is blown in RAW. Once all 3 channels are blown, there is no hope for recovery, which appears to be the case here. JPEGs are even less recoverable than RAW. If the fix was a simple matter of backing off the exposure setting in ACR, I doubt the original post would have been made. So there's only a few options, either paste something into the blown window highlights (which I already suggested), leave them blown, or reshoot.
If a reshoot is done, there are 4 approaches:
1. Multi-bracketed-exposure HDR blending. (which I already mentioned)
2. Lighting the interior with strobes to more closely match the exterior lighting level. (already mentioned by Kirk Gittings) This approach requires a fair amount of equipment and someone who knows how to use it, and may not be coleur's best option.
3. Shooting at a earlier or later time of day when the exterior light is not as bright, so it more closely matches the brightness of the interior lighting.
4. Some combination of 1-3.
-
IMHO the problem is not the window but the reflection off the floor near the rug which causes most problems. The window can easily be corrected by selectively reducing the brightness - we expect windows with net curtains to be white and I don't think it detracts from the image. However, the reflection off the floor could be considered is a bit too dominant and it would have been nice to reduce the brightness of this area and retain some detailing of the floor. If you really need to fix the floor then I would look to clone some of the detail from elsewhere on floor over the blown out section, reduce the reflections brightness and adjusting opacity to make it look like a dull highlight with some of the texture showing through.
Having said all the above, I actually quite like the image the way that it is and trying to jiggle around too much with it destroys the overall impression and balance.
-
Some people are so arrogant and friendly here. NICE guys...
-
I took a few different exposures just to ensure nothing goes wrong, but I did not make a HDR.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=139742\")
If you shot in raw vs JPEG, you should be able to dual process the image with different settings from Camera Raw and blend them as layers in Photoshop. If you have CS3, try opening the image as a Smart Object. You can then make a new SO via Copy with will allow you to alter the highlight handling and blend via a mask or beling options...
Check out the free PDF at: [a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html]White Papers and Primers[/url] particularly Highlight Recovery in Adobe Camera Raw
-
If you shot in raw vs JPEG, you should be able to dual process the image with different settings from Camera Raw and blend them as layers in Photoshop. If you have CS3, try opening the image as a Smart Object. You can then make a new SO via Copy with will allow you to alter the highlight handling and blend via a mask or beling options...
Check out the free PDF at: White Papers and Primers (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html) particularly Highlight Recovery in Adobe Camera Raw
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for your constructive reply, Jeff ! I was starting to fear that hazing had taken over the whole forum.
Edmund
-
Photoshop Shadow/Highlight tool will help recover some lost detail also.
-
Recently I was working as an assistant photography under a well known company. But I have a problem during post processing, I couldn't find a way to recover the blown off highlights on the windows. Does anyone know how can I get this naturally fixed?
I took a few different exposures just to ensure nothing goes wrong, but I did not make a HDR.
Canon 350D @ 10mm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've gotten some harsh replies but also some viable solutions. Personally I don't think it looks too bad but I also think you could easily improve on it with your under exposed bracket(s).
I wouldn't bother with Photoshop's HDR unless it's a dramatic improvement over CS2 (I use Photomatix). Even so, I usually do it manually, essentially using a variation of the technique Schewe wrote about, but I usually use the brush tool instead of selections.
For example, open up the problem file, then open the under bracket in ACR and process it for best highlight detail. Open that in Photoshop, shift-drag it's background layer over your problem file (if the camera didn't move they'll line up just fine).
Now select the under bracket's layer, go into the Layers menu, choose Layer Mask, Hide All. Type D to set the default fill colors, and X to put white on top. Choose a soft brush, with about 10% flow, and literally paint in the highlight detail. If you've gone too far, type X again to put the black on top, and "un-paint" what you just painted in.
Simple to do, once you get the hang of it.
-
and hope the client doesn't notice or care about your incompetence
And who anointed Jonathan Wienke lord of the Luminous Landscape?
The poster, couleur, seeking sincere technical help and humbly posting an image-in-question, didn't ask for a critique of the image and he certainly didn't ask for an attack on his abilities. (Yes, suggesting that anyone here is incompetent is an attack!) Did couleur not say he was an assistant on this photo?
Frankly, without a sincere apology, I think Jonathan Wienke looks like a horse's ass on this thread. I have no admiration and respect for teachers, helpers, or photographers who think it's OK to condescend and belittle anyone with a sincere question. This pompous, let-me-put-you-in-your-place behavior shows something lacking, alright, and it's far more offensive than anything in couleur's inviting photo.
Photographers come here to learn. They won't post here if they feel they will be judged, attacked and bullied, especially by some blowbag in a military uniform. Keep your throne on your blog, Jonathan. It has no place at Luminous Landscape.
-
Before the troops decide to frag (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frag) poor Jonathan, lets all remember even Jonathan is entitled to a bad day....or week. Fragging Jonathan won't be of any help to the OP's query.
-
Photographers come here to learn. They won't post here if they feel they will be judged, attacked and bullied, especially by some blowbag in a military uniform. Keep your throne on your blog, Jonathan. It has no place at Luminous Landscape.
Pointing out that the problem was operator error (exposure error) and there isn't an easy solution short of reshooting or a LOT of tedious Photoshop work may not be ego-gratifying to coleur, but is the way things are, and pretending otherwise will not make him or anyone else a better photographer. I offered constructive solutions to the problem in my first post, and in subsequent posts as well.
I think it's worth noting that the response to my post has been more far personal and vitriolic than the use of the term "incompetence" well within its meaning. If you are so distraught over my use of the word "incompetence", isn't it just a bit hypocritical on your part to use phrases like "horse's ass" and "some blowbag in a military uniform"? At best, you're engaging in the same sort of behavior you're criticizing me for engaging in.
-
I think it's worth noting that the response to my post has been more far personal and vitriolic than the use of the term "incompetence" well within its meaning. If you are so distraught over my use of the word "incompetence", isn't it just a bit hypocritical on your part to use phrases like "horse's ass" and "some blowbag in a military uniform"? At best, you're engaging in the same sort of behavior you're criticizing me for engaging in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Although I don't like - nor do I regularly participate in these types of discussions - I do feel that Jonathan's original post could have left off the "and hope the client doesn't notice or care about your incompetence. "
Also - the name calling in return is just as infantile.
I am always reminded something that one of my mentors said once too me after I made an error that a more experienced player would not have. He looked me square in the eye and said..."It's okay, I made a mistake once too...I think it was in the early 60's"
Needless to say - Jonathan - if you learned not to blow highlights by reading about digital sensors before you had ever done so on a shoot, then more power to you. If not then remember - we all started somewhere, I don't know any photographers or musicians who don't have at least one horror story about a shoot or gig that went wrong. It's how you handle the situation afterwards that shows your real worth. Although incompetent may have been grammatically correct, I think that's it's generally perceived intent is less than complimentary - although less so than being called a horse's ass, and was entirely irrelevant to the OP's question.
Perception is reality...my .02
-
Hot thread here...
Going HDR is difficult with such a high dynamic range, because all the tonemappers will probably give some kind of unnatural results.
You can also exposure first for the room and the second picture for the outdoor scene. Doing the room you can try to close the window from outside with a blind or something.
Later in Photoshop paint the layer mask to obtain the outdoor scene through the window.
A plugin like Vertus Fluid Mask can be a great help.
-
Pointing out that the problem was operator error (exposure error) and there isn't an easy solution short of reshooting or a LOT of tedious Photoshop work may not be ego-gratifying to coleur, but is the way things are, and pretending otherwise will not make him or anyone else a better photographer. I offered constructive solutions to the problem in my first post, and in subsequent posts as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is quite an easy fix in photoshop, and something that is done routinely for this type of problem.
Here is an example that mirrors the original problem exactly-it took me less than ten minutes to fix.
[attachment=3309:attachment][attachment=3310:attachment]
-
It is quite an easy fix in photoshop, and something that is done routinely for this type of problem.
Here is an example that mirrors the original problem exactly-it took me less than ten minutes to fix.
[attachment=3309:attachment][attachment=3310:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once you know how, it certainly is. The vitriol that followed is totally un called for, especially since the original poster already has a fix in hand in the form of his under bracket(s). Poor guy got what, 3-4 helpful posts in a 2 page thread? That reflects pretty badly on the rest of us...
-
And your windows aren't blown out nearly as much as coleur's; yours still have some curtain texture within the actual window opening, and his do not. In addition, colueur has the large completely blown-out area of window reflection on the floor to deal with that you do not. You at least managed to keep some detail in the highlights, and have something fairly easy to work with. Coleur does not. Highlight recovery can help a lot in marginal situations where only one or two channels are clipped, but once all the color channels of the original RAW or JPEG are clipped, there is nothing to recover. This is not a 10-minute-fix-in-Photoshop thing.
-
And your windows aren't blown out nearly as much as coleur's; yours still have some curtain texture within the actual window opening, and his do not. In addition, colueur has the large completely blown-out area of window reflection on the floor to deal with that you do not. You at least managed to keep some detail in the highlights, and have something fairly easy to work with. Coleur does not. Highlight recovery can help a lot in marginal situations where only one or two channels are clipped, but once all the color channels of the original RAW or JPEG are clipped, there is nothing to recover. This is not a 10-minute-fix-in-Photoshop thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example. If you care to learn about how to do this easily in Photoshop please feel free to sign up for my class at ICP here in NYC, as I incorporate these methods as part of my course on digital architectural photography.
-
Pointing out that the problem was operator error
"Error" is always in the eye of the beholder. Nobody asked you to play judge or determine photographer competence.If you are so distraught over my use of the word "incompetence", isn't it just a bit hypocritical on your part to use phrases like "horse's ass" and "some blowbag in a military uniform"? At best, you're engaging in the same sort of behavior you're criticizing me for engaging in.
Posters who bring inappropriate attacks to a thread first and then wag their "you hypocrite" finger at others who slap them back are ubiquitous on the internet. I did not enjoy giving you a taste of your own bully medicine but I felt it was necessary. Furthermore, if any situation calls for it, I am a hypocrite and proud of it! I change my mind all the time.Also - the name calling in return is just as infantile.
I prefer to call it "young minded."
I didn't call Jonathan Wienke a horse's ass. I said he looks like one (given the attack and "I'm superior" tone of his writing on this thread.) I agree, "blowbag in a military uniform" may have gone too far but I thought "blowbag" described his verbosity well and the picture says it all.
Attacks tend to beget attacks. One would think that uniformed individuals should know better.
-
I prefer to call it "young minded."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's getting off the point of this thread - and more suitable for pub discussion, but I would argue someone who is 'young minded' is a person who is curious, creative and unbound by convention rather than infantile in the derogatory sense. Obviously, I would prefer more young minded rather than infantile people if we can achieve it
-
onathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example. If you care to learn about how to do this easily in Photoshop please feel free to sign up for my class at ICP here in NYC, as I incorporate these methods as part of my course on digital architectural photography.
Which, of course, no one could sign up for as you are essentially anonymous here. i agree with your point though.
-
"Error" is always in the eye of the beholder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, come on. You can argue about the tone of Johnathan's reply and about whether it was reasonable to use the word incompetent, but to blow highlights like that is an error. Culpable? Maybe. Incompetent? On that occasion. An error? Of course.
Jeremy
-
Which, of course, no one could sign up for as you are essentially anonymous here. i agree with your point though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry - I forgot that I do not have a link to my site enabled - www.brucekatzphoto.com
-
Sorry - I forgot that I do not have a link to my site enabled - www.brucekatzphoto.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice work.
-
Nice work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, right back at you too.
-
Oh, come on. You can argue about the tone of Johnathan's reply and about whether it was reasonable to use the word incompetent, but to blow highlights like that is an error. Culpable? Maybe. Incompetent? On that occasion. An error? Of course.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Give the guy a break - he did brackets "just in case." He knows what HDR is but hadn't tried it, so he knows something about doing multiple exposures and blending them. Why he didn't try it before posting I don't know, but the crap that he got was way out of line.
Jeff Schewe pointed him to his technique, and I spelled out mine, neither of which require HDR techniques - which as Kirk accurately mentions, usually sucks for shots like this. We threw him a rope that could easily save the image with exposures he already had (but didn't display) which was all he was asking for.
Geez, this really gives me pause to ask for help around here. None of you has ever made a mistake, or asked for ideas on how to use something you kind of know in a different or better way? Please.
Sad thing is, the original poster probably saw the first 5 replies and left for good, so now he'll never know how to save his image.
-
Jonathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example.
I'm well aware of that method, and use it myself form time to time, and it is simply one form of highlight recovery. But it still requires that there still be some detail in the highlights when you slide exposure to -3 or so in ACR. ACR does great at recovering highlights when some, but not all of the color channels are clipped in RAW, but when all 3 color channels are clipped in the RAW, no highlight recovery method is effective, and even if you move exposure to -4 stops you still have a featureless solid color (though it may be gray instead of white). If you put the exposure slider to -4 and still don't see detail, you are completely hosed and no RAW processing technique will bring it back.
In your example, parts of the curtain not shaded by the window frame have detail even in the single-pass processed image. So your RAW is barely clipped, and only in one or two color channels, and some detail is therefore recoverable. In coleur's shot, the clipping is much worse. Not only is all of the curtain with window behind it completely clipped, but so is the reflection in the hardwood floor, which is probably about 2 stops below the window (reflections being dimmer than the original light source). The technique you propose would get some detail back in the hardwood floor, but the transition between the detailed and clipped area would become significantly less gradual, and the window would stay clipped.
Besides, don't you think coleur might have already tried playing with the exposure slider already?
-
I'm well aware of that method, and use it myself form time to time, and it is simply one form of highlight recovery. But it still requires that there still be some detail in the highlights when you slide exposure to -3 or so in ACR. ACR does great at recovering highlights when some, but not all of the color channels are clipped in RAW, but when all 3 color channels are clipped in the RAW, no highlight recovery method is effective, and even if you move exposure to -4 stops you still have a featureless solid color (though it may be gray instead of white). If you put the exposure slider to -4 and still don't see detail, you are completely hosed and no RAW processing technique will bring it back.
In your example, parts of the curtain not shaded by the window frame have detail even in the single-pass processed image. So your RAW is barely clipped, and only in one or two color channels, and some detail is therefore recoverable. In coleur's shot, the clipping is much worse. Not only is all of the curtain with window behind it completely clipped, but so is the reflection in the hardwood floor, which is probably about 2 stops below the window (reflections being dimmer than the original light source). The technique you propose would get some detail back in the hardwood floor, but the transition between the detailed and clipped area would become significantly less gradual, and the window would stay clipped.
Besides, don't you think coleur might have already tried playing with the exposure slider already?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let me be clear, the method I used involved 2 separate exposures; One exposure that is perfect for the overall interior and a second exposure that is perfect for the windows. The second deeper (window) exposure was brought into PS as a layer and blended with the original. This is what Kevin Smith suggested in his post, Schewe's suggestion, which is different, probably won't work in this case as you point out. Either way, it is an easy, simple fix in PS, there is nothing difficult about it. The original post made reference to a bracket of exposures, if he(she) has a deep exposure this method will work easily as I demonstrate. For your information, my original exposure has no detail in any of the color channels in the window at all.
-
The only thing you need to prevent the windows from blowing, is not to blow them. It sounds obvious, but it's the only trick. You must look at your camera's histogram after shooting to find out if the window was blown or not, as simple as that.
The problem is that what you show is a high dynamic range scene, in fact it has a higher dynamic range than your camera can capture with good enough detail, so you need more exposures at a higher exposure rate to capture the darker areas with detail (in the previous shot they will surely be full of noise).
After having 2 (or more, but 2 is enough for 99% of the cases) shots taken at different exposure values, you just need some appropiate method for blending your correctly exposed shot and the additional overexposed shot (I would suggest to overexpose it by 3 or 4 f-stops).
I did this on a series of Interiors photographs with a blending program of mine, and got very good results. If they were not better was simply because I am very bad at PS where some curves adjustments after the blending are needed:
(http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5217/recreo180kbyq7.jpg)
-
For heavens sake! the guy was an assistant on the shoot, he never claimed to be a pro, we don't know how much experience he has.
He came here for advice and help, and apart from a few helpfull posts all he got was a crit on his abilities followed by people arguing.
Wayne
-
You can argue about the tone of Johnathan's reply and about whether it was reasonable to use the word incompetent, but to blow highlights like that is an error.
Hogwash. I pity the poor artist whose mind is so closed.
When an art director or client tells me he doesn't care about window detail (because the view is ugly or the window paint is chipping or the drapes are torn...) I give him "ethereal" windows. Travel magazines (with no budget for lights and crews) offer this style of (hotel/restaurant) interior photos all the time. When the published images are small, it doesn't matter.
Sun-filled windows are always a challenge for interior images. The quality and direction of the outdoor light in GLuijk's photo does not compare to couleur's. I've seen many cases where photographers "over-burn" the window/view in a wide dynamic range image and, to my eye, it looks fake. Couleur's image is a good one for a Photoshop class assignment, entitled "How far is too far."
You can proffer you don't appreciate the look and suggest methods that might satisfy your eye but, without knowing all the details, judging incompetence is nothing more than ego and hubris. (Notice no apology from poster supposedly having a bad day.) I'm no fan of Katrin Eismann's art but I wouldn't call her incompetent.
-
I wrote:
You can argue about the tone of Johnathan's reply and about whether it was reasonable to use the word incompetent, but to blow highlights like that is an error.
Hogwash. I pity the poor artist whose mind is so closed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I can live with your pity. The chap made a mistake (otherwise known as an error). He realises he did, which is why he asked for help.
I make mistakes. We all (well, perhaps not you) make mistakes. That's how we learn ("clever people learn from their mistakes; really clever people learn from other people's mistakes"). To pretend that something which was a mistake wasn't is simply silly.
As Glujik pointed out,
The only thing you need to prevent the windows from blowing, is not to blow them. It sounds obvious, but it's the only trick.
Jeremy
-
The chap made a mistake (otherwise known as an error). He realises he did, which is why he asked for help.
As far as I can tell, "the chap" didn't take the photo ("Recently I was working as an assistant"). Your suppositions are presumptuous and your mistakes are noted.
-
As far as I can tell, "the chap" didn't take the photo ("Recently I was working as an assistant"). Your suppositions are presumptuous and your mistakes are noted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He said......I took a few different exposures just to ensure nothing goes wrong, but I did not make a HDR.
This discussion is getting out of hand. I can't believe the way this poor guy has been treated here. This is a demo for how not to treat someone who asks an innocent, honest question. Hopefully he can sift thru all the animosity and get to actually helpful comments like those of BDK, Schewe or Smith.
-
He said......
"I took a few different exposures just to ensure nothing goes wrong, but I did not make a HDR."
Background info isn't clear, for sure, but it really doesn't matter whether the OP is a lower-tiered photographer for a company or a digital assistant who manned the shutter for whatever reason. As far as I'm concerned, couleur did not deserve to be called incompetent. And that's my final offer.
-
As far as I can tell, "the chap" didn't take the photo ("Recently I was working as an assistant"). Your suppositions are presumptuous and your mistakes are noted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, don't be so ridiculously pompous.
-
Oh, don't be so ridiculously pompous.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Both of you yahoos go stand in the friggin' corner...it doesn't surprise me that OP hasn't returned...
If you don't have something useful to say, keep your friggin' fingers off the keyboard.
-
Both of you yahoos go stand in the friggin' corner...it doesn't surprise me that OP hasn't returned...
If you don't have something useful to say, keep your friggin' fingers off the keyboard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When Jeff barks, people listen....even on matters unrelated to Photoshop.
THAT'S why you refer to yourself and your cohorts as the PixelMafia
-
Jonathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example. If you care to learn about how to do this easily in Photoshop please feel free to sign up for my class at ICP here in NYC, as I incorporate these methods as part of my course on digital architectural photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do post details about your course !
Edmund
-
I don't know if the below is acceptable, but it's just a quick try at ameliorating the blow out with the Shadow/Highlight function in Photoshop.
[attachment=3330:attachment]
-
I don't know if the below is acceptable, but it's just a quick try at ameliorating the blow out with the Shadow/Highlight function in Photoshop.
[attachment=3330:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That doesn't really solve the problem as there is no detail on any of the channels in the window or window reflection to recreate or enhance. The result is a darkening of the bright areas around the blown out window and refection, but that is not the problem. The suggestions above about highlight recovery from bracketed exposures works well, though my preference would be to simply light the room properly to balance it with the exterior, which would take me less time than doing the recovery in PS and personally I would rather spend more time shooting than sitting in front of the damn computer.
-
That doesn't really solve the problem as there is no detail on any of the channels in the window or window reflection to recreate or enhance. The result is a darkening of the bright areas around the blown out window and refection, but that is not the problem. The suggestions above about highlight recovery from bracketed exposures works well, though my preference would be to simply light the room properly to balance it with the exterior, which would take me less time than doing the recovery in PS and personally I would rather spend more time shooting than sitting in front of the damn computer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right, it didn't work.
FWIW, I try to use natural and/or installed lighting as much as possible, supplemental lighting is only a last resort to get the shot with one exposure. Heck, that image of the tiny living room could probably have been lighted with a single on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling to bring it's light value closer to the window, but what about a huge commercial space? Sometimes, it's just impossible to light a whole room so you have to use what's there, which is when these techniques come in handy.
I suspect though by looking at your (very nice) work that you know this, I'm just mentioning it because it needed to be said.
BTW, I still shoot 4x5 as much as possible and have a number of high power strobe packs, so I have a pretty good idea of what you can and can't accomplish with supplemental lighting. 95% of the time all those powerful lights stay in the back of my car. It's like the umbrella paradox: carry an umbrella if there's a chance of rain and it probably won't, but if you leave it at home it's gonna pour!
BTW, have you ever seen Adrian Wilson's work? (www.interiorphotography.net). He doesn't own a single light, doesn't believe in them, and shot 6x7 film for 20 years before recently buying a 39MP digital system. Point being that it's not always necessary to either light an interior or do any exposure blending - Adrian built a lucrative career as an interior specialist without using either.
-
if you cant get any real info out of the overexposed file anymore, create some info, so that the totaly blown areas at least dont read 255. 255. 255.
I would create a new layer. in that layer stamp some of the surounding areas into the blown areas (stamp set to 10-30% or so). plus I would create some additional film grain (photoshop filter) in those areas. now use the rubber on the top layer and make the bottom layer with the newly created highlights shine through. dont overdo it. filmgrain in the overexposed areas makes it look a bit more like film.
now, this is something I dont tend to do. its only a very last resort.
stefan