Recovering a blown out leaf

wkwork

Took this one today at the park and I can't seem to get that one leaf back - on the lower right portion. The top is in shadow so any contrast changes muddies that part and I hate to edit just one leaf...

Any ideas? Here's the original.

wxwax

wkwork, bad news I fear. I tried a few things and couldn't restore any detail. It always turns to grey. The only hope is if you shot it in RAW, because then you'd be able to drop the exposure by a stop or two. Otherwise, I have a feeling you may be out of luck. Maybe one of our Photoshop wizards might find a way to help you? I hope so.

wkwork

I don't think my camera lets me shoot RAW. I can only change the size of the picture, not the format (that I'm aware of anyway).

Thanks for trying! I guess if I ever figure out the settings on my camera, I'll do much better.

cmr164

wkwork wrote:

I don't think my camera lets me shoot RAW. I can only change the size of the picture, not the format (that I'm aware of anyway).

Thanks for trying! I guess if I ever figure out the settings on my camera, I'll do much better.

Keith;
You are using a Casio QV-R40 and you are correct. It does not have a raw capture mode. It does have a +/- EV that allows you to adjust the exposure.

pathfinder

wkwork wrote:

Took this one today at the park and I can't seem to get that one leaf back - on the lower right portion. The top is in shadow so any contrast changes muddies that part and I hate to edit just one leaf...

Any ideas? Here's the original.

I downloaded your original file and you are correct, the highlights in the leaf are very near blown out. Rutt may be able to help you with channel blending, using the blue channel to rebuild the blown red and green channels.

I took another approach that MAY be adequate. I selected the offending leaf and duplicated it with CTRL-J and a blending mode of multiply but this did not help very much. So I selected the area of the leaf that was not blown out and used free Transform to flip it mirror image and and then blended it in as a patch. This is my result below and you may find it at
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/63356/14/6798634

wkwork

That doesn't look too bad PF. I see you also got some more detail on the leaf above the repaired one.

I guess I just need to learn to use the camera right - it has a light meter after all.

Do you guys take a lot of time setting up each shot or just have a few presets that you can tweak? All the presets on my camera either have "increased saturation" (which I find disgusting) or some other "special" effect that jimmies with the contrast, the brightness, something. I wish the camera could just make the optical decisions and leave the effects to the user to handle afterward.

pathfinder

wkwork wrote:

That doesn't look too bad PF. I see you also got some more detail on the leaf above the repaired one.

I guess I just need to learn to use the camera right - it has a light meter after all.

Do you guys take a lot of time setting up each shot or just have a few presets that you can tweak? All the presets on my camera either have "increased saturation" (which I find disgusting) or some other "special" effect that jimmies with the contrast, the brightness, something. I wish the camera could just make the optical decisions and leave the effects to the user to handle afterward.

Yes I repaired some of the highlights in the leaf above the real blown one too. Generally you are better off adding saturation in an imaging editor rather than in the camera. The same is true of lots of sharpening too.

Light meters are only as good as they are interpreted I am afraid.

The trick in digital images is to avoid blowing the highlights, because when they are gone, they ARE gone. Some digital cameras offer more lattitude and control than others. But the trick with meters is to always meter a medium tone ( usually described as 18% grey) but grass is close - sometimes the back of your hand is a little brighter so stop down 1 stop from what your hand meters.

Some image editing software can help, but no imaging editor can create a great image from a poor quality photo. Get a good photo to start, and then maybe it can be improved in PhotoShop. Get used to looking at a histogram if your camera has one and review your images on the LCD to see if you need to reshoot an image. If you do need to reshoot, then you can do it right away. Digital pics are easy to reshoot and cheap too!!

Hang around here and I am sure you will become a better digital photographer.

wkwork

pathfinder wrote:

Get used to looking at a histogram if your camera has one and review your images on the LCD to see if you need to reshoot an image.

I have a histogram but no idea what it is really. What kind of shape should I aim for - a bell curve? And I can never really review images in the LCD - it's too dim in sunlight and too small to really see detail. I just take 2-3 shots of everything and find the best ones afterward.

wxwax

Nice job, Pathfinder! That's a whole lot better than I would have expected.

wkwork, I use my camera's histogram to make sure I don't overexpose any part of my image. I shoot the image, then make sure the right hand line isn't touching the right side of the 'chart.'

Another way is to review your image in the camera - many cameras will show you blinking areas where the shot is too hot. Just reduce the amount of light coming in, and shoot the shot again. See if you get rid of the blinking areas. As Pathfinder said, as long as you haven't overexposed your image, the software will work wonders. Simply amazing. But blown highlights mean all the information is gone, it's pure white. Then you're stuck.

If I'm in doubt and in a hurry, I'll center the frame on the hot spot, half press the trigger, then recompose the shot and shoot. If I'm in any mode except for full manual, doing this will tend to force the camera to expose for the brightest part of the image. Other parts will be too dark, but they can be rescued by software, unlike a blown highlight.

As Patch29 taught me, digital cameras have a limited dynamic range compared to film. Which is a fancy way of saying they're really prone to overexposing images. So one always has to take great care to not do so.

wkwork

wxwax wrote:

wkwork, I use my camera's histogram to make sure I don't overexpose any part of my image. I shoot the image, then make sure the right hand line isn't touching the right side of the 'chart.'

Ah ok so the chart is a scale of the tonal values? Left darker, right brighter?

wxwax wrote:

Another way is to review your image in the camera - many cameras will show you blinking areas where the shot is too hot. Just reduce the amount of light coming in, and shoot the shot again. See if you get rid of the blinking areas.

Unfortunately, mine doesn't do that.

wxwax wrote:

As Pathfinder said, as long as you haven't overexposed your image, the software will work wonders. Simply amazing. But blown highlights mean all the information is gone, it's pure white. Then you're stuck.

Yeah that's what I thought. I'll try using the histogram and to err on the side of darkness. Thanks for the advice guys!

wxwax

wkwork wrote:

I have a histogram but no idea what it is really. What kind of shape should I aim for - a bell curve?

Just try to keep the lines away from the extreme left and right hand sides. That's the rule of thumb. The left side is the dark stuff in your shot, and the right side is the bright stuff.

Now, the rule gets broken all the time. If you're shooting a lit subject against a dark background, and you want the background to be near black, then your histogram will shot a tall line jammed against the left side of the histogram.

Similarly, you may be shooting something in a shadow, and the sky is also in the shot. In that case, the sky will be overexposed, and show up as a line against the right had side of your histogram.

Here's a link to a good explanation of histograms. Great tool to have and to use. Sometimes, just to experiment, I shoot the same shot a bunch of times, just trying to move the bulge around in the histogram.

Baldy

Blown highlights frustrate me terribly, especially when they're on someone's skin. With a digital camera, it just seems to wreck the shot. It isn't just that the detail goes away, but there's a sickly yellow color shift on skin as you approach the blown point.

I heard a color consultant on EZ Prints' advisory board say it makes the shot look "digital" — you can just tell it was shot with a digital camera.

I always set my camera to be -1/2 stop and then have to increase the exposure in Photoshop using curves, just to make sure I don't blow highlights. But in the one below, the light meter was so fooled by the dark clothing it blew the face anyway.

I actually think most digital chips have the dynamic range of color slide film. Negative film has much more range and Foveon has a chip that trys to achieve the range of negative film. I'm interested.

I have to shoot shiny cars in the sun at Concours d'Elegance Pebble Beach this year and the owners blow the photos up huge and put them in their fancy houses. Last year I lucked out and got fog. This year I'm scared to death about chrome bumpers in the sun on black cars with part of the body shaded.

I'm using a rented Canon MKII for the shoot and I love the camera but hate the dynamic range problems, hence why I haven't bought one.

pathfinder

Baldy wrote:

Blown highlights frustrate me terribly, especially when they're on someone's skin. With a digital camera, it just seems to wreck the shot. It isn't just that the detail goes away, but there's a sickly yellow color shift on skin as you approach the blown point.

I heard a color consultant on EZ Prints' advisory board say it makes the shot look "digital" — you can just tell it was shot with a digital camera.

I always set my camera to be -1/2 stop and then have to increase the exposure in Photoshop using curves, just to make sure I don't blow highlights. But in the one below, the light meter was so fooled by the dark clothing it blew the face anyway.

I actually think most digital chips have the dynamic range of color slide film. Negative film has much more range and Foveon has a chip that trys to achieve the range of negative film. I'm interested.

I have to shoot shiny cars in the sun at Concours d'Elegance Pebble Beach this year and the owners blow the photos up huge and put them in their fancy houses. Last year I lucked out and got fog. This year I'm scared to death about chrome bumpers in the sun on black cars with part of the body shaded.

I'm using a rented Canon MKII for the shoot and I love the camera but hate the dynamic range problems, hence why I haven't bought one.

Oh Bald One - With Respect - What I hear you saying, Baldy, is that exposure can be difficult to measure properly; that perhaps you depend on the evaluative meter in the camera, versus a spot meter or an incident meter as in the fellow on the GS?

Do not take this as a flippant or critical remark - it is NOT intended to be so - With Respect - but blown highlights, By Definition, are an error in exposure somewhere along the chain leading to the exposure OR an error in illumination as in a studio shot or a sunlit beach without a diffuser. These cheek bones border on specular reflection.

I think we all err in this regard sometimes - but shooting negative film used to let people be sloppy in exposure and get away with it. ASA 25 Kodachrome was never that forgiving. Like you, I actually think digital has as many stops of exposure range as Kodachrome ever did. Like you, I frequently will shoot with as high as -1 1/2 stops of exposure compensation dialed in - depending on the overall tone of the image.

The ability of the 1DMkll to store jpegs and Raw files simulataneously can help in this regard. An incident light meter can help as well. As can using the spot meter function.

Setting the LCD to display the histogram and flash any blown highlights can also be useful - but you know this .

The bottom line is that shooting chrome in the sunlight with the body shaded will probably be impossible with any film or digital back unless you add difusers or shaders and/or additional lighting to balance out the illumination.

In the picture you posted the shirt and jacket measure about 98,95,90 and 101,96,92 -- these are closer to neutral grey than they are to black - the image, as you said, was overexposed. The skin tones on his cheek bones 243,255,255 or so - very nearly gone and not salvageable without patching or cloning.
The new Fuji S3 Pro DSLR is supposed to have two groups of pixels to help smooth out the exposure curve - Have you heard anythin about this camera at all?

Baldy

pathfinder wrote:

blown highlights, By Definition, are an error in exposure somewhere along the chain leading to the exposure OR an error in illumination as in a studio shot or a sunlit beach without a diffuser.

This is a good discussion and I'd love to get more perspective on it, so please keep talking.

My perspective is I really miss the dynamic range of film... I watched The Village last night and was ever-so-jealous of the range they can achieve with negative film from shadow to highlight — running through the forest at night with torches, torches not blown out and plenty of detail in the creepy shadows.

Landscape guys tend to compensate by shooting two frames and combining them, but I never can because I shoot people and action. Glamour photographers tend to control their light, as you say. But I shoot where I don't always have control of the light.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting my daughter's bridals and it was quite a bit tougher with digital this year than it was with my Hasselblad and Portra four years ago for my daughter-in-law. There were some shots in broken light I just couldn't get because the shafts of light that hit the ground would burn out, which they didn't do with negative film. And if I exposed so they didn't, the shadows went to mud.

So yes, I'm interested in the chip the Fuji S3 uses (but not the camera because it uses Nikon lenses and flashes), and the new Foveon chip that claims higher dynamic range (but they're not too specific about how much).

I'm still scared of shooting those cars in direct sun in the afternoon.....

(I thought this article had some decent discussion about how to get the most out of the chip you do have using curves in the raw conversion... http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html )

Thanks!
Baldy

Andy

chris,

are you shooting raw, and -1/2 ev? and you are still sometimes getting blown areas that are unrecoverable in raw? holy-moly. i wouldn't have thought this....

perhaps rent a fuji, that's supposed to do a great job on the highlights?

ps: shay's a wizard with this sort of stuff......

Baldy wrote:

This is a good discussion and I'd love to get more perspective on it, so please keep talking.

My perspective is I really miss the dynamic range of film... I watched The Village last night and was ever-so-jealous of the range they can achieve with negative film from shadow to highlight — running through the forest at night with torches, torches not blown out and plenty of detail in the creepy shadows.

Landscape guys tend to compensate by shooting two frames and combining them, but I never can because I shoot people and action. Glamour photographers tend to control their light, as you say. But I shoot where I don't always have control of the light.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting my daughter's bridals and it was quite a bit tougher with digital this year than it was with my Hasselblad and Portra four years ago for my daughter-in-law. There were some shots in broken light I just couldn't get because the shafts of light that hit the ground would burn out, which they didn't do with negative film. And if I exposed so they didn't, the shadows went to mud.

So yes, I'm interested in the chip the Fuji S3 uses (but not the camera because it uses Nikon lenses and flashes), and the new Foveon chip that claims higher dynamic range (but they're not too specific about how much).

I'm still scared of shooting those cars in direct sun in the afternoon.....

(I thought this article had some decent discussion about how to get the most out of the chip you do have using curves in the raw conversion... http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html )

Thanks!
Baldy

pathfinder

andy wrote:

chris,

are you shooting raw, and -1/2 ev? and you are still sometimes getting blown areas that are unrecoverable in raw? holy-moly. i wouldn't have thought this....

perhaps rent a fuji, that's supposed to do a great job on the highlights?

ps: shay's a wizard with this sort of stuff......

No matter how you shoot -1/2 EV or -2EV - specular highlights, like reflections of sunlight off a water surface or a mirror can easily exceed the range of film or sensor or else, Like Baldy said, the exposure is dialed back to where the shadows are all muddy and NOISY.

The blown areas on the rider's skin really are "specular reflections" of the sunlight and that is why they are blown even tho the image was only slightly overexposed when the meter tried to capture the black jacket as a neutral grey. The evaluative meter of the Canon 1D tries to evaluate the scenery -even if it is backlit - and compensate - which it did in Baldy's picture, but just not enough to prevent the blow out on the forehead.

And like Baldy said, in action photography he cannot control fully the light ranges encountered or adjust the contrast ratios because of the real time shooting constraints.

pathfinder

Baldy wrote:

This is a good discussion and I'd love to get more perspective on it, so please keep talking.

I am glad this interests you, I thought perhaps I came on too strong after I posted this rant of mine With Respect:D

My perspective is I really miss the dynamic range of film... I watched The Village last night and was ever-so-jealous of the range they can achieve with negative film from shadow to highlight — running through the forest at night with torches, torches not blown out and plenty of detail in the creepy shadows.

Of course the movie lighting director controls contrast with lighting much more than seems apparent to a viewer watching the screen. Some of the old black and white movies that looked like they were shot at night, were really shot during the daytime with heavy filtration. Not all things on film are as they seem. Not sure if this is still significant today or not tho.... Since almost all movies are digitzed somewhere along the way.
And even if you shoot film, when it is scanned, how do the blown highlights react to scanning ?

Landscape guys tend to compensate by shooting two frames and combining them, but I never can because I shoot people and action. Glamour photographers tend to control their light, as you say. But I shoot where I don't always have control of the light.

Like Andy said - if you shoot RAW, you can create two images from the RAW file - one optimized for highlights, and one optimized for shadows and then blend - but even this may not save specular highlights.

As I gathered steam in my rant about exposure, I realized that real time shooting IS confronted with scenes where the lighting ratios ARE way beyond that of digital or even of film sometimes. Hence the need for shades, diffusers, additional lights if possible. Dialing in exposure compensation can help, but like you said, then you run into the devil of increasing noise in the shadows.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting my daughter's bridals and it was quite a bit tougher with digital this year than it was with my Hasselblad and Portra four years ago for my daughter-in-law. There were some shots in broken light I just couldn't get because the shafts of light that hit the ground would burn out, which they didn't do with negative film. And if I exposed so they didn't, the shadows went to mud.

Were you shooting bounce flash or any auxillary lighting to help even the contrast out? Did the film images hold up when they were subsequently digitized? Or were the printed with light and silver emulsion?

So yes, I'm interested in the chip the Fuji S3 uses (but not the camera because it uses Nikon lenses and flashes), and the new Foveon chip that claims higher dynamic range (but they're not too specific about how much).

I have also heard the press releases from Foveon and Fuji. But as far as I know the S3 Fuji is still vaporware. Has it been shipped yet?

The Fuji and the Foveon always sound very good, but it seems that very few professional photographers shoot any digital but Nikon, Canon, Kodak, in 35mm. and the larger digital backs for the4x6, 6x7, 6x9 etc.

The Foveon has been touted by George Gilder for years, but Foveon has limited its market by using the Sigma bodies. I think there would be some serious interest if you could purchase an EOS or Nikon body with the Foveon sensor especially if it had 12million pixels.

For all the faults of the Bayer algorithms, they are certainly dominant at this time.

I'm still scared of shooting those cars in direct sun in the afternoon.....

A polarizing filter and a big shade might help some, but still it would be wise to be afraid, very afraid. A bit white tent is the ticket of course.

(I thought this article had some decent discussion about how to get the most out of the chip you do have using curves in the raw conversion... http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html )

Thanks!
Baldy

Thanks Baldy - I started out ranting about exposure errors because I feel they occur in MY photos and I suspect in other shooters also. When I shot film I would shoot 5 or 10, maybe 30 frames or so a day, usually of slide film. With the 10D or the 1DMkll, I find I shoot 50, 100, or 500 frames or more in a day. The Canon evaluative meter is SO good, that I rarely get really badly exposed images. But I do find that when I review all these images there are subtle variations in exposure from frame to frame, and I think these are due to slight shifts in the the way the image is framed causing slight shifts in exposure. Nothing fatal, but just maybe 1/2EV frame to frame. But I have begun to think that I need to be much more precise than that. (Years ago, everybody talked the ZONE system, and placed middle grey where they wanted it, but now we just use automated exposures and blast away.)


In order to increase the accuracy of my exposure, I ordered Jim Zuckerman's Perfect Exposure which is a lovely book demonstrating perfect exposures of black cats in coalmines and white polar bears in white snow fields, and black cats in white snow fields. All of these are very challenging images for the proper exposure. And then I saw your statement about blown highlights - and it took me a while to readjust, and realize that the black car in the bright sunlight with a shiny chrome bumper can be exposed many ways, but none of them will possibly be correct for all the tones, unless you remove the direct sunlight with a diffusor or a shade, or perhaps, use flash to brighten the shadows and dial back the exposure of the highlights. A dark polarizing filter can help somewhat tho.

As I said in the beginning, I think I need to be more precise in my exposure to raise my images to the next level.

And your blown highlights are fixable I think - this image is just from the image you posted - access to the original file could probably do better. Just a little healing brush and some blurring.

Baldy

Good stuff -- thanks, guys!

So here's one of the problems I'd love to solve. Each year, I shoot for Concours d'Elegance at Pebble Beach and the shots they like best are the awards presentation.



They build a ramp surrounded by spectators, a Stanley Cup-sized trophy, flowers, etc. I can't control the lighting, unfortunately. Luckily, last year the fog rolled in to save my butt.

Note the wide-brimmed hats, the drivers inside the cab, the black car with a shaded side, the chrome white dress in the sun, etc. With color negative film like Portra I can get this shot. The whites will be white without losing detail, the blacks will be black without losing detail, and a print would look good.

With color slide film, it's no longer so easy. There isn't as much latitude. My 10D and the MKII I'm renting are more like slide film, except when it starts to blow, there is the added insult of a sickly color shift on skin.

I can shoot raw, pack a zillion storage cards, make for a tougher work flow, and get more range than I could if I let the camera convert to JPEG, but my experience from last year is still not good. No way do I want to shoot negative film and use a drum scanner as the other Concours photographer does when the sun comes out (it's Ron Kimball and oh.my.gosh he's good).

Last year the fog made my digital shots good enough for their ads, gift enlargements to the owners, etc. If the sun would have been out, I would probably have been run out of town as a bum.

pathfinder

Baldy wrote:

Good stuff -- thanks, guys!



They build a ramp surrounded by spectators, a Stanley Cup-sized trophy, flowers, etc. I can't control the lighting, unfortunately. Luckily, last year the fog rolled in to save my butt.

Note the wide-brimmed hats, the drivers inside the cab, the black car with a shaded side, the chrome white dress in the sun, etc. With color negative film like Portra I can get this shot. The whites will be white without losing detail, the blacks will be black without losing detail, and a print would look good.

With color slide film, it's no longer so easy. There isn't as much latitude. My 10D and the MKII I'm renting are more like slide film, except when it starts to blow, there is the added insult of a sickly color shift on skin.

I can shoot raw, pack a zillion storage cards, make for a tougher work flow, and get more range than I could if I let the camera convert to JPEG, but my experience from last year is still not good. No way do I want to shoot negative film and use a drum scanner as the other Concours photographer does when the sun comes out (it's Ron Kimball and oh.my.gosh he's good).

If he switched from digital to film when the sun comes out( using digital in the flatter light) , maybe he has experienced this difficulty before himself? Could you ask him as one pro to another? Use whatever tool is the easiest and most effective to work with.

Last year the fog made my digital shots good enough for their ads, gift enlargements to the owners, etc. If the sun would have been out, I would probably have been run out of town as a bum.

The fog acted as a diffuser for you and flattened the lighting - It is not possible to use a large umbrella or one of the portable diffusers on a stand? If you can not influence the lighting ratio at all, can you use additional lighting like a strobe in a softbox or something. Pray for an overcast hazy day? If these choices are not permitted, you really are between a rock and a hard place and color negative film may offer the best choice for the high contrast lighting presented to you. But that would need to be a 2 1/4 type negative size - I doubt you could accept 35mm - An EOS 3 is a nice camera though - seems really light compared to Canon's DSLRs. But to my eye, to match digital 1D's for quality, requires 2 1/4 negative film at the very least.

Raw files will deal with high contrast better than jpgs, but may not be enough to prevent blown highlights from specular reflections - like on chrome bumpers - the best way to manage this, like for any shot of jewelry or glassware, will be a light tent to control bright focal light sources - like the sun. But you aren't given that option. Good luck, pray for clouds.

zero-zero

Baldy,

no matter how hard anyone tries, there will always be times when the contrast is too high for any medium - it has happened since the birth of photography. I say switching to neg film is NOT the way to go if you want to keep your workflow at a minimum: it will still need extensive tweaking in printing to really benefit from it. Plus we were shooting SLIDES before digital, dammit, without the benefit of PS and a quick nip and tug at curves to correct exposure.

Some pointers:

• Keep praying for fog, but not too much!
• Gotta shoot RAW. No other way around it. With the new capabilities of Photoshop CS, the workflow implications are not as daunting. Pics that are not in need of help can simply be batch-opened as they were shot, making them as much of a no-brainer as JPGs, but with the added benefit of having the score to interpret yourself, instead of a cheap cassette recording, so to speak. But gotta do it. Shooting JPG for max results in such conditions is like trying to get exhibition prints from Wal-Mart. Not likely to happen.
• Obsess about those blinkies, even if the rest of the image goes dark. Good technique can do wonders in post as long as there is something to start with. However, some chrome will always go white. This is fine. There's a bunch of white chrome in your pic above, and it looks fabulous.
• 16-bit for as long as possible is your friend. Convert to 8 at the end. CS is again a major breakthrough here.
• Read up on techniques to get the most dinamic range from a single RAW shot. You won't need it for every pic, but it makes a huge difference.
• When you do major curves movements, apply them to the luminosity channel only (remember Margulis?). No need to go into LAB, just do your curves (overdoing just a wee bit), then go to edit/transition and leave it at 100%, luminosity mode. It will scale back the effect a bit (thus the overdoing) and bring the colors to their place. If they look weird, try 70% or 50%.
• Check the new highlight/shadow tool in Photoshop CS. You'll love it. The default settings are fucked up, but once you get a bit of practice under your belt, you'll be laughing at blown skin tones, as long as they are not blown to mars or beyond. That tool works! excellent on wedding gowns, too.
• Fill flash with as large a source as you can use is the key to a tamer contrast curve. Watch out for reflections, though.
• Do decide when you are fine to forgo shadow detail in favor of highlight, and even which blown highlights are acceptable. Everyone run to retrieve your December 2003 copy of National Geographic: on the cover, you'll see an F-22 semisilhouetted against the sun, its nose cone being blown into a big irrecoverable white highlight. The same pic is featured inside as a four-page gatefold. It was taken with a Nikon D1x, and I dare you guys to tell me it would have better been ditched into the bin because of that blowout.
• lastly, remember you are not the only one under the blazing sun - everyone will have trouble with contrast. The one with the best technique wins. You are at least one step ahead, as you are aware of the problem and searching for an answer.

pathfinder

zero-zero wrote:

Baldy,

no matter how hard anyone tries, there will always be times when the contrast is too high for any medium - it has happened since the birth of photography. I say switching to neg film is NOT the way to go if you want to keep your workflow at a minimum: it will still need extensive tweaking in printing to really benefit from it. Plus we were shooting SLIDES before digital, dammit, without the benefit of PS and a quick nip and tug at curves to correct exposure.

Some pointers:

• Keep praying for fog, but not too much!
• Gotta shoot RAW. No other way around it. With the new capabilities of Photoshop CS, the workflow implications are not as daunting. Pics that are not in need of help can simply be batch-opened as they were shot, making them as much of a no-brainer as JPGs, but with the added benefit of having the score to interpret yourself, instead of a cheap cassette recording, so to speak. But gotta do it. Shooting JPG for max results in such conditions is like trying to get exhibition prints from Wal-Mart. Not likely to happen.
• Obsess about those blinkies, even if the rest of the image goes dark. Good technique can do wonders in post as long as there is something to start with. However, some chrome will always go white. This is fine. There's a bunch of white chrome in your pic above, and it looks fabulous.
• 16-bit for as long as possible is your friend. Convert to 8 at the end. CS is again a major breakthrough here.
• Read up on techniques to get the most dinamic range from a single RAW shot. You won't need it for every pic, but it makes a huge difference.
• When you do major curves movements, apply them to the luminosity channel only (remember Margulis?). No need to go into LAB, just do your curves (overdoing just a wee bit), then go to edit/transition and leave it at 100%, luminosity mode. It will scale back the effect a bit (thus the overdoing) and bring the colors to their place. If they look weird, try 70% or 50%.
• Check the new highlight/shadow tool in Photoshop CS. You'll love it. The default settings are fucked up, but once you get a bit of practice under your belt, you'll be laughing at blown skin tones, as long as they are not blown to mars or beyond. That tool works! excellent on wedding gowns, too.
• Fill flash with as large a source as you can use is the key to a tamer contrast curve. Watch out for reflections, though.
• Do decide when you are fine to forgo shadow detail in favor of highlight, and even which blown highlights are acceptable. Everyone run to retrieve your December 2003 copy of National Geographic: on the cover, you'll see an F-22 semisilhouetted against the sun, its nose cone being blown into a big irrecoverable white highlight. The same pic is featured inside as a four-page gatefold. It was taken with a Nikon D1x, and I dare you guys to tell me it would have better been ditched into the bin because of that blowout.
• lastly, remember you are not the only one under the blazing sun - everyone will have trouble with contrast. The one with the best technique wins. You are at least one step ahead, as you are aware of the problem and searching for an answer.

Thanks z-z - Just what we needed. As you said about the highlight/shadow tool the defaults are poor, but I posted better ones here courtesy of an article in PS User Sept 2004. http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=21239&postcount=7 I think they are a much better starting place.

Does anyone have any experience with the flat panel flashguns? That might be of some help in this situtation perhaps, since large studio panels cannot be used in Baldy's situation.

zero-zero

Interesting - the numbers Mclelland gives are pretty close to what I've found myself, although I use a smaller figure in the tonal range slider.

Baldy

Good stuff. Now is the perfect time for me to really dig in hard wrt processing raw files because I have a couple of shots I'd like to recover if possible.

I shot my daughter's bridals with digital, with some trepidation because I'd had so much success with Portra and the trusty Hasselblad. Digital has it's place and you won't ever see me shooting action shots in medium-format film, but bridals.... I'm afraid I regret the digital decision and/or the way I acquired the images quite deeply at the moment and hope you can straighten me out.

Shot 1: Early morning light, shafts of light I can't control and think look nice anyway coming through the trees, soft puff of fill flash coming from the left on the bride (wish I'd used a reflector like I usually do)....

I've shot here before with film and the shafts of light didn't burn such bright holes in the ground, but I can live with that. What frustrates me is how easily the gown blew out near the front and the blue cast it developed as it did.



I have a lot of trouble with blue cast on my 10D in the shade. I had removed my UV haze filter maybe 6 months ago after reading a Shay thread about they aren't used much with digital. Dunno if that was a factor, but looking at the light from the flash coming in from the left side, there is decidedly mixed light in this shot.

I have pics of this same shot I took with other brides with Porta that looked sooooooooo good by comparison...

Shot 2:

Taken at Stanford in the evening light. The other photogs shooting digital put their brides in the shade (as I did sometimes to make sure I had backup shots), but I like the evening sun...



To manage the contrast here so the highlights weren't too far blown and get the gown white, I ended up having to put a lot of fill on the bride and you can see the distinct shadows from the fill as a result (again I should have used a big reflector but it was windy and we were battling it).

Looks like #2 can be saved but I have my work cut out for me in post for #1... (which she wants me to save).

Your thoughts.

Andy

baldy wedding daughter shot 1
i'm not the real expert here but i betcha shay can chime in ... here's a quick five minute job on shot number one (she's beautiful, by the way!)

* clone the sunlight on grass near dress
* remove the blue cast in the gown
* curved up the exposure in general
* selective curve up exposure on just her face



with more time, and the orig file, i think the cloning on the hotspots on the grass can be done without detection

Baldy wrote:

ysr612

does any one bracket and use the bracket as layers???

Andy

hi ysr - re bracketing

ysr612 wrote:

does any one bracket and use the bracket as layers???

when shooting in raw, you can "develop" multiple exposures in post, and achieve the same result.

patch29

ysr612 wrote:

does any one bracket and use the bracket as layers???

At times it is even better to get a multiframe backet and pull the best from each of them. The problem is your scene needs to be static, your camera on a tripod and lighting consistent. If not then it will be a lot more work to make it happen in post. For journalistic shots it is much easier to shoot one raw frame and process it two or three different ways in post.

pathfinder

Baldy -
I think Andy has done a good job on the first image. As he says about the grass highlights, just clone them in with a brush set on between 50-75% and they should be undetectable.

The second image looks like it was shot in the Quad - I was going to school there in 1962 and 1963 .
I rebalanced the color by threshold - there were no real blacks to be found - then a little curves to bring out the dress detail, some burning and dodging to darken the surround and lighten and brighten her face and whiten her teeth.. I think with the original file this could work quite nicely. I will upload the jpg so you can see it. If you want the psd file, PM me an email address that will accept bigger files and I will forward it to you.

You might find this book useful - I bought it from Amazon, of course


My version if image #2

pathfinder

[QUOTE=Baldy

I have a lot of trouble with blue cast on my 10D in the shade. I had removed my UV haze filter maybe 6 months ago after reading a Shay thread about they aren't used much with digital. Dunno if that was a factor, but looking at the light from the flash coming in from the left side, there is decidedly mixed light in this shot.

Taken at Stanford in the evening light. The other photogs shooting digital put their brides in the shade (as I did sometimes to make sure I had backup shots), but I like the evening sun...

Your thoughts.[/QUOTE]
Baldy - Did you shoot the 10D with AWB or did you adjust to Shade? I find the AWB setting to not work terribly well on the 10D, the 1dMkll or my G5. All are more accurate in the shade when set to Shade. This is only pertinent if you are NOT shooting RAW.

On the 1DMkll, I just set it up to shoot RAW and Large fine on a MicroDrive disc. That way I am set to go all day long. But using AWB in the shade WILL make images slightly blue. Setting the dial to Shade for shade will correct this I betcha.

I love the evening sun also - this is an example of the evening sun, but not set with AWB, but Sun.

Baldy

Nice work! I really like the richness of the color in the flowers in the quad. What a difference that made.

Here's where I had gotten to with the first shot. Seems like I followed two of the steps of The Master of Post — removing the color cast from the dress and curving it up a little.

I also subdued the wrinkles in the dress by creating a clone layer, setting it to 80% opacity, and using the healing brush on it.

The final thing that's bugging me is the blue haze on the grass surrounding the dress. Note to Baldy: put the UV haze filter back on. Wedding dresses reflect a lot of UV from the anti-stain coating they put on them. Yes, I used the shade setting on the 10D. I never use the auto white balance.

So I messed with the grass a little, probably made it too vibrant green (your opinion?) but still didn't rid it off the blue haze completely. Maybe that's 'cus I goofed and adjusted on the 80% opacity layer instead of creating an adjustment layer.

Andy

good job on the dress blue cast and the wrinkles. i do think the grass is now too saturated, and the shade of green is more pleasant in the orig. also, i prefer the hotspots in the grass near the dresss to be cloned out, but that's just me - it certainly works with them left in. finally, chris, i'd try to brighten the exposure some on her face. what do you think?

Baldy wrote:

Nice work! I really like the richness of the color in the flowers in the quad. What a difference that made.

Here's where I had gotten to with the first shot. Seems like I followed two of the steps of The Master of Post — removing the color cast from the dress and curving it up a little.

I also subdued the wrinkles in the dress by creating a clone layer, setting it to 80% opacity, and using the healing brush on it.

The final thing that's bugging me is the blue haze on the grass surrounding the dress. Note to Baldy: put the UV haze filter back on. Wedding dresses reflect a lot of UV from the anti-stain coating they put on them. Yes, I used the shade setting on the 10D. I never use the auto white balance.

So I messed with the grass a little, probably made it too vibrant green (your opinion?) but still didn't rid it off the blue haze completely. Maybe that's 'cus I goofed and adjusted on the 80% opacity layer instead of creating an adjustment layer.