| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2005 12:29:27 PM · #1 |
Hi all.
I've taken a picture of one of the faculties where I study, I like the image but the green leaves turned out overexposed.
I've tried playing around in PS trying to make it go away but can't find anything that feels natural.
Can you help me with this one ?
Thank you. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 12:32:51 PM · #2 |
If something is totally overexposed then there will be no data to recover with any tool. If it's not totally gone then a couple of things to try would be to either use the highlight/shaddow (PS CS only) or the burn tool to bring back some of the detail.
Another option is to reshoot and use exposure compensation to underexpose by about 1/2 to 1 stop.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 12:35:09 PM · #3 |
| Acute overexposure can't be recovered. Reshoot with less exposure. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 12:39:16 PM · #4 |
The image should be salvageable. Although quite bright, the highlights aren't burnt to the point of loosing critical detail.
Curves (PS) would give you much control over shadows, midtones, highlights and contrast.
The Shadow/Highlight tool also may come in very useful.
The Light Effects filter could also accomplish something, depending on what you envision.
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 12:40:59.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 12:49:11 PM · #5 |
Next time try bracketing your shots to find the correct exposure you are after.
second option, buy a analoge incidental light meter and master its use. this can be an indispesible tool even with digital pix.
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 12:51:22.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:23:23 PM · #6 |
| I do not know your cameras capabilities. Your light meter is trying to make everything 18% grey so you need to fool the meter. You can do it by bracketing the exposure, or using a hand held meter, or metering a grey card. If you don't have a grey card a north blue sky will work too. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:28:37 PM · #7 |
| try the burn tool in ps to correct the overexposure. be sure to use shadows instead of highlights. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:33:55 PM · #8 |
Well,... I don't think it looks too bad at all. It isn't blown out to to the point where you would lose the information in the clouds.
I gave it just a slight addition saturation (normal).
I adjusted the contrast just a little and burned the highlight very slight. I added a little USM to get to this. I think it looks great! I give it a 10.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:36:38 PM · #9 |
Hope you didn't mind. I wanted to see what I could do with it. What do you think? Is it any better?
 |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:54:35 PM · #10 |
this might help......I use it often, then possibly fine tune alittle.
//www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=24
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 01:54:57 PM · #11 |
oops..sorry
//www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=24
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 13:55:25.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 02:14:22 PM · #12 |
How about this one...
I created brightness/contrast layer and a levels adj layer, and used the gradient on both to not touch the sky at all, but only apply the changes to the lower 2/3rds of the photo. USM and resized to 640pix/145KB
Thoughts?
A quick one off the bmp original:
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 02:18:17 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
How about this one...
I created brightness/contrast layer and a levels adj layer, and used the gradient on both to not touch the sky at all, but only apply the changes to the lower 2/3rds of the photo. USM and resized to 640pix/145KB
Thoughts?
A quick one off the bmp original: |
i like this one but you mentioned something about the gradient tool could explain a little more on that please
thanks
leon
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 02:29:07 PM · #14 |
| Gee people, how about getting it right in the camera the first time. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 02:33:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by LEONJR:
i like this one but you mentioned something about the gradient tool could explain a little more on that please
thanks
leon |
When you create a level adjustment layer in PS, you can apply the layer change only to a selection of your image (thus not allowed in basic editing). You can pick the "Foreground to Transparent Gradient" type and draw it on the image after applying the levels. You can then independently adjust the gradient and layer parameters to achieve the best result.
I'll try to find a tutorial on it, I know it exists somewhere because that's where I learned about it, and post it here.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 03:11:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by LEONJR:
i like this one but you mentioned something about the gradient tool could explain a little more on that please
thanks
leon |
When you create a level adjustment layer in PS, you can apply the layer change only to a selection of your image (thus not allowed in basic editing). You can pick the "Foreground to Transparent Gradient" type and draw it on the image after applying the levels. You can then independently adjust the gradient and layer parameters to achieve the best result.
I'll try to find a tutorial on it, I know it exists somewhere because that's where I learned about it, and post it here. |
alright cool because i still havent got it thanks
leon
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 03:37:01 PM · #17 |
Thank you all for replying :)
I've tried shadows\hightlights in PS CS, not very good.
And every time I touch the curves something awfull happens to the picture, like abstract art :\
Gringo: I don't see any difference in saturation, but USM is a good idea non the less.
SDW65: though it is interesting, it's not the direction I was going :)
srdanz: I like what you did, though it's a bit dark. Can you elaborate a bit on the settings you used ? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 03:57:50 PM · #18 |
| If you're shooting raw you can adjust exposure compensation,, but only to a certain extent. You're better off slightly underexposing when in doubt since you can dodge the detail in darker areas. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 03:59:10 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Gee people, how about getting it right in the camera the first time. |
Gee, how about not brow beating those of us who are not perfect. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 04:08:57 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by magicshutter:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Gee people, how about getting it right in the camera the first time. |
Gee, how about not brow beating those of us who are not perfect. |
second...aren't we here to HELP people learn. I know to learn is why I don't have any ribbons anyway...
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 04:14:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Gee people, how about getting it right in the camera the first time. |
It's not that simple. There's two things that need to be balanced out here to make it closer to what he "saw" in his mind's eye. Here's my shot at it:
I first used layer masks off cntrl-alt-tilde, the highlights set at multiply and the shadows set at sof light, jiggled the sliders, bot a better overall balance and flattened the layers.
I then selected the sky entire, expanded the selection by 1 pixel, and saved it. I loaded the sky selection on a duplicate layer and laid down a right toleft gradient through the sky, from dark blue to transparent, in color mode, and faded that to like 15%, helped balance the less-poilarized side without burning down the cloud upper right.
I then loaded the sky selection iverted to work on the leaves. Ran hue/saturation to bring the yellow component down a tad. Went back to the base layer, loaded the inverted selection again, and used selective color to mute the yellow a little while preserving luminance and darken the green a bit for more visual depth, taking some yellow out of the green and adding a hint of cyan to it. I then adjusted the black levels on the neutrals channel of selective color.
I went back to base layer one more time and created a levels adjustment layer, where I lightened the whole collection slightly.
I resized at 72 ppi to 640 picels and applied some USM. Went to "edit/fade USM" and faded it to 50% in luminace mode.
Saved for web. Looks more sculptural to me now, more tangible. You didn'thave an "overexposure" problem; the issue was relative saturation, mostly in the yellow range, and the fact that the light in the shadows was more yellow than usual due to filtering through these leaves, so the image was oddly flat.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 04:17:48 PM · #22 |
how that
my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
05/03/2005 06:45:40 AM · #23 |
Robert, thank you very much.
The image definitely looks much more vivid, but I am still bothered by the feel the leaves give me.
I'll try re-running the process you described to get a better understanding and play with the constants a bit.
Guy. |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 07:25:43 AM · #24 |
1.Copy backgraund layer{2}
2.select color range for blue sky.{layer2}
3.Select mask for blue sky, on copy layer{2}
4.Create backgraund layer again {layer3}
5.Aply curves for layer3.
6.Bern sky on layer {2}
7.Merge all layers (ctrl-shift-e}
8.Apply curves for new merge
9.Save for webeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
UUUUUUUhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2005 08:54:52 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by gemini:
Robert, thank you very much.
The image definitely looks much more vivid, but I am still bothered by the feel the leaves give me.
I'll try re-running the process you described to get a better understanding and play with the constants a bit.
Guy. |
I can (and did) make the leaves much less vivid running the process I described, but the end result was not as good an image IMO. Face it, the leaves are substantially backlit, and the really glowing parts are where we seeing the light transmitted through the leaves. Any attempt to mute that resulted in a "flat" rendition of the scene, and it seemed to lose all its luminous charm.
Robt.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 04:32:56 PM EDT.
