| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2005 09:23:59 AM · #1 |
| How do you deal with them? I saw a psot saying bearmusic showed how to correct them, but I can't find it now. Any ideas? |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 09:55:31 AM · #2 |
If your using Photoshop CS. there is a nice feature called "Shadows/Highlight" that works very well.
To get to it got to" Image/Adust/Shadows/Highlight"
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:03:10 AM · #3 |
| That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:07:44 AM · #4 |
When shooting there are a couple of things you can do.
1. Take two or more exposures and blend them in post processing. In CS2 there's an HDR (high dynamic range) tool that may be of use here.
2. Use a graduated ND filter (if it suites the scene).
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:23:44 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
When shooting there are a couple of things you can do.
1. Take two or more exposures and blend them in post processing. In CS2 there's an HDR (high dynamic range) tool that may be of use here.
2. Use a graduated ND filter (if it suites the scene). |
Here is a great tutorial on how "Merge to HDR" whith Photoshop CS2 is done.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:31:23 AM · #6 |
There's a tutorial here that helps with bright areas. But if it's totally blown there's nothing you can do in post-processing.
I fight a continuing battle against noon-day, blown out spots on reflective stuff. It helps if I move the exposure compensation down in camera before pointing & shooting & being aware of where I'm pointing to set the white-balance. I also bought a circular polarizer a couple of days ago, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet. Hopefully that'll help.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:37:50 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by BlackDot:
That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
Actually, not true.
You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.
Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.
At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:42:24 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by BlackDot:
That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
Actually, not true.
You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.
Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.
At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels. |
I've tried that and end up with a gray area instead of a white area. I don't see any benefit to it.
:-(
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:49:27 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by BlackDot:
That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
Actually, not true.
You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.
Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.
At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels. |
I've tried that and end up with a gray area instead of a white area. I don't see any benefit to it.
:-( |
I find it to be a great benefit if done properly. :)
Message edited by author 2005-07-28 10:49:54.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:52:15 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by BlackDot:
That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
Actually, not true.
You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.
Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.
At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels. |
I've tried that and end up with a gray area instead of a white area. I don't see any benefit to it.
:-( |
I find it to be a great benefit if done properly. :) |
It probably just takes a lot of practice.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 10:59:58 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by BlackDot:
That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
Actually, not true.
You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.
Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.
At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels. |
I've tried that and end up with a gray area instead of a white area. I don't see any benefit to it.
:-( |
I find it to be a great benefit if done properly. :) |
It probably just takes a lot of practice. |
I suck.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 11:00:04 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by qmdi:
Originally posted by BlackDot:
That is a nice feature I use often too. But if the highlights are burnt out completely, and all the information is lost, there is nothing you can do unfortunately. |
Actually, not true.
You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.
Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.
At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels. |
Could you break that down into step by step for dummies? :)) |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 11:11:30 AM · #13 |
Hey Eric, that really works, another little trick for the book.
Thanks a bunch.
Paul.
Edit: I guess this wouldn't be legal in challenges as you are adding pixels?
Message edited by author 2005-07-28 11:13:30.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 11:20:55 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by amber:
How do you deal with them? I saw a psot saying bearmusic showed how to correct them, but I can't find it now. Any ideas? |
1. Make duplicate layer from BG.
2. "Image/adjustment/levels" (NOT a levels adjustment layer) set contrast/darkness so that only the blown highlight areas are white
3. Use magic wand and "select similar" to grab the white areas
4. save selection in selection menu as "bright"
5. discard duplicate layer
6. create new duplicate layer from BG
7. load the "bright" selection
8. Go to filters/texture and load a texture, sandstone often works well; adjust size of texture as appropriate
9. with selection still loaded, go to layers/new adjustment layer and make a selective color layer
10. Open the drop down list and select "neutrals"
11. Use the sliders to bring in color and density as needed to mimic the surrounding areas
12. Go back to the duplicate layer, reload the selection, go to filters/blur/Gaussian blur and add a little blur as needed
12. Fade this duplicate layer out a bit in the layers dialogue/opacity slider, until it looks natural.
It takes less time to do than it does to describe. It generates a very natural looking hint of texture and density in blown highlights. The key is to be subtle.
Robt.
Addendum: This technique is NOT legal in basic editing as selection is involved, and texture filters are not allowed.
Message edited by author 2005-07-28 11:53:53.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 11:38:30 AM · #15 |
Doh! Thanks Bear!
*thread marked watched*
:-)
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 11:44:16 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Edit: I guess this wouldn't be legal in challenges as you are adding pixels? |
I can't imagine it being illegal. The rules for advanced editing say you can't add or remove major elements to/from the image. It doesn't specify "pixels". It would seem to me that the spirit of the advanced editing rules would allow this type of editing. After all, you're not changing the elements in the photo, you're just fixing lighting issues.
By the way, Bear's tip really works. |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 12:00:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Hey Eric, that really works, another little trick for the book.
Thanks a bunch.
Paul.
Edit: I guess this wouldn't be legal in challenges as you are adding pixels? |
Eric's "adding pixels" really isn't accurate; the pixels are already there (white is pixels), the method is just changing the value assigned to the pixels. It adds density to blown highlights and is completely legal in any editing ruleset.
Another way to accomplish the same thing is to go to a selective color adjustment layer and work on the white range at the bottom of the drop-down list; you can adjust the level of black (the density) and you can add/subtract color as well, until they look right.
The trouble with these appraoches, though, is that they are entirely "flat", there's no texture or variation to them. My approach, not legal for basic, as outlined in the previous post, basically uses the selective color approach to desnity/color balance of the blown-out areas but combines it with a means of importing a sense of texture to the area, so it's not entirely lifeless. Same approach, just a step further down the road.
One problem with these approaches is that they will apply the corrections across the entire image, even to white areas you'd prefer to have stay wight. The good thing about the selection approach (besides the texture aspect of it) is you can control where these adjustments are made.
But it's only legal in advanced editing.
R.
Message edited by author 2005-07-28 12:02:07.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 12:33:44 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by peecee:
Hey Eric, that really works, another little trick for the book.
Thanks a bunch.
Paul.
Edit: I guess this wouldn't be legal in challenges as you are adding pixels? |
Eric's "adding pixels" really isn't accurate; the pixels are already there (white is pixels), the method is just changing the value assigned to the pixels. It adds density to blown highlights and is completely legal in any editing ruleset.
Another way to accomplish the same thing is to go to a selective color adjustment layer and work on the white range at the bottom of the drop-down list; you can adjust the level of black (the density) and you can add/subtract color as well, until they look right.
The trouble with these appraoches, though, is that they are entirely "flat", there's no texture or variation to them. My approach, not legal for basic, as outlined in the previous post, basically uses the selective color approach to desnity/color balance of the blown-out areas but combines it with a means of importing a sense of texture to the area, so it's not entirely lifeless. Same approach, just a step further down the road.
One problem with these approaches is that they will apply the corrections across the entire image, even to white areas you'd prefer to have stay wight. The good thing about the selection approach (besides the texture aspect of it) is you can control where these adjustments are made.
But it's only legal in advanced editing.
R. |
I sent you a PM
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 01:20:23 PM · #19 |
I can see where this process could be very useful, but I'm curious about item #8. Is that REALLY legal even in advanced editing for challenges? It seems to me that adding texture is bringing something into the photo that didn't exist before. So if a request for validation on a challenge entry that used this process was made, the original would not have the same values as the edited version?
This seems to be along the same lines as blurring or removing a background which is a no-no, except in reverse. Guess I'll need to try it - I may be misunderstanding the concept.
Any SC want to chime in here? Please?
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by amber:
How do you deal with them? I saw a psot saying bearmusic showed how to correct them, but I can't find it now. Any ideas? |
1. Make duplicate layer from BG.
2. "Image/adjustment/levels" (NOT a levels adjustment layer) set contrast/darkness so that only the blown highlight areas are white
3. Use magic wand and "select similar" to grab the white areas
4. save selection in selection menu as "bright"
5. discard duplicate layer
6. create new duplicate layer from BG
7. load the "bright" selection
8. Go to filters/texture and load a texture, sandstone often works well; adjust size of texture as appropriate
9. with selection still loaded, go to layers/new adjustment layer and make a selective color layer
10. Open the drop down list and select "neutrals"
11. Use the sliders to bring in color and density as needed to mimic the surrounding areas
12. Go back to the duplicate layer, reload the selection, go to filters/blur/Gaussian blur and add a little blur as needed
12. Fade this duplicate layer out a bit in the layers dialogue/opacity slider, until it looks natural.
It takes less time to do than it does to describe. It generates a very natural looking hint of texture and density in blown highlights. The key is to be subtle.
Robt.
Addendum: This technique is NOT legal in basic editing as selection is involved, and texture filters are not allowed. |
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 01:26:20 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
But it's only legal in advanced editing.
R. |
And may not be then, depending on the extent of your reconstructive efforts. For example, if your "blown highlights" includes a large patch of sky, there'll be the temptation to fill that with some nice texture using the Render Clouds filter. That might be considered "too much" by some SC members. And there's no fixed line as to what is too much.
As Robert said, the key is to be subtle and discreet. |
|
|
|
07/29/2005 09:29:43 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bear_music:
But it's only legal in advanced editing.
R. |
And may not be then, depending on the extent of your reconstructive efforts. For example, if your "blown highlights" includes a large patch of sky, there'll be the temptation to fill that with some nice texture using the Render Clouds filter. That might be considered "too much" by some SC members. And there's no fixed line as to what is too much.
As Robert said, the key is to be subtle and discreet. |
I only use this for tiny areas of blown highlights, not major ones. Like when there's a twig or two with a bright side. I quite agree this woudl be thin ice if you, say, replaced a whole sky of blown clouds. I see this as a solution to the problem of burning isolated highlights and having them go unnaturaly flat. It's a very subtle effect. It's kind of self-regulating, 'cuz it looks like crap if you do it on large areas...
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: 09/12/2025 03:21:42 PM EDT.
