Restoring highlights, is it really that important?

10/31/2007 04:32:11 PM · #1

I can see the advantage of restoring small blown out areas, like if I wanted to get some texture back into clouds or a blown reflection on an object. But if I attempt to restore large chunks of blown highlights it ends up looking unnatural, it's difficult to get the saturation and tone looking right.

Besides, where did this obsession with restoring highlights come from anyway? - Seems to me that before the whole RAW thing, everyone was happy making sure they got things right in-camera. The only situation I find myself trying to restore highlights in are snapshots, and even then I say 'what's the point?' And if I've got a setup shot, then I'm not going to have blown highlights (or nothing to worry about anyway) Ditto if I'm careful with a landscape shot (okay, RAW comes into its own for HDR photography, but that a specialty area)

Having spent the past few weeks experimenting with various RAW software, I see the main advantages to shooting/editing RAW are;

1) Rescuing underexposed shots - this works really well in most cases. But again, in the old JPG days, how did we do things? The only badly underexposed shots I could find to experiment are either throw-away shots anyway, or I'd have taken another shot immediately I realised the first one was underexposed. I'd never stand there staring at an obviously underexposed shot on the LCD and think "That's fine, I'll rescue it in PP" - Nope, I just shoot another one with the correct exposure.

2) Adjusting white balance. Something I've always been able to do on JPGs in PS. And in most cases the camera's WB did an okay job anyway. Again, if I shoot something with the wrong WB it's gonna be pretty obvious when I take one look at the LCD.

3) Restoring highlights. Already mentioned.

It's nice having the RAW files as negatives (in the hope that 20 years from now you'll still be able to find a converter that can read your RAW format!). But in 99% of cases I find myself doing some arbitrary exposure adjustments for the hell of it, before batch converting the lot to JPG.

I didn't want this to turn into a RAW versus JPG rant, but it looks like that's how it's ended up (that's what 3 weeks of pixel peeping does for you!)

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

10/31/2007 04:36:36 PM · #2

First thing that comes to mind is being able to deliver your file for printing in a format that isn't full of compression artifacts.

10/31/2007 04:37:30 PM · #3

Originally posted by routerguy666:

First thing that comes to mind is being able to deliver your file for printing in a format that isn't full of compression artifacts.

Batch convert to 16-bit TIFF.

edit: actually, scratch that. I've pixel-peeped good quality JPG versus RAW versus TIFF hundreds of times, and have never seen any differences. The only time I ever see compression artifacts in JPG is when I tell PS to save at a lower quality.

Message edited by author 2007-10-31 16:39:02.

fotomann_forever

10/31/2007 04:39:42 PM · #4

1) I won't even attempt to rescue a shot that is more than a half-stop off. When you do, you introduce noise and other artifacts. RAW is convenient, but bad technicals still equals bad results.

2) Sure you can do a bit of WB correction of a JPEG, but if color is really off,it will cause more than just color balance issues. Issues such as clipping, especially on the red channel.

3) Don't blow the highlights to start. The only real advantage is the increaed dynamic range (of 12 or 14) bits, compared to 8. Theat gives you a little more latitude to NOT blow the highlights.

Message edited by author 2007-10-31 16:41:14.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

10/31/2007 04:44:38 PM · #5

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
First thing that comes to mind is being able to deliver your file for printing in a format that isn't full of compression artifacts.

Batch convert to 16-bit TIFF.

Convert jpegs to tiff? I know you're not suggesting that which means you are converting raws to tiff which is another reason for the raw converter.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/31/2007 04:48:12 PM · #6

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
First thing that comes to mind is being able to deliver your file for printing in a format that isn't full of compression artifacts.

Batch convert to 16-bit TIFF.

Convert jpegs to tiff? I know you're not suggesting that which means you are converting raws to tiff which is another reason for the raw converter.

Most print companies and stock companies only accept JPG. RAW isn't a universal format and TIFF is too large. For the purposes of printing there are no quality differences between a high-quality 8-bit JPG and a 8-bit TIFF. The output results will be exactly the same.

edit: by 'print companies' I mean photo print companies. We're talking consumer level stuff here, not blowing my shots into 30 foot posters or getting them published in a magazine.

Message edited by author 2007-10-31 16:49:24.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/31/2007 04:49:43 PM · #7

Originally posted by jhonan:

Besides, where did this obsession with restoring highlights come from anyway? - Seems to me that before the whole RAW thing, everyone was happy making sure they got things right in-camera.

Except sometimes you can't "get it right"; and before RAW you had to sacrifice shadows or highlights, one or the other. Not unlike what we have to do with color slide film. RAW allows you to use an extended dynamic range relative the JPG in-camera, even without benefit of HDRI imaging.

Incidentally, you can do true HDRI merges with JPG originals, if you shoot several of them.

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/31/2007 04:50:01 PM · #8

If you're restoring highlights and it is coming out unnatural chances are you are not doing it right or the highlights were clipped in which case you can't restore what wasn't captured at least not without creating new image area via the clone tool. If you are having lots of color issues when adjusting the highlights work in the LAB color space. That color space allows you to isolate just the luminosity channel without effecting color and vice versa.

As for working with RAW it's much better than JPG the more adjustments you make. You are just working with the raw data in RAW unlike JPG which has already interpreted your data based on compression which produces something new. Why work on what is basically a copy?

Message edited by author 2007-10-31 16:53:43.

10/31/2007 04:53:36 PM · #9

Originally posted by yanko:

Yes, I think I'm actually talking about clipped highlights here, these areas that just turn grey/blotchy when you try to restore them. So in fact there's no image data there to actually restore! (I wonder how I can easily tell the difference between a blown highlight and a clipped highlight then?)

10/31/2007 04:57:09 PM · #10

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm not suggesting abandoning RAW, I can see that in certain cases (HDR as you mentioned) it certainly makes life easier than doing bracketed JPG exposures. And if RAW is available as an option, why not use it?

I just don't see the sense in shooting *everything* in RAW. I've got 400 holiday snapshots sitting here in RAW format. There are perhaps 4-5 good ones that will benefit from exposure/wb adjustments. The rest will be a straight conversion to JPG.

10/31/2007 05:02:11 PM · #11

Originally posted by yanko:

As for working with RAW it's much better than JPG the more adjustments you make. You are just working with the raw data in RAW unlike JPG which has already interpreted your data based on compression which produces something new. Why work on what is basically a copy?

In most cases RAW just means one more inconvenient step, and the necessity to install another software package to perform that step.

The camera has a built-in RAW converter which does a pretty good job. What am I missing out on? Rescuing the 1% of shots where I've screwed up the wb or exposure.

They all eventually end up as JPGs anyway. :)

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/31/2007 05:04:33 PM · #12

I could swear you have posted this exact thread before. Really if you don't want to shoot raw, then don't.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/31/2007 05:04:37 PM · #13

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by yanko:
If you're restoring highlights and it is coming out unnatural chances are you are not doing it right or the highlights were clipped in which case you can't restore what wasn't captured at least not without creating new image area via the clone tool.

Yes, I think I'm actually talking about clipped highlights here, these areas that just turn grey/blotchy when you try to restore them. So in fact there's no image data there to actually restore! (I wonder how I can easily tell the difference between a blown highlight and a clipped highlight then?)

If you use photoshop you could run the eye dropper tool over the area in question. Highlights shouldn't read 0,0,0 unless they have been clipped same goes for shadows reading at 255,255,255. Or visually inspect the histogram for any of the channels that might show a spike on the very end of the graph. In the color channels red gets clipped when the highlights are too bright and blue gets clipped when the shadows are too dark.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/31/2007 05:07:22 PM · #14

By far, the best solution is to meter, and expose correctly to begin with. Rarely will very overexposed highlights look "normal" when fixed post-processing.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

10/31/2007 05:19:26 PM · #15

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I could swear you have posted this exact thread before. Really if you don't want to shoot raw, then don't.

Thanks!

scarbrd

Leica M10

10/31/2007 05:24:09 PM · #16

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by yanko:
As for working with RAW it's much better than JPG the more adjustments you make. You are just working with the raw data in RAW unlike JPG which has already interpreted your data based on compression which produces something new. Why work on what is basically a copy?

In most cases RAW just means one more inconvenient step, and the necessity to install another software package to perform that step.

The camera has a built-in RAW converter which does a pretty good job. What am I missing out on? Rescuing the 1% of shots where I've screwed up the wb or exposure.

They all eventually end up as JPGs anyway. :)

Anytime you modify/save an image you lose pixel data. RAW is first generation and when shooting RAW, you decide what information to lose. In camera JPGs actually start as RAW and the camera is making those decisions for you. When you are working on the in camera JPG file, it is 2nd generation and any modifications you make to the file loses more pixel data, and when you save it, it is now 3rd generation of data loss. You can't recover what isn't there, if you shoot RAW you have the most pixel data to work with.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/31/2007 05:40:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by jhonan:

I just don't see the sense in shooting *everything* in RAW. I've got 400 holiday snapshots sitting here in RAW format. There are perhaps 4-5 good ones that will benefit from exposure/wb adjustments. The rest will be a straight conversion to JPG.

My solution to that is to edit more heavily. 400 pictures of anything is probably more than anyone wants to look at ;)

4 or 5 would be a pretty good trip. My current shoot to show ratio is about 100:1

As a result, RAW suits my style of working. I very rarely show more than a couple of dozen pictures even from an extended period of time shooting. So doing RAW conversion isn't a big deal.

If and when I shoot events/ sports etc I just shoot JPEG, set the white balance roughly correctly and then get it right in camera.

Message edited by author 2007-10-31 17:42:05.

10/31/2007 06:20:10 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Yeah, 100:1 seems to be my ratio as well. People can't understand why I get annoyed when they want to see my shots on the camera... cause they'll end up looking at 99% rubbish!

You have some good advice there, perhaps I should be more ruthless with deleting crap. I mean, I've got 15 shots of my son chasing the pigeons in a square... All different angles and focal lengths, but I just can't bring myself to delete the 13 I don't need!

[user]routerguy666[/user] was right that I've been harping on about the RAW v JPG thing. But this is due to some frustration I've had in converting over to shooting RAW. I should remember that it's only two clicks on the camera menu and I'm shooting JPG again, so it's really no big deal.

And, to be perfectly honest, I've been getting some amazing results from the SilkyPix RAW processor... :)

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/31/2007 06:25:53 PM · #19

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by yanko:
If you're restoring highlights and it is coming out unnatural chances are you are not doing it right or the highlights were clipped in which case you can't restore what wasn't captured at least not without creating new image area via the clone tool.

Yes, I think I'm actually talking about clipped highlights here, these areas that just turn grey/blotchy when you try to restore them. So in fact there's no image data there to actually restore! (I wonder how I can easily tell the difference between a blown highlight and a clipped highlight then?)

If you use photoshop you could run the eye dropper tool over the area in question. Highlights shouldn't read 0,0,0 unless they have been clipped same goes for shadows reading at 255,255,255.

Thanks. (Although I thought it was 255,255,255 for highlights?) - Actually, I just found a highlight warning tool which flashes the overexposed area in different colours, black means it's clipped (255,255,255)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/31/2007 06:54:11 PM · #20

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by yanko:
If you're restoring highlights and it is coming out unnatural chances are you are not doing it right or the highlights were clipped in which case you can't restore what wasn't captured at least not without creating new image area via the clone tool.

Yes, I think I'm actually talking about clipped highlights here, these areas that just turn grey/blotchy when you try to restore them. So in fact there's no image data there to actually restore! (I wonder how I can easily tell the difference between a blown highlight and a clipped highlight then?)

If you use photoshop you could run the eye dropper tool over the area in question. Highlights shouldn't read 0,0,0 unless they have been clipped same goes for shadows reading at 255,255,255.

Thanks. (Although I thought it was 255,255,255 for highlights?) - Actually, I just found a highlight warning tool which flashes the overexposed area in different colours, black means it's clipped (255,255,255)

Correct. I had it reversed. I'm dyslexic like that. :/

Message edited by author 2007-10-31 18:54:44.

10/31/2007 07:03:10 PM · #21

Originally posted by yanko:

Correct. I had it reversed. I'm dyslexic like that. :/

Actually, I just thought of something. If there's 12 bits of data per pixel in a RAW file, shouldn't the clipped values have a value of (4096,4096,4096)? - I could never understand why when working with 16-bit files even in PS the colour values were limited to 255,255,255 as this value represents 8-bits per pixel and not 16-bits.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III