Blow-out correction

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    To the Photoshop users here....

    In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg

    the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

    Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    too fine to do a selection on.

    I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    can't figure it out. Maybe something else.

    Any technique suggestions?

    Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Just to show I do sometimes do more than play with trolls.. (O:

    tony cooper wrote:
    > To the Photoshop users here....
    >
    > In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >
    > the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    > of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >
    > Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    > I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    > without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    > area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    > affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    > that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    > too fine to do a selection on.
    >
    > I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    > can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
    >
    > Any technique suggestions?
    >
    > Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
    >

    I would suggest you post this to the PS groups instead, and will be
    interested to see more expert answers than mine. In the meantime, here
    is my amateur opinion. (I'm assuming you don't have a better original
    (eg a raw file)...?)

    It's a nice looking shot and it's a pity you/whoever didn't grab two
    images, one for the building, one for the sky..

    There are some close-to-insurmountable problems with trying to ease the
    burning sensation:

    1. There just doesn't appear to be any usable detail in the lost areas
    in any channels, be they RGB or LAB... if there was, then yes, you can
    selectively duplicate detail from one channel into others.

    2. The scene wouldn't be easy to fix even if there was some usable data
    - the foliage, the lamp, the detailed bits of building would all need to
    be watched/selected/layer-erased out depending on your approach. Plus
    that flare that extends over the side of the building will somehow have
    to be balanced against whatever you do - a pasted blue/grey sky would be
    awkward and just not look right, imo, and you still have no building
    details.

    I had a quick go at a simple duplicate layer, curved down a bit and then
    selective erasure, but it just didn't look like I was heading anywhere
    useful...

    How about a radical suggestion? I experimented a bit with the curves
    and then channel mixing it to monochrome, and the burning seemed much
    less of an issue, partly by making it look as if you had gone for
    deliberate contrast.. "I meant to do that!"
     
    Mark Thomas, Nov 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    Paul Furman Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > To the Photoshop users here....
    >
    > In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >
    > the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    > of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >
    > Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    > I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    > without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    > area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    > affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    > that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    > too fine to do a selection on.
    >
    > I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    > can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
    >
    > Any technique suggestions?
    >
    > Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.


    The blown sky can't be fixed, maybe somewhat with a raw file... the one
    simple thing I would do is remove that blue fringing at the edge of the
    leaves. Curiously, I did that by making an adjustment layer for
    saturation and selecting blues only, cranked the saturation all the way
    down and the offending fringes disappeared without hardly any effect on
    the rest of the image. I was planning to erase the adjustment layer
    outside that area and surprised how little relevance that had.

    The next thing I tried was to lift the shadows with a curves adjustment
    layer... my curve lifts the shadows on the left side then uses another
    control point to correct that lift on the rest at the 1/4 mark, then
    another control point at the 3/4 mark to straighten the remainder a tiny
    bit darker than the straight line.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 15, 2008
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:20:41 +1000, Mark Thomas
    <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >Just to show I do sometimes do more than play with trolls.. (O:
    >
    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> To the Photoshop users here....
    >>
    >> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >>
    >> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    >> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >>
    >> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    >> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    >> without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    >> area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    >> affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    >> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    >> too fine to do a selection on.
    >>
    >> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    >> can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
    >>
    >> Any technique suggestions?
    >>
    >> Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
    >>

    >I would suggest you post this to the PS groups instead, and will be
    >interested to see more expert answers than mine. In the meantime, here
    >is my amateur opinion. (I'm assuming you don't have a better original
    >(eg a raw file)...?)


    I did, but I didn't cross-post. I hate to drag people from one group
    to another. Some don't play well together.


    >It's a nice looking shot and it's a pity you/whoever didn't grab two
    >images, one for the building, one for the sky..


    Normally, I shoot with a Nikon D40. This was taken with a Nikon P2
    point and shoot; my pocket camera. We took a walk around the block
    after lunch and I was too lazy to go to the car's trunk and get my
    D40.

    If I see a scene that I think will make a good photograph, I tend to
    over-shoot. I'll change angles and change f-stop and change the focus
    point. In this case, there were two facing sets of steps in this
    Savannah house. Here's the other set:

    http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannahsteps.jpg

    In this image, the problem is at the upper left. The cornice is
    washed out on the corner. I can work on that, but I haven't yet.

    The thing is, though, the purpose of my post of the other image was to
    tap the knowledge of others in how to correct problems in images. Not
    to have it done for me, but to learn which steps to use. I'm pretty
    proficient with Photoshop (v 7.0), but there's always something more
    to learn. I'm working at improving my use of adjustment layers in
    Channels, but I'm not up to speed yet.

    I like to fiddle with images. For this shot, for example, in another
    version I've added a layer blended with Multiply, pulled down the
    opacity to 40%, and I get a deeper, richer yellow wall.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    Mark Thomas Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    >>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>> Any technique suggestions?
    >>>

    >> I would suggest you post this to the PS groups instead...

    >
    > I did, but I didn't cross-post. I hate to drag people from one group
    > to another. Some don't play well together.


    Very ture - that's good and I shall watch the other thread/s with interest.

    >
    >> It's a nice looking shot and it's a pity you/whoever didn't grab two
    >> images, one for the building, one for the sky..

    >
    > Normally, I shoot with a Nikon D40. This was taken with a Nikon P2
    > point and shoot; my pocket camera. We took a walk around the block
    > after lunch and I was too lazy to go to the car's trunk and get my
    > D40.
    >
    > If I see a scene that I think will make a good photograph, I tend to
    > over-shoot. I'll change angles and change f-stop and change the focus
    > point.

    Given the limited dynamic range of the P2, maybe it might be an idea to
    use exposure bracketing for these sort of images, if it has it.. (I too
    have tiny Ricoh carry around and it does, but it also has worse dr
    performance, so maybe that is just an acknowledgment..!).

    I don't mean to try to teach the wise (I too still get these shots
    wrong, despite knowing better!), but your in-built exposure sensor (aka
    'brain') needs to be able to recognise these scenes and the warning
    bells should go off - "Bzzzt - my camera probably won't handle that
    exposure range!"

    > In this case, there were two facing sets of steps in this
    > Savannah house. Here's the other set:
    >
    > http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannahsteps.jpg


    hahah, Snap! It's a pity *one* of them doesn't have a decent
    background, and you could simply reverse it and paste it in!

    > The thing is, though, the purpose of my post of the other image was to
    > tap the knowledge of others in how to correct problems in images. Not
    > to have it done for me, but to learn which steps to use. I'm pretty
    > proficient with Photoshop (v 7.0), but there's always something more
    > to learn. I'm working at improving my use of adjustment layers in
    > Channels, but I'm not up to speed yet.
    >
    > I like to fiddle with images. For this shot, for example, in another
    > version I've added a layer blended with Multiply, pulled down the
    > opacity to 40%, and I get a deeper, richer yellow wall.


    Sounds like you are about where I am with PS.. Enough knowledge to be
    dangerous, and to realise that there probably is a better way to do
    (insert task)... Like I said, I'll watch the other thread with some
    interest.
     
    Mark Thomas, Nov 15, 2008
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:52:04 -0900, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>To the Photoshop users here....
    >>
    >>In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >>
    >>the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    >>of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

    >
    >That is exactly the case. It is blown out. You *can't*
    >get any detail to show in that no matter what you do.
    >The white in that area has a grand total of 3 levels!
    >(253, 254 and 255). There simply is no detail.
    >
    >>Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    >>I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    >>without negatively affecting the non-white parts.

    >
    >I'm not sure what you mean by "toning that white down".
    >If you just want it to be a shade of grey, rather than
    >white, that can be done easily enough. But it is still
    >*all* going to be just one shade (posterized, if you
    >will), and there just is no texture in it at all.
    >

    Thanks for the suggestions, but I've given up on that image.
    Instead, I'm using
    http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannahsteps.jpg This photo is blown
    out on the upper left, especially the cornice corner and the top of
    the lamp post. I'm not sure what caused that, but it could be that
    the camera's metering system took in only the lower area of the steps.
    I didn't have my dslr with me, and used my Nikon P2 P&S.

    I don't know if you are familiar with Savannah (Georgia) architecture.
    Many of the older houses in the historic area have the main entrance
    on the second floor. This was to prevent the family quarters from
    being flooded if the river rose. The first floor (in the American
    sense of "first floor") was the kitchen area.

    This particular house had two matching, curved staircases that faced
    each other across a flagstone terrace in front. I shot both.

    The Savannah historic district is a photographer's dream and a
    photographer's nightmare. Fantastic architecture, unique
    architectural detail, and interesting scenes all over the place. But
    the streets are narrow, the houses are tall, and there are spreading,
    mature trees on every street. This leaves what you want to shoot
    shrouded in shadow any time of day. Not just shadow, but streaks of
    shadow and streaks of sunlight coming in through gaps.

    You see this great window with aged and flaking paint, hand-blown
    glass panes, and wrought iron shutter brackets...and there's a
    whacking great shadow pattern across it.

    I like photographing city architecture, though.






    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    To those who are interested in this project...

    Dave, in a Photoshop newsgroup, came up with an interesting solution.
    http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yvnnxq&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

    He changed the building in the background from white to yellow. This
    doesn't repair the blown-out details, but it fools the eye because the
    contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
    You don't notice the blown-out area as much.

    It's an interesting solution, and one I had not thought of. It's one
    of those tricks that I'll keep in mind for some future project.

    I might make that yellow a little more mustardy and soft, and I don't
    care for the green version, but the real value of Dave's suggestion is
    that it's the type of out-of-the-box thinking that we can file away
    and try on other things.

    In case anyone comments that the shade of yellow makes the building
    too bright, consider that it's technique - not final results - that's
    the lesson. Technique can be modified by the user and final results
    can change.

    (Dave listed the steps he used in alt.graphics.photoshop if anyone's
    interested.)


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:56:05 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> To the Photoshop users here....
    >>
    >> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >>
    >> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    >> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >>
    >> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    >> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    >> without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    >> area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    >> affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    >> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    >> too fine to do a selection on.
    >>
    >> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    >> can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
    >>
    >> Any technique suggestions?

    >
    >Re-shoot. Get the right side of the histogram inside the box. Even if
    >the shot looks underexposed in the field, you'll be able to curve it at
    >home. Shoot raw to maximize you possibilities.


    As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
    I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
    but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.

    As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
    because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
    the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.

    >In photoshop CS3 you can mask on color and then fill. Not sure about
    >'junior' versions. The effect is not that great, but better than FFFFFF
    >in your shot.


    As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:46:43 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
    >> I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
    >> but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
    >>
    >> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
    >> because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
    >> the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.

    >
    >> As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.

    >
    >What makes you think I read the other posts? I read and reply in
    >posting order.


    I assume you do, and probably rightly so. It's unlikely that you just
    randomly select a post to read and not read others. It is likely that
    you might skip posts entered by known trolls, though.

    >I guess your take from this should be:
    >
    >1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
    >underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.
    >
    >2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
    >above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.
    >
    >3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
    >camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).
    >


    No, Alan, my take is that I think I have an interesting problem of
    blown highlights in a photograph that might otherwise be interesting.
    Not great, but interesting. That take prompts me to offer the image
    for discussion.

    My take is also that some people enjoy figuring out how to bolt the
    barn door after the horse is gone by using Photoshop. I can't imagine
    that there's any active photographer in this group who hasn't taken an
    image thinking at the time that he's done it right, and finding out
    later that there's a problem in the photo. I can't imagine that
    there's any active photographer in this group who has not been in the
    position of seeing an interesting scene but not having the right
    equipment with him at the time. It happens.

    My take is that some will read this and participate in the discussion
    with helpful suggestions, some who will read this and would rather go
    do battle with the resident trolls, and some who will read this and
    make useless suggestions like "dump the P2" and "use the right
    equipment".

    What do you want out of this newsgroup, Alan? Endless discussions
    about P&S capabilities, a series of character attacks on the other
    posters, a bigoted commentary about homosexuals, or more dreary
    side-taking on Nikon vs Canon?

    Or, would you rather have a discussion about an actual digital image
    that didn't work out right and what can be done about it? If this is
    your choice, provide meaningful commentary or go on to what interests
    you.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    tony cooper <> wrote:

    > To those who are interested in this project...
    >
    > Dave, in a Photoshop newsgroup, came up with an interesting solution.
    > http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yvnnxq&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
    >
    > He changed the building in the background from white to yellow. This
    > doesn't repair the blown-out details, but it fools the eye because the
    > contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
    > You don't notice the blown-out area as much.



    That's what I came up with.

    I used "Replace Color" and selected the whitest part. Then tuned the
    fuzziness so it only included the blown out part.

    Then I adjusted the hue and saturation to make it a color but didn't
    like any of it.

    Actually it *should* be blown out, it's part of the bokeh


    --
    m-m
    http://www.mhmyers.com
     
    M-M, Nov 15, 2008
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    Paul Furman Guest

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > tony cooper <> wrote:
    >
    >> To those who are interested in this project...
    >>
    >> Dave, in a Photoshop newsgroup, came up with an interesting solution.
    >> http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yvnnxq&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
    >>
    >> He changed the building in the background from white to yellow. This
    >> doesn't repair the blown-out details, but it fools the eye because the
    >> contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
    >> You don't notice the blown-out area as much.

    >
    >
    > That's what I came up with.
    >
    > I used "Replace Color" and selected the whitest part. Then tuned the
    > fuzziness so it only included the blown out part.
    >
    > Then I adjusted the hue and saturation to make it a color but didn't
    > like any of it.
    >
    > Actually it *should* be blown out, it's part of the bokeh


    The building isn't blown, only the blue channel is pushing the edge of
    the histogram if you select that area only in PS. Well.. hmm, neither is
    the sky blown according to that... maybe some in-camera anti-blowout
    work already being done? Anyways I agree it's alright as is more or less.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 16, 2008
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > To the Photoshop users here....
    >
    > In this image:  http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >
    > the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out.  The third story
    > of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >
    > Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    > I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    > without negatively affecting the non-white parts.  Selecting that
    > area, and using "Replace Color",  I can tone down the white, but that
    > affects the leaves, branches, and street light.  I can do a selection
    > that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    > too fine to do a selection on.
    >
    > I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    > can't figure it out.  Maybe something else.
    >
    > Any technique suggestions?
    >
    > Note:  Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
    approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
    layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
    with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
    piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
    blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
    in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
    would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
    black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
    with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
    you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
    appropriate level of misty gray.

    Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
    another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
    the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
     
    Pat, Nov 16, 2008
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 15, 8:30 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > Pat wrote:
    > > On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > >> To the Photoshop users here....

    >
    > >> In this image:  http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg

    >
    > >> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out.  The third story
    > >> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

    >
    > >> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    > >> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    > >> without negatively affecting the non-white parts.  Selecting that
    > >> area, and using "Replace Color",  I can tone down the white, but that
    > >> affects the leaves, branches, and street light.  I can do a selection
    > >> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    > >> too fine to do a selection on.

    >
    > >> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    > >> can't figure it out.  Maybe something else.

    >
    > >> Any technique suggestions?

    >
    > >> Note:  Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    >
    > > I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
    > > approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
    > > layer.  Then I would convert the new layer to B&W.  Then I would play
    > > with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
    > > piece of data that you have pushed to black.  Just the completely
    > > blown out sections as white.  Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
    > > in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc.  I
    > > would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
    > > black areas where you need to fix the image.  I would then play around
    > > with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
    > > you get something that looks decent.  The black should end up the
    > > appropriate level of misty gray.

    >
    > > Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing.  Go to
    > > another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
    > > the other building and use that to create detail in the image.

    >
    > You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams


    I don't understand your statement. Sure the guy blew the picture and
    the bulk of the posters are having fun blasting him for it. I guess
    that's good fun for some. But he didn't ask people how to bad his
    photos were, he asked for some help on fixing photos that he really
    can't re-take. So all of the suggestions to retake this or bracket
    that might be great for the next time, but it doesn't help the here
    and now.

    I've blown pictures before and I'm sure you have to. Sometimes you
    just have to play the hand that's dealt to you. I mean who hasn't
    cloned a bit of pavement to get rid of a pothole or a mirage? Who
    hasn't cloned some brick to fill in the spot where a telephone photo
    was? Who hasn't spent hours spotting out negatives trying to fix the
    problem by making negative masks and inter-negs?

    No solutions are perfect but there are ways to enhance what's there.
    I think that's what he was originally look for, not just criticism and
    suggestions for the future.
     
    Pat, Nov 16, 2008
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 15, 12:05 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > tony cooper wrote:
    > > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:46:43 -0500, Alan Browne
    > >> I guess your take from this should be:

    >
    > >> 1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose.  Blown highlights are gone;
    > >> underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.

    >
    > >> 2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose.  More of 1
    > >> above.  Dump the P2.  Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.

    >
    > >> 3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
    > >> camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).

    >
    > > No, Alan, my take is that I think I have an interesting problem of
    > > blown highlights in a photograph that might otherwise be interesting.
    > > Not great, but interesting.  That take prompts me to offer the image
    > > for discussion.

    >
    > This is not so much blown highlights as entire portions of an image that
    > are void of information.


    Yes there are entire portions that are blown. So what. Blowing out a
    sky to get a better exposure is often acceptable because it's easy to
    replace a sky with a better sky. Then you can arrange your clouds,
    etc. Window reflects are also nearly impossible not to blow out if
    the sun is in the right position.

    There are some fixes that are available. Why not concentrate on being
    positive and offer suggestions as to how to fix the image in question
    rather than making suggestions that don't help fix the problems.

    >
    > > My take is also that some people enjoy figuring out how to bolt the
    > > barn door after the horse is gone by using Photoshop.  I can't imagine
    > > that there's any active photographer in this group who hasn't taken an
    > > image thinking at the time that he's done it right, and finding out
    > > later that there's a problem in the photo.  I can't imagine that
    > > there's any active photographer in this group who has not been in the
    > > position of seeing an interesting scene but not having the right
    > > equipment with him at the time.  It happens.

    >
    > Mature, experienced photographers recognize when a photo is beyond
    > reasonable recovery in photoshop.  Your photo is not worth much time.
    > I've made similar and for that matter much worse, took my lesson and
    > moved on.
    >
    > > What do you want out of this newsgroup, Alan?  Endless discussions
    > > about P&S capabilities, a series of character attacks on the other
    > > posters, a bigoted commentary about homosexuals, or more dreary
    > > side-taking on Nikon vs Canon?

    >
    > Tony, yes, it's absolutely and entirely my fault that you took a crappy
    > shot and are hoping to recover completely blown highlights (eg: No
    > recoverable detail) into an acceptable photo.
    >
    > Where we discuss PS here it is in the domain of the 'possible' not the
    > domain of creating something from nothing.
    >
    > Dump your P&S camera and use your D40.  That will give you a lot more
    > chances in marginal conditions.
    >
    > > Or, would you rather have a discussion about an actual digital image
    > > that didn't work out right and what can be done about it?  If this is
    > > your choice, provide meaningful commentary or go on to what interests
    > > you.

    >
    > You're missing the point.
    >
    > You want to recover a seriously blown out photo.  You can:
    >
    > 1. Spend many hours to do something in PS that may be satisfactory.
    > This means inventing detail because absolutely no detail was recorded.
    > It was completely and irrevocably burned out of the image.
    >
    > 2. You can look for a magic solution (there is none).
    >
    > 3. You can accept the fundamental lesson that if you want a higher take
    > level then it begins at the moment you record the data.
    >
    > The majority of people here are _photographers_ not photoshop jockeys.
    > We use photoshop as a tool to present a photo well taken with a minimum
    > of repair because we (at least try to) take technically adequate if not
    > superior images.  We also dump the dogs.
    >
    > And from my dealings with people who compose advertising and corporate
    > art and who know photoshop inside and out, I can assure you that they
    > look for quality inputs for their quality outputs.  They do not waste
    > time with poor stock.
    >
    > And neither should you.  In the time you will take to 'recover' the
    > image you could be out in the street in sunny warm Florida making
    > another hundred images with a higher level of care.
    >
    > --
    > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > --        r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    > --      [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    > --                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    > -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
     
    Pat, Nov 16, 2008
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    Mark Thomas Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Pat wrote:
    >> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>> To the Photoshop users here....
    >>>
    >>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >>>
    >>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    >>> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >>>
    >>> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    >>> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    >>> without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    >>> area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    >>> affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    >>> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    >>> too fine to do a selection on.
    >>>
    >>> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    >>> can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
    >>>
    >>> Any technique suggestions?
    >>>
    >>> Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    >>
    >> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
    >> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
    >> layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
    >> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
    >> piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
    >> blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
    >> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
    >> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
    >> black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
    >> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
    >> you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
    >> appropriate level of misty gray.
    >>
    >> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
    >> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
    >> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.

    >
    > You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
    >


    Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?

    I thought Pat's answer was quite useful, and gave a good explanation of
    a very simple, if potentially time-consuming technique, that could be
    useful in this case.

    Hands up if you have never screwed up a shot similarly. My hand is down.
     
    Mark Thomas, Nov 16, 2008
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
    <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Pat wrote:
    >>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>> To the Photoshop users here....
    >>>>
    >>>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    >>>> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
    >>>>
    >>>> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    >>>> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    >>>> without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    >>>> area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    >>>> affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    >>>> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    >>>> too fine to do a selection on.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    >>>> can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any technique suggestions?
    >>>>
    >>>> Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>
    >>> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
    >>> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
    >>> layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
    >>> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
    >>> piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
    >>> blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
    >>> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
    >>> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
    >>> black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
    >>> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
    >>> you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
    >>> appropriate level of misty gray.
    >>>
    >>> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
    >>> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
    >>> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.

    >>
    >> You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
    >>

    >
    >Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?


    I think you misunderstand John's comment. I read it as pertaining to
    the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
    building in the same area and blend it in. John's read the other
    posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
    shot is quite distant from where I am now.

    I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself. Most
    concentrated on exactly what I brought up: correcting the one flawed
    area.

    Don't get me wrong. I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
    didn't have a flawed area. In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
    great photo. It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
    correction.

    Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
    have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
    most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
    shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
    You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
    practice on any shot and learn the skills.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2008
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 16, 10:47 am, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > tony cooper wrote:
    > > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
    > > <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >
    > >> John McWilliams wrote:
    > >>> Pat wrote:
    > >>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > >>>>> To the Photoshop users here....

    >
    > >>>>> In this image:  http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg

    >
    > >>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out.  The third story

    >
    > << Snipped bits out >>
    >
    >
    >
    > >>>> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
    > >>>> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
    > >>>> layer.  Then I would convert the new layer to B&W.  Then I would play
    > >>>> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
    > >>>> piece of data that you have pushed to black.  Just the completely
    > >>>> blown out sections as white.  Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
    > >>>> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc.  I
    > >>>> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
    > >>>> black areas where you need to fix the image.  I would then play around
    > >>>> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
    > >>>> you get something that looks decent.  The black should end up the
    > >>>> appropriate level of misty gray.

    >
    > >>>> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing.  Go to
    > >>>> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
    > >>>> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
    > >>> You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?

    >
    > >> Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?

    >
    > > I think you misunderstand John's comment.  I read it as pertaining to
    > > the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
    > > building in the same area and blend it in.  John's read the other
    > > posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
    > > shot is quite distant from where I am now.

    >
    > > I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself.  Most
    > > concentrated on exactly what I brought up:  correcting the one flawed
    > > area.  

    >
    > > Don't get me wrong.  I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
    > > didn't have a flawed area.  In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
    > > great photo.  It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
    > > correction.  

    >
    > > Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
    > > have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan.  I think
    > > most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
    > > shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
    > > You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue.  You
    > > practice on any shot and learn the skills.

    >
    > I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
    > compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
    > to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
    > it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
    >
    > Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams


    Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
    civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
    decline in civilization as we know it.
     
    Pat, Nov 16, 2008
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), Pat
    <> wrote:

    >On Nov 16, 10:47 am, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >> tony cooper wrote:
    >> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
    >> > <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >> >>> Pat wrote:
    >> >>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> >>>>> To the Photoshop users here....

    >>
    >> >>>>> In this image:  http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah 020b.jpg

    >>
    >> >>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out.  The third story

    >>
    >> << Snipped bits out >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >>>> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
    >> >>>> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
    >> >>>> layer.  Then I would convert the new layer to B&W.  Then I would play
    >> >>>> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
    >> >>>> piece of data that you have pushed to black.  Just the completely
    >> >>>> blown out sections as white.  Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
    >> >>>> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc.  I
    >> >>>> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
    >> >>>> black areas where you need to fix the image.  I would then play around
    >> >>>> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
    >> >>>> you get something that looks decent.  The black should end up the
    >> >>>> appropriate level of misty gray.

    >>
    >> >>>> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing.  Go to
    >> >>>> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
    >> >>>> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
    >> >>> You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?

    >>
    >> >> Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?

    >>
    >> > I think you misunderstand John's comment.  I read it as pertaining to
    >> > the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
    >> > building in the same area and blend it in.  John's read the other
    >> > posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
    >> > shot is quite distant from where I am now.

    >>
    >> > I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself.  Most
    >> > concentrated on exactly what I brought up:  correcting the one flawed
    >> > area.  

    >>
    >> > Don't get me wrong.  I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
    >> > didn't have a flawed area.  In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
    >> > great photo.  It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
    >> > correction.  

    >>
    >> > Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
    >> > have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan.  I think
    >> > most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
    >> > shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
    >> > You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue.  You
    >> > practice on any shot and learn the skills.

    >>
    >> I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
    >> compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
    >> to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
    >> it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
    >>
    >> Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
    >>
    >> --
    >> john mcwilliams

    >
    >Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
    >civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
    >decline in civilization as we know it.


    I plead guilty to attempting rational and polite discussion. It's
    a character flaw on my part that I attribute to my upbringing. I was
    taught that disagreement between parties can be an acceptable
    condition, and that disagreement can result in mutual enlightenment.

    Obviously, that has ill-prepared me for newsgroup participation. I
    blame my parents.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2008
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:41:17 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Hey, you freakin' moron, you chillblane on the butt of trailer-trash,


    Look, you ill-educated blot of snot on my screen...the word is
    "chilblain", and it affects the feet, fingers, and - occasionally -
    the earlobes. Unless you have your head and your ears stuck far up
    your ass, you can't have chilblains on your butt.

    How'd I do? I think I successfully combined a personal insult with a
    condescending touch of superiority in knowledge of medical
    afflictions.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2008
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 16, 1:52 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:41:17 -0800, John McWilliams
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Hey, you freakin' moron, you chillblane on the butt of trailer-trash,

    >
    > Look, you ill-educated blot of snot on my screen...the word is
    > "chilblain", and it affects the feet, fingers, and - occasionally -
    > the earlobes.  Unless you have your head and your ears stuck far up
    > your ass, you can't have chilblains on your butt.
    >
    > How'd I do?  I think I successfully combined a personal insult with a
    > condescending touch of superiority in knowledge of medical
    > afflictions.  
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    There we go. All is right with the world. All the moron and trolls
    are back feeding off of each other and insulting the world with their
    senseless dribble. Ahh. Sanity has returned.

    At least no one has hijacked the thread and returned to the usual
    banter that effects this newsgroup such as the superiority of one
    camera system over another or some political B.S. that gets everyone
    arguing opinion instead of facts. BTW, did any of you notice that the
    pictures of Obama -- our soon-to-be first black president -- seem to
    be noticeably better when shot with Canon cameras. It must be their
    far superior sensors and outstanding lenses. And as for Palin,
    nothing helps there, not even shooting in RAW can reach the depths of
    her soulless aura. And what's up with RAW. How come people always
    use RAW but don't use JPG and instead use jpg or .jpg. Is this some
    subtle form of discrimination. But WHY DON"T WE JUST PUT EVERYTHING
    IN CAPS?

    With the newsgroup fixed, I guess I'll just have to decide what I am
    buying myself for Christmas -- a P&S or a SLR. I think I'll get them
    cheap because no one is buying many film cameras anymore. Boy, I LOVE
    shooting film.
     
    Pat, Nov 16, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    474
  2. Don
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
  3. Dennis
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    560
    Jim Berwick
    Oct 10, 2004
  4. J C Ames

    HDD blow out

    J C Ames, Nov 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
    Martik
    Nov 25, 2005
  5. (PeteCresswell)
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,961
    Graham.
    Feb 12, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page