exposure compensation blunder

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dmedhora@gmail.com, Apr 7, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hi All,

    How do I undo the effects of over exposing a photograph?

    I recently took a photo with my 35mm Film SLR camera where I
    unfortunately
    over-exposed the photograph using EV Compensation to about 1/2 or maybe

    even 1
    full stop.

    I took the pictures for development and asked for prints and CD
    storage,
    and so I have 1 negative, 1 developed positive and 1 JPEG of the photo
    on CD

    The scene was that of a rocky snow mountain in the distance against a
    greyish
    white sky, but with a darker foreground (evening). I remember I focused

    on the mountain
    instead of the foreground but increased the exposure
    in order to brighten the foreground, but that has resulted in the rocky

    snow
    mountain looking a bit washed out. It almost blends with the greyish
    white
    sky, obviously, because it is snowy ( not completely though, it can be
    seen, but its obvious that the over exposure has spoilt the natural
    look
    by making everything brighter, i.e th sky, mountain and foreground).

    I don't know a whole lot about tools like gimp, photoshop, etc
    but I HAVE used all of these and played around with their features for
    hours seeing what a great difference can be made if one knows what
    he/she's
    doing. But I am no pro. I can make the jpeg look better but somehow its

    not as natural.

    Primarily, I simply want the mountain to stand out looking more
    visible, defined and
    prominent, like the way it was when I saw it..i.e slight darker than
    the
    background greyish white sky. I'm not so worried about the foreground.

    I'll follow any instructions that you may post out here using any of
    the relevant tools on both windows or linux. Sorry if it sounds like
    I'm asking for a
    tutorial, but I just need advise/instructions on what I should do to
    the JPEG?
    Or with the background in the JPEG?

    I guess I can't do anything with the negative. ?

    I finally want to take another print of the photo :)

    Thanks very much
     
    , Apr 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > How do I undo the effects of over exposing a photograph?
    >
    > I recently took a photo with my 35mm Film SLR camera where I
    > unfortunately
    > over-exposed the photograph using EV Compensation to about 1/2 or maybe
    >
    > even 1
    > full stop.
    >
    > I took the pictures for development and asked for prints and CD
    > storage,
    > and so I have 1 negative, 1 developed positive and 1 JPEG of the photo
    > on CD
    >
    > The scene was that of a rocky snow mountain in the distance against a
    > greyish
    > white sky, but with a darker foreground (evening). I remember I focused
    >
    > on the mountain
    > instead of the foreground but increased the exposure
    > in order to brighten the foreground, but that has resulted in the rocky
    >
    > snow
    > mountain looking a bit washed out. It almost blends with the greyish
    > white
    > sky, obviously, because it is snowy ( not completely though, it can be
    > seen, but its obvious that the over exposure has spoilt the natural
    > look
    > by making everything brighter, i.e th sky, mountain and foreground).
    >
    > I don't know a whole lot about tools like gimp, photoshop, etc
    > but I HAVE used all of these and played around with their features for
    > hours seeing what a great difference can be made if one knows what
    > he/she's
    > doing. But I am no pro. I can make the jpeg look better but somehow its
    >
    > not as natural.
    >
    > Primarily, I simply want the mountain to stand out looking more
    > visible, defined and
    > prominent, like the way it was when I saw it..i.e slight darker than
    > the
    > background greyish white sky. I'm not so worried about the foreground.
    >
    > I'll follow any instructions that you may post out here using any of
    > the relevant tools on both windows or linux. Sorry if it sounds like
    > I'm asking for a
    > tutorial, but I just need advise/instructions on what I should do to
    > the JPEG?
    > Or with the background in the JPEG?
    >
    > I guess I can't do anything with the negative. ?


    The negative almost certainly has substantially greater exposure latitude
    (contains more information in both highlight and shadow areas) than the JPEG
    you're working with. If your overexposure was just 1/2 or 1 stop as you say,
    that shouldn't make it hopeless as far as the negative is concerned. It
    should be possible to rescan the negative to produce a better JPEG.

    If you can't do that or have it done for you, then your best bet is to learn
    more about using whatever software you have on the existing JPEG. As you
    describe the problem, it sounds like you need to adjust brightness and
    contrast to get a better result. Play around with it, and/or get a book on
    the subject if your software manual isn't enough help (which may well be the
    case). See what your local library has.
     
    John Falstaff, Apr 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Dear John,
    Thanks for your reply,

    But, what does "rescan the negative" mean?
    Sorry for being a newbie about this.

    Thanks
     
    , Apr 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Marvin Guest

    John Falstaff wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Hi All,
    >>
    >>How do I undo the effects of over exposing a photograph?
    >>
    >>I recently took a photo with my 35mm Film SLR camera where I
    >>unfortunately
    >>over-exposed the photograph using EV Compensation to about 1/2 or maybe
    >>
    >>even 1
    >>full stop.
    >>
    >>I took the pictures for development and asked for prints and CD
    >>storage,
    >>and so I have 1 negative, 1 developed positive and 1 JPEG of the photo
    >>on CD
    >>
    >>The scene was that of a rocky snow mountain in the distance against a
    >>greyish
    >>white sky, but with a darker foreground (evening). I remember I focused
    >>
    >>on the mountain
    >>instead of the foreground but increased the exposure
    >>in order to brighten the foreground, but that has resulted in the rocky
    >>
    >>snow
    >>mountain looking a bit washed out. It almost blends with the greyish
    >>white
    >>sky, obviously, because it is snowy ( not completely though, it can be
    >>seen, but its obvious that the over exposure has spoilt the natural
    >>look
    >>by making everything brighter, i.e th sky, mountain and foreground).
    >>
    >>I don't know a whole lot about tools like gimp, photoshop, etc
    >>but I HAVE used all of these and played around with their features for
    >>hours seeing what a great difference can be made if one knows what
    >>he/she's
    >>doing. But I am no pro. I can make the jpeg look better but somehow its
    >>
    >>not as natural.
    >>
    >>Primarily, I simply want the mountain to stand out looking more
    >>visible, defined and
    >>prominent, like the way it was when I saw it..i.e slight darker than
    >>the
    >>background greyish white sky. I'm not so worried about the foreground.
    >>
    >>I'll follow any instructions that you may post out here using any of
    >>the relevant tools on both windows or linux. Sorry if it sounds like
    >>I'm asking for a
    >>tutorial, but I just need advise/instructions on what I should do to
    >>the JPEG?
    >>Or with the background in the JPEG?
    >>
    >>I guess I can't do anything with the negative. ?

    >
    >
    > The negative almost certainly has substantially greater exposure latitude
    > (contains more information in both highlight and shadow areas) than the JPEG
    > you're working with. If your overexposure was just 1/2 or 1 stop as you say,
    > that shouldn't make it hopeless as far as the negative is concerned. It
    > should be possible to rescan the negative to produce a better JPEG.
    >
    > If you can't do that or have it done for you, then your best bet is to learn
    > more about using whatever software you have on the existing JPEG. As you
    > describe the problem, it sounds like you need to adjust brightness and
    > contrast to get a better result. Play around with it, and/or get a book on
    > the subject if your software manual isn't enough help (which may well be the
    > case). See what your local library has.
    >
    >

    If the jpeg was properly made from a scan of the negative,
    it will have all of the information on the negative. But it
    isn't a certainty that the scans were well made. It depends
    on who developed the film and made the scan. If the jpeg is
    only a Mp or so in size, it doesn't have all the resolution.
    It may still have the full color depth.
     
    Marvin, Apr 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Craig Guest

    <> wrote...

    > Dear John,
    > Thanks for your reply,
    >
    > But, what does "rescan the negative" mean?


    Assuming that you don't have a good-quality negative/slide scanner (most
    folks don't), it means a search through your Yellow Pages for a photo
    processor nearby that can scan the negative and give you a digital image on
    CD, by email or whatever. In the event that no processors can be found
    nearby you, check online for a service that will let you mail the negative
    to them and get a digital scan back. If this is an important image for you,
    finding a professional scanning service who can give you a tiff file or
    very-high-quality jpg will give you much more to work with in your photo
    imaging software's Levels or Curves (a better way than just adjusting
    Brightness or Contrast). Good luck.

    Craig
     
    Craig, Apr 7, 2006
    #5
  6. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dear John,
    > Thanks for your reply,
    >
    > But, what does "rescan the negative" mean?
    > Sorry for being a newbie about this.


    No problem. We were all newbies once.

    When you sent the film in to be processed and requested a CD along with the
    prints, they had to scan the negatives (with some sort of digital film or
    slide scanner) in order to get a digital file for each frame, which they
    then put on the CD. It may be that they did not make the best possible scan
    from the frame you're concerned with, and someone may be able to make a
    better scan specifically for that frame. That will be an additional expense,
    of course, which may or may not be worth it to you. It's also possible that
    after going to that additional expense you still wouldn't get a satisfactory
    final result, so I would try more experimenting with whatever software
    you're using to see what you can do with the JPEG you've got.

    Many kinds of image editing software are likely to be very intimidating for
    the beginner, so even if you do have a manual for the software you may need
    another book to help you with it. There are books covering most of the
    popular brands and versions, like Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop
    Pro, and so on. Photoshop and its offspring are pretty much the professional
    or serious amateur standards, but have quite a steep learning curve. Many
    users agree that Paint Shop Pro is easier to use and still will do
    practically anything you are likely to want to do with Photoshop, and if you
    don't already have it you should be able to pick up a recent version fairly
    cheap on eBay or maybe even Amazon, and books for it there too if your local
    library doesn't have any.

    A good image editing program (and learning to use it) won't be a waste,
    since there's about a 99% probability that sooner or later you'll get into
    digital photography and you'll want all that anyway.

    Jack
     
    John Falstaff, Apr 7, 2006
    #6
  7. Hunt Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >Hi All,
    >
    >How do I undo the effects of over exposing a photograph?
    >
    >I recently took a photo with my 35mm Film SLR camera where I
    >unfortunately
    >over-exposed the photograph using EV Compensation to about 1/2 or maybe
    >
    >even 1
    >full stop.
    >
    >I took the pictures for development and asked for prints and CD
    >storage,
    >and so I have 1 negative, 1 developed positive and 1 JPEG of the photo
    >on CD
    >
    >The scene was that of a rocky snow mountain in the distance against a
    >greyish
    >white sky, but with a darker foreground (evening). I remember I focused
    >
    >on the mountain
    >instead of the foreground but increased the exposure
    >in order to brighten the foreground, but that has resulted in the rocky
    >
    >snow
    >mountain looking a bit washed out. It almost blends with the greyish
    >white
    >sky, obviously, because it is snowy ( not completely though, it can be
    >seen, but its obvious that the over exposure has spoilt the natural
    >look
    >by making everything brighter, i.e th sky, mountain and foreground).
    >
    >I don't know a whole lot about tools like gimp, photoshop, etc
    >but I HAVE used all of these and played around with their features for
    >hours seeing what a great difference can be made if one knows what
    >he/she's
    >doing. But I am no pro. I can make the jpeg look better but somehow its
    >
    >not as natural.
    >
    >Primarily, I simply want the mountain to stand out looking more
    >visible, defined and
    >prominent, like the way it was when I saw it..i.e slight darker than
    >the
    >background greyish white sky. I'm not so worried about the foreground.
    >
    >I'll follow any instructions that you may post out here using any of
    >the relevant tools on both windows or linux. Sorry if it sounds like
    >I'm asking for a
    >tutorial, but I just need advise/instructions on what I should do to
    >the JPEG?
    >Or with the background in the JPEG?
    >
    >I guess I can't do anything with the negative. ?
    >
    >I finally want to take another print of the photo :)
    >
    >Thanks very much


    As John, and others, have pointed out, a professional scan of the original
    negative will probably be the best bet. I'd also suggest that when this is
    done, that the output NOT be JPG, especially as you will be doing work on it.
    Choose to have the lab give you a CD with the scan in TIFF format. Photoshop
    (and other programs) will allow infinite adjustment to the image - you will be
    amazed! In Photoshop, Save_As PSD, when you are working on the image. Once you
    have what you want, you can Save the final, then Save_As JPG, or whatever, for
    final output.

    In PS CS/CS2, the Image>Adjustment>Highlight & Shadow, would be a good
    starting point. Personally, I'd first Duplicate your Background (italics)
    Layer (Ctrl-J), run Highlight & Shadow on the Dupe Layer, then experiment with
    Opacity. Also Adjustment Layers, and their Layer Masks can work wonders.

    Since you shot negative film, you are ahead of the game. A badly overexposed
    bit of transparency film is a LOT more difficult to work with.

    Good luck,
    Hunt

    --
    NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
     
    Hunt, Apr 7, 2006
    #7
  8. "Craig" <> wrote in message
    news:OXvZf.69444$...
    [ . . . ]
    > finding a professional scanning service who can give you a tiff file or
    > very-high-quality jpg will give you much more to work with in your photo
    > imaging software's Levels or Curves (a better way than just adjusting
    > Brightness or Contrast).


    A tool can only be "better" if it's a) available and b) manageable. The OP
    is a self-described newbie who has evidently tried a number of image editing
    programs and not gotten the results he wants. The software he ends up using
    may not even have Levels and Curves tools, which are just much more
    sophisticated means of adjusting brightness, contrast, etc. anyway.
     
    John Falstaff, Apr 7, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Thank you all,

    I will follow all your instructions and I'm sure it will work for me.
    In fact I've already played around with gimp using the jpeg and now I'm
    looking
    forward to start from scratch after reading your input.

    The jpeg is less than 1 Meg, just 700K or so, so I'm sure another
    professional
    scan into a tif file will help me to manipulate it.

    I'm sure I didn't over expose it more than 1 stop. Therefore its just a
    matter of
    time now for me to get this going.

    Appreciate all your valuable input. Thanks again.
     
    , Apr 7, 2006
    #9
    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. Eyron

    Exposure Compensation

    Eyron, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    599
    Don Stauffer
    Aug 3, 2003
  2. Eyron

    exposure compensation

    Eyron, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    416
    Tesselator
    Aug 5, 2003
  3. Pat Chaney

    10D exposure compensation in Photoshop?

    Pat Chaney, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    569
    Pat Chaney
    Sep 6, 2003
  4. Adam Jenkins

    Kodak DX6490 Exposure Compensation

    Adam Jenkins, Nov 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    425
    Ron Hunter
    Nov 17, 2003
  5. PeterH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    371
    PeterH
    Jun 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page