[jacksonpt]

Anyone have a few minutes to help me lighten a photo? I can get pretty decent results, but I end up losing detail and/or feeling like the photo is washed out.

Here is the original

Here is the best I could do. Notice the loss of detail in the bottom half of the tire and in the sole of my shoe. Also - the sky/trees background feels washed out. I used a layer mask to adjust the levels. I tried applying the mask to only certain portions of the photo (trying to keep the background from feeling washed out), it didn't look natural.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[binary visions]

I can't help you too much here but I can give you a hand when I get home on my lunch break.

There IS no detail in the bottom of the shoe or the tire, so you aren't going to bring anything out by lightening it. That shadow detail is lost because there's no information to bring out.

Photoshop has a nice set of slider bars that let you lighten shadow areas and darken highlight areas independantly, and I can run the image through that when I get home. The photo has a lot of dynamic range, though, and the result is that the camera is missing some of the shadow detail and some of the highlight detail.

 

[jacksonpt]

I guess it's not that I'm losing detail in the darker areas, but that I'm bringing out the noise (insert flavor flav reference here).

 

[binary visions]

I guess it's not that I'm losing detail in the darker areas, but that I'm bringing out the noise (insert flavor flav reference here).

Yep, when you lighten a photo, that's when you get a lot of noise.

Bringing out the noise is okay... as long as you don't bring out the funk.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Yep, when you lighten a photo, that's when you get a lot of noise.

Bringing out the noise is okay... as long as you don't bring out the funk.

And just what, pray tell, is wrong with the funk?

 

[binary visions]

And just what, pray tell, is wrong with the funk?

As a photographer, it's important to not let the funk show in your photos.

I hear Photoshop CS5 is scheduled to have a "funk reduction filter".

 

[SkaredShtles]

As a photographer, it's important to not let the funk show in your photos.

I hear Photoshop CS5 is scheduled to have a "funk reduction filter".

Damn new skoolers.

I don't mind a little funk in my photos. Give 'em some character.

 

[urbaindk]

Damn new skoolers.

I don't mind a little funk in my photos. Give 'em some character.

I'm with SS. Bring the funk.

Here's my attempt. BV's right. There is very little detail in the tires or shoe. In my tweek I messed with the shadow/highlights contrast/brightness I added as much as I could with out bringing the noise. I also added a little saturation to make the greens pop. I think that maybe I added too much saturation because the sun spots on the trees started getting a little distracting. I tend to err towards the side darker side of contrast / brightness because I like to impart a more moody feel in my shots.

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip> I tend to err towards the side darker side of contrast / brightness because I like to impart a more moody feel in my shots.

That's really surprising, given your musical history.

 

[urbaindk]

That's really surprising, given your musical history.

Yeah, I really should post some of my stuff up some day. I keep meaning to do it but I never get around to it.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Yeah, I really should post some of my stuff up some day. I keep meaning to do it but I never get around to it.

Just post that picture of The Depressors. You know - the one of you moody bahstids sitting on a junk car?

 

[Echo]

That pic would be awesome if the bike was a singlespeed :devil:

 

[narlus]

shooting in RAW helps you correct this better than jpg, i believe. the shots i have in the acoustic guitar show post led my friend who was at the show to comment thusly:

"Those pictures came out way better than I was expecting. You got some contrast and definition in there while there was no light to speak of."

 

[Graphics]

Giving it a shot now...be back in a flash

 

[binary visions]

shooting in RAW helps you correct this better than jpg, i believe. the shots i have in the acoustic guitar show post led my friend who was at the show to comment thusly:

"Those pictures came out way better than I was expecting. You got some contrast and definition in there while there was no light to speak of."

It's a digicam... it likely has no RAW option, and TIFF images take several seconds to record.

 

[SkaredShtles]

It's a digicam... it likely has no RAW option, and TIFF images take several seconds to record.

Don't get defensive - it's just narlus being a camera snob.

 

[urbaindk]

Just post that picture of The Depressors. You know - the one of you moody bahstids sitting on a junk car?

So sad...

 

[SkaredShtles]

So sad...

I approve!

Goddammit! :mumble:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jdschall again.

 

[jacksonpt]

shooting in RAW helps you correct this better than jpg, i believe. the shots i have in the acoustic guitar show post led my friend who was at the show to comment thusly:

"Those pictures came out way better than I was expecting. You got some contrast and definition in there while there was no light to speak of."

I can shoot uncompressed TIFFs, but I only get like 5 on a memory stick, so I rarely do it.

I need a better cam...

 

[Graphics]

here's a shot at it...guess it's not much of a help...sorry

 

[narlus]

It's a digicam... it likely has no RAW option, and TIFF images take several seconds to record.

my G2 can shoot RAW (but i never use it).

 

[binary visions]

my G2 can shoot RAW (but i never use it).

Yep, I know, but I know what digicam he has and I know it can't shoot raw

 

[binary visions]

Here's my shot:

I'll send you the full size if you like it. Unfortunately, the highlights near the trees in the upper middle were so blown out that it messed with the edges... Not a lot you can do unless you leave them blown.

 

[narlus]

so what's the answer here? reduce EC by 1/3 or more?

btw, for noise reduction i've found Noise Ninja to work pretty well. i use ISO1600 for all my concert shots, and sometimes it's necessary to remove artifacts.

 

[binary visions]

No, there's just nothing you can do with that kind of dynamic range to capture everything. The only thing you can do is shoot RAW and bring as much of it back in post processing as you can, but that's not a good option with a little digicam. Underexposing it any more would have totally lost the data of the foot/tire and some of the bike. At least most of the tree branches were still there, even if they were a bit blown.

In an image like this where exposure bracketing isn't an option... well, I think this exposure came pretty close to nailing a happy medium. I might have actually over exposed it by another half stop to bring out more shadows and said to hell with the highlights, I'll call it "stylized"

Oh, and jackson, I got caught up in the thread's purpose to fix it.. but I like the picture a lot

 

[binary visions]

If you really wanted to push it, a second, underexposed capture immediately after the rider went past (without moving the camera) would allow you to blend in some of the trees.

 

[jacksonpt]

Thanks everyone. I really like the versions you all posted. But it's also nice to see that I wasn't that far off... just a little too light.

I'd love to get more into this type of thing - both photography and post-processing. I just don't have the time right now.

 

[narlus]

jackson, here are two books which i've found extremely helpful:

understanding exposure

The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers

i'm only about 1/3 of the way into the 2nd book, but it's been very helpful so far.

 

[LordOpie]

 

[N8 v2.0]

HAhAHA!!

You've got REP!!!

 

[urbaindk]

Here's my shot:

.

BV in your adjustments how did you get some much more in the green range. Looks like you got a little orange in the leaves in the for ground as well. Did you adjust the saturation independently for different channels or did you just whack the overall saturation really hard? Or something else entirely?

 

[binary visions]

BV in your adjustments how did you get some much more in the green range. Looks like you got a little orange in the leaves in the for ground as well. Did you adjust the saturation independently for different channels or did you just whack the overall saturation really hard? Or something else entirely?

It's all about the order you do the steps in.

Let's see if I can remember what I did:

- Use the darken highlights slider and really whack the highlights hard - the ONLY highlights in that picture are blown ones
- Use the Levels adjustment to brighten up the picture a little
- Use the darken highlights slider again and brighten shadows to taste
- Up the contrast a little
- Use the PFree purple fringing plugin and play with the sliders until most of the fringing is gone
- Create a new layer mask and saturate until satisfied with the trees and ground, and then brush the flesh tones, socks and most of the bike bits out of the mask layer
- Slight contrast & brightness tweaking (I think I bumped down the brightness a bit and up the contrast, but I might be mistaken )
- Slight noise reduction (it started to hurt detail so I didn't do much)
- Slight unsharp mask

It sounds like a lot but it only took me about 5 minutes. If I had more time, I probably would have edited the trees, ground and rider in seperate masks.

I assumed that a little orange was the right color for the ground leaves because of what looked to be sunset spots on the trees. Sometimes you have to interpret when you edit a photo you didn't take

 

[Toshi]

the only solutions would be to:

a) shoot with a camera with more dynamic range. that'd be a dSLR if you want to stay digital.
b) shoot RAW and convert twice, once pushed, once pulled. combine in photoshop
or, c) fix your lighting. don't shoot when the sky is that bright, or (under)expose to suit the sky and light up the foreground with a flash or three.

 

[biggins]

the other fix for the blown out areas around the trees would be to use a circular polarizing filter with the polarized part on top...combine that with a UV filter and WHAM you get some serious blue and no washed out white sky that bleeds into the trees.

 

[Toshi]

huh, which filter do you have, biggins? i know of graduated neutral density filters but haven't heard of a polarizer that is graduated (as in it has a "horizon line" above which there is polarizer/filter action).

 

[Graphics]

the other fix for the blown out areas around the trees would be to use a circular polarizing filter with the polarized part on top...combine that with a UV filter and WHAM you get some serious blue and no washed out white sky that bleeds into the trees.

I tried using the circular RJ filter with my camera...but it creates this weird affect that i just don't like.

 

[biggins]

huh, which filter do you have, biggins? i know of graduated neutral density filters but haven't heard of a polarizer that is graduated (as in it has a "horizon line" above which there is polarizer/filter action).

sunpak makes it it is really inexpensive and has a horizon line in it that is graduated....it screws on and spins so you ca ntune it to your needs.

 

[Graphics]

....it screws on and spins so you can tune it to your needs.

where do i get me one? :love:

 

[Toshi]

and you're sure it's a graduated polarizer, not a graduated neutral density? i can't find such a beast on b&h or adorama.

 

[biggins]

and you're sure it's a graduated polarizer, not a graduated neutral density? i can't find such a beast on b&h or adorama.

its a defined horizon circular polarizer that screws onto the front of the lens...costs maybe 25-30 bucks.....Best Buy actually has them.....