Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How do I recover interior photography blown out?  (Read 13698 times)
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2007, 08:09:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
and hope the client doesn't notice or care about your incompetence
And who anointed Jonathan Wienke lord of the Luminous Landscape?

The poster, couleur, seeking sincere technical help and humbly posting an image-in-question, didn't ask for a critique of the image and he certainly didn't ask for an attack on his abilities. (Yes, suggesting that anyone here is incompetent is an attack!) Did couleur not say he was an assistant on this photo?

Frankly, without a sincere apology, I think Jonathan Wienke looks like a horse's ass on this thread. I have no admiration and respect for teachers, helpers, or photographers who think it's OK to condescend and belittle anyone with a sincere question. This pompous, let-me-put-you-in-your-place behavior shows something lacking, alright, and it's far more offensive than anything in couleur's inviting photo.

Photographers come here to learn. They won't post here if they feel they will be judged, attacked and bullied, especially by some blowbag in a military uniform. Keep your throne on your blog, Jonathan. It has no place at Luminous Landscape.
Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2007, 10:07:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Before the troops decide to frag poor Jonathan, lets all remember even Jonathan is entitled to a bad day....or week. Fragging Jonathan won't be of any help to the OP's query.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 10:10:29 AM by Philmar » Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2007, 10:34:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Photographers come here to learn. They won't post here if they feel they will be judged, attacked and bullied, especially by some blowbag in a military uniform. Keep your throne on your blog, Jonathan. It has no place at Luminous Landscape.

Pointing out that the problem was operator error (exposure error) and there isn't an easy solution short of reshooting or a LOT of tedious Photoshop work may not be ego-gratifying to coleur, but is the way things are, and pretending otherwise will not make him or anyone else a better photographer. I offered constructive solutions to the problem in my first post, and in subsequent posts as well.

I think it's worth noting that the response to my post has been more far personal and vitriolic than the use of the term "incompetence" well within its meaning. If you are so distraught over my use of the word "incompetence", isn't it just a bit hypocritical on your part to use phrases like "horse's ass" and "some blowbag in a military uniform"? At best, you're engaging in the same sort of behavior you're criticizing me for engaging in.
Logged

joedevico
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2007, 10:48:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think it's worth noting that the response to my post has been more far personal and vitriolic than the use of the term "incompetence" well within its meaning. If you are so distraught over my use of the word "incompetence", isn't it just a bit hypocritical on your part to use phrases like "horse's ass" and "some blowbag in a military uniform"? At best, you're engaging in the same sort of behavior you're criticizing me for engaging in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Although I don't like - nor do I regularly participate in these types of discussions - I do feel that Jonathan's original post could have left off the "and hope the client doesn't notice or care about your incompetence. "

Also - the name calling in return is just as infantile.

I am always reminded something that one of my mentors said once too me after I made an error that a more experienced player would not have. He looked me square in the eye and said..."It's okay, I made a mistake once too...I think it was in the early 60's"

Needless to say - Jonathan - if you learned not to blow highlights by reading about digital sensors before you had ever done so on a shoot, then more power to you. If not then remember - we all started somewhere, I don't know any photographers or musicians who don't have at least one horror story about a shoot or gig that went wrong. It's how you handle the situation afterwards that shows your real worth. Although incompetent may have been grammatically correct, I think that's it's generally perceived intent is less than complimentary - although less so than being called a horse's ass, and was entirely irrelevant to the OP's question.

Perception is reality...my .02
Logged

Joe DeVico
the PhotoGraphic Design Group
www.photographicdesigngroup.com
www.jdvmusic.com
full time musician - part time photographer
Thomas Krüger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2007, 11:34:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Hot thread here...  

Going HDR is difficult with such a high dynamic range, because all the tonemappers will probably give some kind of unnatural results.

You can also exposure first for the room and the second picture for the outdoor scene. Doing the room you can try to close the window from outside with a blind or something.
Later in Photoshop paint the layer mask to obtain the outdoor scene through the window.
A plugin like Vertus Fluid Mask can be a great help.
Logged
bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2007, 11:48:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pointing out that the problem was operator error (exposure error) and there isn't an easy solution short of reshooting or a LOT of tedious Photoshop work may not be ego-gratifying to coleur, but is the way things are, and pretending otherwise will not make him or anyone else a better photographer. I offered constructive solutions to the problem in my first post, and in subsequent posts as well.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is quite an easy fix in photoshop, and something that is done routinely for this type of problem.

Here is an example that mirrors the original problem exactly-it took me less than ten minutes to fix.


[attachment=3309:attachment][attachment=3310:attachment]
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 11:52:02 AM by bdkphoto » Logged

Kevin W Smith
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2007, 12:04:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is quite an easy fix in photoshop, and something that is done routinely for this type of problem.

Here is an example that mirrors the original problem exactly-it took me less than ten minutes to fix.
[attachment=3309:attachment][attachment=3310:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Once you know how, it certainly is. The vitriol that followed is totally un called for, especially since the original poster already has a fix in hand in the form of his under bracket(s). Poor guy got what, 3-4 helpful posts in a 2 page thread? That reflects pretty badly on the rest of us...
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2007, 12:06:08 PM »
ReplyReply

And your windows aren't blown out nearly as much as coleur's; yours still have some curtain texture within the actual window opening, and his do not. In addition, colueur has the large completely blown-out area of window reflection on the floor to deal with that you do not. You at least managed to keep some detail in the highlights, and have something fairly easy to work with. Coleur does not. Highlight recovery can help a lot in marginal situations where only one or two channels are clipped, but once all the color channels of the original RAW or JPEG are clipped, there is nothing to recover. This is not a 10-minute-fix-in-Photoshop thing.
Logged

bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2007, 01:07:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And your windows aren't blown out nearly as much as coleur's; yours still have some curtain texture within the actual window opening, and his do not. In addition, colueur has the large completely blown-out area of window reflection on the floor to deal with that you do not. You at least managed to keep some detail in the highlights, and have something fairly easy to work with. Coleur does not. Highlight recovery can help a lot in marginal situations where only one or two channels are clipped, but once all the color channels of the original RAW or JPEG are clipped, there is nothing to recover. This is not a 10-minute-fix-in-Photoshop thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example.  If you care to learn about how to do this easily in Photoshop please feel free to sign up for my class at ICP here in NYC, as I incorporate these methods as part of my course on digital architectural photography.
Logged

mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2007, 01:48:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pointing out that the problem was operator error
"Error" is always in the eye of the beholder. Nobody asked you to play judge or determine photographer competence.
Quote
If you are so distraught over my use of the word "incompetence", isn't it just a bit hypocritical on your part to use phrases like "horse's ass" and "some blowbag in a military uniform"? At best, you're engaging in the same sort of behavior you're criticizing me for engaging in.
Posters who bring inappropriate attacks to a thread first and then wag their "you hypocrite" finger at others who slap them back are ubiquitous on the internet. I did not enjoy giving you a taste of your own bully medicine but I felt it was necessary. Furthermore, if any situation calls for it, I am a hypocrite and proud of it! I change my mind all the time.
Quote
Also - the name calling in return is just as infantile.
I prefer to call it "young minded."

I didn't call Jonathan Wienke a horse's ass. I said he looks like one (given the attack and "I'm superior" tone of his writing on this thread.) I agree, "blowbag in a military uniform" may have gone too far but I thought "blowbag" described his verbosity well and the picture says it all.

Attacks tend to beget attacks. One would think that uniformed individuals should know better.
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2007, 01:53:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I prefer to call it "young minded."

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's getting off the point of this thread - and more suitable for pub discussion, but I would argue someone who is 'young minded' is a person who is curious, creative and unbound by convention rather than infantile in the derogatory sense. Obviously, I would prefer more young minded rather than infantile people if we can achieve it  
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2007, 02:14:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
onathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example. If you care to learn about how to do this easily in Photoshop please feel free to sign up for my class at ICP here in NYC, as I incorporate these methods as part of my course on digital architectural photography.

Which, of course, no one could sign up for as you are essentially anonymous here. i agree with your point though.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3957



« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2007, 02:17:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Error" is always in the eye of the beholder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, come on. You can argue about the tone of Johnathan's reply and about whether it was reasonable to use the word incompetent, but to blow highlights like that is an error. Culpable? Maybe. Incompetent? On that occasion. An error? Of course.

Jeremy
Logged
bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2007, 02:27:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which, of course, no one could sign up for as you are essentially anonymous here. i agree with your point though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry - I forgot that I do not have a link to my site enabled - www.brucekatzphoto.com
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2007, 02:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry - I forgot that I do not have a link to my site enabled - www.brucekatzphoto.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice work.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2007, 02:33:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nice work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks, right back at you too.
Logged

Kevin W Smith
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2007, 02:48:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oh, come on. You can argue about the tone of Johnathan's reply and about whether it was reasonable to use the word incompetent, but to blow highlights like that is an error. Culpable? Maybe. Incompetent? On that occasion. An error? Of course.

Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Give the guy a break - he did brackets "just in case." He knows what HDR is but hadn't tried it, so he knows something about doing multiple exposures and blending them. Why he didn't try it before posting I don't know, but the crap that he got was way out of line.

Jeff Schewe pointed him to his technique, and I spelled out mine, neither of which require HDR techniques - which as Kirk accurately mentions, usually sucks for shots like this. We threw him a rope that could easily save the image with exposures he already had (but didn't display) which was all he was asking for.

Geez, this really gives me pause to ask for help around here. None of you has ever made a mistake, or asked for ideas on how to use something you kind of know in a different or better way? Please.

Sad thing is, the original poster probably saw the first 5 replies and left for good, so now he'll never know how to save his image.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2007, 02:57:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan- with all due respect, you are simply incorrect. I did not use highlight recovery, I used the method that Jeff Schewe and Kevin Smith describe in their posts. I have used it with great success on far worse shots than the original example.

I'm well aware of that method, and use it myself form time to time, and it is simply one form of highlight recovery. But it still requires that there still be some detail in the highlights when you slide exposure to -3 or so in ACR. ACR does great at recovering highlights when some, but not all of the color channels are clipped in RAW, but when all 3 color channels are clipped in the RAW, no highlight recovery method is effective, and even if you move exposure to -4 stops you still have a featureless solid color (though it may be gray instead of white). If you put the exposure slider to -4 and still don't see detail, you are completely hosed and no RAW processing technique will bring it back.

In your example, parts of the curtain not shaded by the window frame have detail even in the single-pass processed image. So your RAW is barely clipped, and only in one or two color channels, and some detail is therefore recoverable. In coleur's shot, the clipping is much worse. Not only is all of the curtain with window behind it completely clipped, but so is the reflection in the hardwood floor, which is probably about 2 stops below the window (reflections being dimmer than the original light source). The technique you propose would get some detail back in the hardwood floor, but the transition between the detailed and clipped area would become significantly less gradual, and the window would stay clipped.

Besides, don't you think coleur might have already tried playing with the exposure slider already?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 03:17:33 PM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2007, 04:27:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm well aware of that method, and use it myself form time to time, and it is simply one form of highlight recovery. But it still requires that there still be some detail in the highlights when you slide exposure to -3 or so in ACR. ACR does great at recovering highlights when some, but not all of the color channels are clipped in RAW, but when all 3 color channels are clipped in the RAW, no highlight recovery method is effective, and even if you move exposure to -4 stops you still have a featureless solid color (though it may be gray instead of white). If you put the exposure slider to -4 and still don't see detail, you are completely hosed and no RAW processing technique will bring it back.

In your example, parts of the curtain not shaded by the window frame have detail even in the single-pass processed image. So your RAW is barely clipped, and only in one or two color channels, and some detail is therefore recoverable. In coleur's shot, the clipping is much worse. Not only is all of the curtain with window behind it completely clipped, but so is the reflection in the hardwood floor, which is probably about 2 stops below the window (reflections being dimmer than the original light source). The technique you propose would get some detail back in the hardwood floor, but the transition between the detailed and clipped area would become significantly less gradual, and the window would stay clipped.

Besides, don't you think coleur might have already tried playing with the exposure slider already?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Let me be clear, the method I used involved 2 separate exposures; One exposure that is perfect for the overall interior and a second exposure that is perfect for the windows. The second deeper (window) exposure was brought into PS as a layer and blended with the original.  This is what Kevin Smith suggested in his post, Schewe's suggestion, which is different, probably won't work in this case as you point out.  Either way, it is an easy, simple fix in PS, there is nothing difficult about it. The original post made reference to a bracket of exposures, if he(she) has a deep exposure this method will work easily as I demonstrate.  For your information, my original exposure has no detail in any of the color channels in the window at all.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1283



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2007, 05:58:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The only thing you need to prevent the windows from blowing, is not to blow them. It sounds obvious, but it's the only trick. You must look at your camera's histogram after shooting to find out if the window was blown or not, as simple as that.

The problem is that what you show is a high dynamic range scene, in fact it has a higher dynamic range than your camera can capture with good enough detail, so you need more exposures at a higher exposure rate to capture the darker areas with detail (in the previous shot they will surely be full of noise).

After having 2 (or more, but 2 is enough for 99% of the cases) shots taken at different exposure values, you just need some appropiate method for blending your correctly exposed shot and the additional overexposed shot (I would suggest to overexpose it by 3 or 4 f-stops).

I did this on a series of Interiors photographs with a blending program of mine, and got very good results. If they were not better was simply because I am very bad at PS where some curves adjustments after the blending are needed:

« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 06:00:58 PM by GLuijk » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad