| |
Para colocar as suas mensagens tem de efectuar primeiro o login.
Clique aqui para efectuar o seu login ou registar-se se for um novo utilizador.
| Página: 1 |
Exibindo mensagens 1 - 11 de 11 |
| Autor |
Mensagem |
Vaaltonen
19 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/01/2008, 20:04:05 PM pela Vaaltonen |
 |
 |
Whats the best way to fix overexposed images? The bride's white dress made some of the pictures way too bright.
Thank you in advance. |
|
Canon Rebel XTi ;
Canon 28-105mm, 3.5-4.5;
Canon 18-55mm
|
Arquivos enviados: 49 | Total de vendas: 12
|
|
Joseppi
91 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/02/2008, 07:39:31 AM pela Joseppi |
|
|
If the highlights, or white dress, is so blown out there is no detail in the area, there isn't much to work with in the traditional sense. Perhaps some dodging, or duplicate layers and masks in Photoshop or similar can help.
It's better to control the exposure when t he photo is taken. One helpful feature on some cameras is on playback, you can show the histograms and the "hills" or graph, should typically lower to the floor of the graph before hitting either side. If a hill is chopped off severely at a side, the exposure is likely "clipping" the shadows or highlights.
Also, some cameras (The Canon SLRs I have do) will blink the area of an image on playback that is overexposed to warn you your exposure is losing the white areas.
Brides dresses in sunlight have a high contrast range, photraphers can sometimes expose for the background, and use fill flash for the subjects, or underexpose a little to keep the dress, then adjust the photos levels and curves later.
Basically, if things are a little underexposed, there is usually something there to work with in processing if needed, but once it's overexposed and blown out, there's nothing there to work with.
HTH,
Joe |
|
Canon 40D, 70-200 L 2.8, 28-135 IS, Sekonic L-358, 3D apps &...
|
Arquivos enviados: 293 | Total de vendas: 594
|
|
Joseppi
91 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/02/2008, 07:48:49 AM pela Joseppi |
|
|
Vaaltonen,
I checked your portfolio after my first reply, and you already have the use of fill flash, etc... So it sounds like you maybe have a few images to work on? In Photoshop (or similar?) You can try things like "burning" the midtones or higlights using a low percentage, but if there is little detail that can quickly overwork the area and look unusual.
Try duplicating you layer, and trying various layer modes on the top layer copy to like "multiply" or others... click through them and see the effects. Remember you can lower the opacity of the top layer, to lessen the effect.
Get the area you want adjusted right, then add a layer mask to the top copy layer, and painting in the layer mask with a soft black brush, mask out the areas on the copy layer that WERE fine, leaving just the highlight areas. This will left the original photo layer area show through form below, and leave your new adjusted highlight area from the top layer...
HTH,
Joe |
|
Canon 40D, 70-200 L 2.8, 28-135 IS, Sekonic L-358, 3D apps &...
|
Arquivos enviados: 293 | Total de vendas: 594
|
|
Vaaltonen
19 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/02/2008, 16:52:38 PM pela Vaaltonen |
|
|
Thank you, Joe.
Too bad there is not much to do to fix the images, the good thing is that only some of them turned out to be overexposed and I did take almost a thousand pictures.
Best regards,
Viktoria. |
|
Canon Rebel XTi ;
Canon 28-105mm, 3.5-4.5;
Canon 18-55mm
|
Arquivos enviados: 49 | Total de vendas: 12
|
|
Colinbrowne
61 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/02/2008, 20:22:45 PM pela Colinbrowne |
|
|
Everything Joseppi said was completely true but it must also be noted that it's always better to shoot RAW, especially at an important occasion like a wedding. It gives you much more control over your post processing.
I recently did a commercial job where I was shooting a car for the manufacturers print ads, etc. There was one scene where the car was driving up the side of a mine dump that looked pretty much like a dessert and it was a blazingly hot day. I accidentally overexposed a vital image in the brief and the white sand was completely flat and burned out. When I took the RAW image into DPP and then Photoshop I managed to get some of the detail back by isolating the ground and adjusting the exposure, contrast and taking the levels down. The shot ended up savable and funnily enough they printed it out at A1 size on glossy photo paper, framed it, and it's hanging in their reception!
So the moral of the story is SHOOT RAW, ALWAYS!
Cheers. Colin. |
|
CAMERA: Canon XTi (400D). LENSES: EF 18-55, EF 50m...
|
Arquivos enviados: 32 | Total de vendas: 121
|
|
Kenny123
147 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/03/2008, 19:01:40 PM pela Kenny123 |
|
|
| Originalmente enviada por Vaaltonen: |
 |
Mensagem Citada: Whats the best way to fix overexposed images? The bride's white dress made some of the pictures way too bright.
Thank you in advance. |
Ctrl+J
blend mode-Multiply
adjust slider to suit
Regards, Ken |
|
Nikon D50
18-55 zoom
70-300 zoom
Canon Ixus/Elph 2 (APS)
...
|
Arquivos enviados: 94 | Total de vendas: 133
|
|
Joseppi
91 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/04/2008, 08:43:08 AM pela Joseppi |
|
|
[quote]Everything Joseppi said was completely true but it must also be noted that it's always better to shoot RAW, especially at an important occasion like a wedding. It gives you much more control over your post processing.... snip.../quote]
Ah, yes, Colin is right.... I forgot to mention that item. I'm not sure the exact range, but RAW seems to have a greater range of light values, so depending on the exposure, more values could still be in the file...
Joe |
|
Canon 40D, 70-200 L 2.8, 28-135 IS, Sekonic L-358, 3D apps &...
|
Arquivos enviados: 293 | Total de vendas: 594
|
|
Kenny123
147 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/05/2008, 02:45:29 AM pela Kenny123 |
|
|
To avoid over exposure in the first place, always take an incident light reading from shadow area of bride's face-as for shooting RAW, I consider it a complete waste of time-why not get things right when you make the shot? Besides it is just as simple to post process Jpegs foe exposure and white balance problems, and fact is if you get all your processing done at the same time, and just save your jpegs at level 12-You will not see the difference between prints made from raw or jpeg. regards, Ken |
|
Nikon D50
18-55 zoom
70-300 zoom
Canon Ixus/Elph 2 (APS)
...
|
Arquivos enviados: 94 | Total de vendas: 133
|
|
Starsofglass
21 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/05/2008, 03:25:40 AM pela Starsofglass |
|
|
| Originalmente enviada por Kenny123: |
|
| Mensagem Citada: To avoid over exposure in the first place, always take an incident light reading from shadow area of bride's face-as for shooting RAW, I consider it a complete waste of time-why not get things right when you make the shot? Besides it is just as simple to post process Jpegs foe exposure and white balance problems, and fact is if you get all your processing done at the same time, and just save your jpegs at level 12-You will not see the difference between prints made from raw or jpeg. regards, Ken |
Personally I disagree very much, shooting RAW gives me much more flexibility for recuperating seemingly blown out highlights, better dynamic range etc. As for white balance, I find it much easier in RAW, personal taste I guess ;-)
But personal preference aside, wedding pictures are not an occasion to take risks, especially since white is a "troublesome" color, and weddings also often involve low light circumstances. "why not get it right when you make the shot?" I presume everyone at least tries to get it right, but if you don't, a small "safety net" is good to have, at weddings there isn't always time to retry when an image is under/overexposed. I'd be more concerned for the bride and groom wanting nice pics, than for my personal pride in wanting perfect shots every time ;-) I started shooting RAW myself at a wedding, and soon thereafter always shot in RAW. I don't think it wastes time, if "everything" is right in the picture, than you can just convert to jpg immediately anyway. The only downside to me is needing bigger/more memory cards :D |
|
Photography: Sony A700 - Fractals: Apophysis
|
Arquivos enviados: 3 | Total de vendas: 0
|
|
Neelrad
181 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 05/09/2008, 08:13:38 AM pela Neelrad |
|
|
If you have Photoshop CS3 and Bridge for CS3 you can open any image in Camera Raw from Bridge. Just select and image in Bridge. Then go to file and slide down to Open in RAW.
Then many of the same tools for RAW are available to you also. That may help a little.
Another thing to try is in Photoshop AFTER duplicating the original layer, go to image adjustments and try Sadow/Highlight. That sometimes helps a little also. |
|
I usually shoot my digital Canon Rebel 6.3 MP.
|
Arquivos enviados: 247 | Total de vendas: 564
|
|
Jstrength2003
3 mensagens
|
|
Mensagem enviada em 07/15/2008, 10:38:38 AM pela Jstrength2003 |
|
|
Yes every thing being said here is true. One thing that I didnt see mensioned is that you should have metered the camera on the dress and taken the shot. If that shot was to dark then open your aperature taking several shots in increments. Or better yet meter on a Gray Card this will get you very near what you want the first time. You can also use the gray card for white balance as well. And yes alwayse alwayse when you are shooting an important event shoot in RAW. |
|
Canon Rebel XTI 400D 10.1 MP.
|
Arquivos enviados: 5 | Total de vendas: 0
|
|
| Página: 1 |
Exibindo mensagens 1 - 11 de 11
Hora local do servidor: 10/14/2008, 03:57:39 AM |
|
|
|
