Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Something I've noticed more and more is that photos that appear to have been originally exposed in such a way as to maintain detail in highlights are being processed in such a way as to severely blow out those highlights, especially in what seem like attempts to create dramatic skies with high contrasts in the clouds.

 

I'm wondering if that simply goes unnoticed by those who post process these images this way and by viewers who seem to like them, or if people think it's a creative and effective artistic choice.

 

IMO, a burned highlight here and there, and even in some cases a large swath of burned highlights, especially given contemporary style sensibilities, can be very expressive. But I do think that, more often, it just looks like a mistake and robs photos of much greater potential.

 

The preservation of detail and texture is a factor that often gives a photo a feel and a depth that makes it come alive. In so many cases, burning out highlights, while it may have an initial impact in terms of drama, wears thin very quickly. Very often, what a photo gives up for high initial impact it loses in a kind of subtlety and nuance that will allow it to grow over time instead of falling pray to a wow moment that has no deeper or lasting power. In rare cases, a graphic rendition of a cloud or a strong light reflection is very moving. But in most cases, it's just a flat, textureless, lifeless over-extenuation of a slider bar.

 

Curious to hear your thoughts.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several ways to create a false overload, including processing with the wrong settings or a poorly calibrated monitor or printer. You can import images from the internet to Photoshop (or Lightroom) and check the exposure. This will exhibit the true status, even if it appears overexposed on your screen.

 

Always check a histogram of the image, including the raw image. There is no tolerance for JPEG and TIFF images, but a raw image has a 4 stop headroom, and may be recovered if only one of three color channels is maxed out.

 

Nobody expects that specular reflections of the sun will have any detail. These usually compose nor more than a small percentage of images. Only high-key (artistic) images are likely to have ;large areas of pure white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... but a raw image has a 4 stop headroom, and may be recovered if only one of three color channels is maxed out."

 

- Absolutely no way does a RAW image have 4 stops headroom. 2 stops max - even though the stupid exposure sliders in Lightroom or whatever may go down to -4. And if one channel is maxed out it's all over. The correct colour curve can never be restored because that channel will be flat-topped forever more.

 

What good would a 4 stop RAW headroom do in any case? It would simply be throwing 4 stops of DR away, effectively reducing a 14 bit A/D conversion down to 10 bits.

 

In response to the OP, I think that a failure to use RAW may well account for the vast majority of cases of blown highlights. Or the poor dynamic range of DSLRs of the Canon 5D mki era.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The preservation of detail and texture is a factor that often gives a photo a feel and a depth that makes it come alive. In so many cases, burning out highlights, while it may have an initial impact in terms of drama, wears thin very quickly. Very often, what a photo gives up for high initial impact it loses in a kind of subtlety and nuance that will allow it to grow over time instead of falling pray to a wow moment that has no deeper or lasting power. In rare cases, a graphic rendition of a cloud or a strong light reflection is very moving. But in most cases, it's just a flat, textureless, lifeless over-extenuation of a slider bar.

 

Curious to hear your thoughts.

 

I've seen the cloud shaped flat white drop outs against the backdrop of a deep blue sky and puzzled over why the photographer would even keep and much less post such an image. If everything else is tack sharp detail where you can see into the shadows then the rest of the image needs to follow suit. But most of the ones that are like this are taken by folks who are consistent snap shooters and feel they need to keep every image they shoot.

 

It is a good example of the ability of a photograph to communicate intent. Some who take and post photos here and elsewhere online don't think about what they are communicating to others with the photos they should keep against those they shouldn't. A decision is being communicated as a self curator.

 

Some things just can't be fixed in a photo especially blown highlights. The only time this works is if shooting a highly dramatic and contrasty backlit scene of the sun shining through a window on patrons in a darkened tavern. There's going to be some blown highlights and most likely plugged shadows but as long as the main intent is conveyed (the dark and lonely ambience of a sparsely lit populated smokey interior) then I'ld deem that worthy keeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if one channel is maxed out it's all over. The correct colour curve can never be restored because that channel will be flat-topped forever more.

 

Hi, actually it's possible to do a pretty passable job in the right situation. For example, my main field has been in portrait photography, in particular high volume work (not school pix, though). Sometimes our lab would get screwed up exposures, where the red channel on skin highlights gets blown.

 

Now, since you already know that it's skin, you know that there is an approximate relationship between R, G, and B. So if R is blown, but you have the G and B values, you should hypothetically be able to "guess" at an R value that looks "right." Of course it's not strictly correct, if the person had a blotchy red spot on top of the already-blown skin this might not be "reconstructed."

 

In practice, I've made what are essentially 3d lookup tables to "correct" such skin tones, and they've been used to successfully print millions of prints. But if the blown areas are other than skin, then this particular fix doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What good would a 4 stop RAW headroom do in any case? It would simply be throwing 4 stops of DR away, effectively reducing a 14 bit A/D conversion down to 10 bits.

Actually, digital images, particularly RAW files on modern cameras have a greatly extended low end compared to film, or even early digital cameras, Extending the headroom has no particular consequences.

 

To illustrate my contention about head room, I have posted a series histograms of of photos of an 18% grey card at 0, +2 and +4 stops, taken in open sunlight. At +4 stops, the tail end of the curve us still visible, indicating that about half of the detail (slight surface texture) is still visible. The median of the curve is about 3.5 stops above the baseline exposure.

 

328502213_Plus0.jpeg.46882d37fcef670ecb07a28e5e8c1e23.jpeg

 

49821353_Plus2.thumb.jpeg.2b2e8be09eaf56e9d7aaf2e5fd35d9a4.jpeg

 

1944959998_Plus4.jpeg.95f3d59ad1a074e2668fe0ef115cf11d.jpeg

Edited by Ed_Ingold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, thanks for responding to my question.

 

One of the reasons I was asking is that I've noticed it happening somewhat often in the regular Post Processing Challenge threads. Those photos often start out having been exposed so the highlights have detail and then get post processed so they no longer do. I like many of the creative things done with photos there, but generally don't like when the clouds or foamy waves turn an unsightly graphic white. I was curious whether this was being done intentionally as an artistic choice or it was just a result of contrast levels being adjusted to what "feels" good without actually noticing what was happening to these highlights, or perhaps noticing but not finding it a problem.

 

I've certainly blown more than a few highlights on the shooting end in my time. When it's too extreme, I usually file the photo away. If it's a photo I think otherwise has a lot of potential, I will brush in some texture, if I can do it so that the feel of what I'm doing is in keeping with the feel of the rest of the photo. (For this, I use clone tool and history brush, as well as fade option.)

 

As I say, and you notice as well, sometimes blown highlights are just part of the deal and seem to fit in nicely with a photo.

 

While I agree with you about communication, I think there's also a level on which photos show us things (and I don't mean just by reproducing what was originally there). So it's not just what highlights post processed too far communicate, but at a gut level what they look and feel like.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always understood even when I used to paint pictures that one gets an overall sense whether the mistakes like blown highlights don't distract too much from what is being communicated in the image. With painting it was how soft or sharp do I paint distant tree edges vs foreground detail. Don't get this right and the painting looks flat.

 

It's the degree of how image artifacts stick out in relation to overall consistency. For instance too much noise removal in the shadows inconsistent with the rest the tonal areas of the image on a perfectly exposed and processed wide dynamic range scene just ruins the experience for me.

 

Because digital photographs are so real looking, there appears to be a stricter visual standard for when things stick out like a sore thumb. I have to ask on my own images how much work is it worth over just tossing and shooting again. Shooting locally helps me make these decisions quicker.

 

My problem has always been too much Clarity with Fill/Shadow slider in ACR/LR. It tends to look goofy. I have to walk away and return later with fresher eyes. Just the right white balance hue is exhausting on my eyesight. Also grappling with how much do I brighten a scene I shot in tranquil overcast dim lighting that will retain the ambience provided by the character of lighting. Some images I made them just too dark and I have to re-edit. Viewing them in a white field helps a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, thanks for responding to my question.

 

One of the reasons I was asking is that I've noticed it happening somewhat often in the regular Post Processing Challenge threads. Those photos often start out having been exposed so the highlights have detail and then get post processed so they no longer do. I like many of the creative things done with photos there, but generally don't like when the clouds or foamy waves turn an unsightly graphic white. I was curious whether this was being done intentionally as an artistic choice or it was just a result of contrast levels being adjusted to what "feels" good without actually noticing what was happening to these highlights, or perhaps noticing but not finding it a problem.

 

....

 

I regularly participate in the Post Processing Challenge thread and I think that a lot of the participants are simply having outrageous fun. My own attempts are aimed at trying to get to something that might be used in a travel magazine or site, but most participants seem to have no such goal in mind. I must admit that a few are outrageously good. I was disappointed in my own this week, but didn't really want to spend the time cleaning it up, so I submitted something that I considered subpar and would never send to Getty or print it large. (It had no pop and was just too flat).

 

Also, in the PPC, we're working with JPG files, so that more people can participate, but it really does limit what can be done. I wish there was a way that we could work with "real" files.

 

My attitude toward blown out highlights is that I usually end up with a few in my images for sale or printed. I find that a small percentage of blown highlights is preferable to going too grey overall. I see a lot of white birds posted, in full sun, that look grey. That isn't right either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, thanks for the answer. I agree that the PP Challenge can be anything from fun in some instances to learning new post processing techniques in other instances (and there's no reason why such learning can't also be fun and why fun can't also be a learning experience). I also agree that not being able to work with original RAW files can limit possibilities, though I think many people start out with jpgs anyway. (I don't. I always shoot RAW, but from what others say in many PN threads, lots of folks are not shooting RAW to begin with so any post processing is being done to files that are already jpgs.) That being said, the kind of thing I'm noticing in terms of highlights being blown to smithereens is not being done because the files being worked on are jpgs instead of RAW. To me, it's more an aesthetic and visual consideration and not a significant function of the format. I think we probably share a similar sense about blown highlights being a matter of balance and a matter of what seems appropriate to the context of the photo. I'm talking about cases that seem to clearly cross a line (though what's clear to one is not necessarily clear to another, and many of us draw lines in different places).

 

When I approach these kinds of aesthetic/visual considerations, I try to do it delicately, leaving room for individual tastes. I think part of learning in an "art" environment is in just developing a more and more sophisticated eye over time without necessarily adhering to any gold standard of aesthetic right and wrong. That's why I made sure, in my OP and subsequent comments, to ask whether the blown highlights were even noticed or not. And, in cases where they were a choice, were the alternatives known and considered?

 

In my own continuing learning curve, which at times can be quite an uphill climb, I realize how my seeing over time has improved, my ability to see more and pick up on more nuance as I gain more and more experience both looking at and making photos. I look back at some of my early work, especially post processing work, and can't believe some of the things I simply wasn't seeing at a particular time, certainly how many alternatives to what I was doing I didn't even realize existed. So, it's not so much whether the blown highlights fit some sort of definitive notion of "mistake" that everyone will agree upon as much as it is whether the blown highlights were seen as such or not. In other words, might the photographer doing the post processing have stopped a little shorter of complete blow-out, preserving some detail in the highlights, and come to see that as a more rewarding visual experience? If we chalk everything up to taste and subjectivity (not saying you're doing that, just thinking about the kinds of responses I often hear to aesthetic questions), how do we ever actually evolve our own visions? I think discussions like this can be valuable in simply bringing up certain things that may not have risen to consciousness or may not have been fully explored or realized.

  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I was asking is that I've noticed it happening somewhat often in the regular Post Processing Challenge threads.

 

I regularly participate in the Post Processing Challenge thread and I think that a lot of the participants are simply having outrageous fun. My own attempts are aimed at trying to get to something that might be used in a travel magazine or site...

 

Fred, since you have pointed out the post-processing challenge threads, I looked at a few of the more recent ones, and suspect that dcstep is right. But it's a complete guess for me; I don't participate in those threads so have little sense of how various "regulars" there "think."

 

I come more from the world of prints, by which I mean either conventional photographic prints or the roughly equivalent high-quality digital prints (I've spent the majority of my adult work life involved with these). Such prints have a very limited "dynamic range" compared to reality or to self-lit digital displays, so one has to be careful how things are reproduced. There are well-established principles on how tones ought to be reproduced, a key point being that the reproduction of scene highlights often must be "compressed" to fit into the limited range of a photographic paper. In general, the human eye "wants" to see some minimum contrast, a tonal variation, and too little just has a bad appearance. More contrast looks great, but something else has to give - typically the rest of the print would go too dark.

 

Anyway, if one is not limited by the needs of a paper print then they can go hog wild on things. Screen images are usually seen in isolation, and the eye tends to adapt and accept what is there, so much more leeway exists for wild adjustments. Or alternatively, if they are intended for magazine use, the media is much more limited so that punchier images tend to be used, with not much concern about highlight or shadow gradation.

 

One more note on over-the-top adjustments; in the heyday of film photography, it was well known that amateurs tended to prefer prints with more vivid, saturated colors. Whereas pros typically valued smoother tonal variation. I think this is something of a learned preference. In my experience if one makes an ordinary print, then compares it with one that is slightly more saturated, the more-saturated one is usually preferable. If you repeat the exercise again, getting even more saturated, same result. But eventually you get to a point where you realize that the color saturation has gotten ridiculous - cartoonish - and after that you have a hard time accepting many of the overly-saturated colors that you had previously preferred. So this is one way to sort of learn to like or dislike certain characteristics of a print. Now, for people who work strictly on screen, it's not so easy to see the comparisons, so perhaps the same kind of "learning" one gets from prints doesn't happen, I don't know.

 

At any rate, I'd say that for someone's work to get "noticed" in the "challenges," they have to be somewhat over the top, and maybe that's a factor. Just my opinion on it.

 

I think, also, that the typical images in the post-processing forum don't lend themselves to "gentle" manipulation. Conditions just didn't lend themselves to easy printing, although the scenes are probably beautiful in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, thanks. I appreciate your thoughts. The way I deal with subtlety and obviousness in terms of my own post processing of photos is to let the photo itself guide me, that combination of content, composition, lighting, texture and other qualities that gives me a feel for what I want if I'm going to post process. I don't consider creativity a matter of more, more, more, or the more outrageous the better any more than I'd recommend always being soft-spoken. I take it on a case-by-case basis. I appreciate nuance and subtlety so, while I may like a wow moment and some photos lend themselves to that, I'm also pretty attuned to appreciating very subtle renditions. I find this to be the case in making and looking at both print and screen images, though I find images lending themselves to more detailed refinement when I post process with a print in mind.
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...