How to remove Sun Glare on face

<p>I took family photos for a friend yesterday, and a few of them have too much sun on their face. There is a major glare. How can I edit them using Photoshop Elements, or Lightroom to remove this?</p><div></div>

<p>What version of Lightroom are you running?</p>

<p>I would use Elements and clone across 'non-glare' skin to cover the glare. Though there are Elements and Elements. If the programme will do it use a low density clone and gradually build up to get a pleasing result. Another approach is to make a duplicate copy as another layer, adjust it, and the delete those parts of that layer that do not require adjustment to reveal the good material in the layer below.</p>

<p>For reference, here's a copy of the OP's photo downsized so it displays in-line in this forum.</p>

<p>T</p>

<p>arghhh -- line glitched just as I was uploading the image.</p><div></div>

<p>If you shot RAW + JPG, you can probably recover a lot of the blown highlights using either LR or PS.</p>

<p>OTOH, if you only shot JPGs, you will be much more limited in what you can save, and you will be stuck using the approach suggested by JC. Unfortunately, it takes quite a bit of experience to do even just a decent job cloning in good areas and blending them with their new surroundings.</p>

<p>My suggestion is to simply get rid of some of the veiling glare on the kids so the photo looks more contrasty and the blown highlights will be more accepted / expected, ie, it won't look quite as much like an overexposed image. </p>

<p>e.g., ...</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Of course, if they are your kids and you can easily reshoot the scene, do so, save both RAW and JPG and don't blow the highlights.</p><div></div>

<p>Kellie, What you are asking for is a 'crutch', something to pull this one out of the fire if you will. Good luck in your quest for a 'fix', can't help you there, though others may come close. Nothing beats proper exposure, so next time, instead of 1\500 @ f 2.8 (likely exposing for the shadow area) try 1\500 @ f 8 or f 6.3 (assuming ISO 100) then rely on your flash to balance the lighting. The silver lining in your cloud of 'hot areas' is the expressions of the kids. You aced 75% of those, 100% if you give the youngest a by. A keeper by my standards notwithstanding the hot areas. Best, LM.</p>

<p>If you have the raw file, you may be able to recover some of the blown-out areas, but judging by the size and shape of them, and the amount of hair that is blown out, I doubt this can really be made to look right, regardless of what you do with raw conversion, cloning, etc. You may be able to fix it to the point where it looks okay on-screen, but at the higher resolution of a decent-sized print, I suspect it will always look funny.</p>

<p>So really, a re-shoot appears to be your best bet. Any parts of the main subjects (the kids) in full sun are likely to present problems of one sort or another. The better approach (IMO) is either a large diffusion panel or open shade or an overcast day. Oh, and you might want to think about likely print aspect ratios, and leave more room left and right, and/or try not to crop off their feet.</p>

<p>The suggestion for shooting at 1/500 s and f/6.3 or f/8 instead of f/2.8 and then using flash to balance the lighting strikes me as a non-starter. First, it would mean that the main subjects are 2.3 to 3.0 stops under-exposed from ambient light, and direct (on-camera) light would not look good when providing that much of the main exposure. Second, AFAIK, unlike the D70, the D3000 will not X-sync at 1/500 s, so either you can't use flash at all, or else you have to use a high-speed sync mode that greatly reduces flash power, probably to a level too low to work.</p>

<p>My point about the crop--here's what you're likely to be able to get in a 8x10 print, cut-off shoulders or a cut-off head.</p><div></div>

<p>There is an argument for "shoot for the highlights" in both film slides and in digital photography.</p>

<p>As a general rule, there is more likelihood that there will be detail in what seem to be underexposed areas than that you will be able to recover/find detail in burned-out highlights.</p>

<p>Many old Kodachrome slides, which I had almost thrown out because of black shadows, became worth-while when I digitized them and lightened up the shadows a little.</p>