Blown Out Highlights

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Do this: Shoot under Tungsten with the WB set to Daylight.....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why ? Why would I want to take a bad photograph ? And photoshop ? I haven't used it or needed to use it since I tried (and didn't like) photoshop 1 (one) in 1994. It's just so much easier for me to get the setup correct in the first place, and get a proper exposure.<br />How is this a mystery?<br>

BTW, this is quickly becoming off-topic.<br>

<br />Bill P.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I don't think shooting RAW is about wanting to take a bad photo or fixing bad photos. It saves having to make alot of changes on the fly such as contrast and white balance. Shooting a wedding for instance at first you could be in the church maybe HI ISO and tungsten white balance then you step outside as the B&G exit. They exit the church but they are in the shade of the church now you need to change the ISO the white balance the contrast settings as well as any exposure settings or exposure modes. Next they begin to walk to the wedding car. They then enter sunlight which will require a change of white balance and probably contrast. The car is parked in the shade and again white balance is wrong. As the car drives off it enters sunlight and white balance need to be changed again. If you shoot RAW you need only concentrate on exposure. The white balance, contrast and sharpening settings can all be done later as required.</p>

[peter]

<p><em>"Expose to the right is about correct exposure which obviously means, don't blow out highlights you hope to retain! Is that more difficult? I guess for some it might be. But there's no question that ideal exposure for a linear capture digital Raw file is to expose as close to but not clipping highlights you can."</em></p>

<p>My point is this. When you look at most tutorials on "exposing to the right" the histogram of the shot used to display the concept is a beautiful neat "bell curve" that sits happily over towards the right hand side of the histogram. Lovely - but a little disingenuous.</p>

<p>How often do I see such histogram curves outside of a studio - almost never? With the sort of photos I take the histograms are all over the place because of the nature of the scene I am shooting.</p>

<p>When you shoot in the great outdoors you may have the sky intruding. Or at least you have brighter areas as in these photos. In this case the histogram curve looks totally different - its at least spread fully across the range and often has a peak towards the right hand end of the curve when you shoot it even if you have manged to avoid blown highlights. In these circumstances its impossible to move the curve further to the right and NOT blow highlights.Effectively you are stuck with what you have got. In a studio you potentially have perfect control of exposure. Shoot to the right to your heart's content. In the field you are often whistling dixie.</p>

<p>This is why I am cirtical of people who chant this mantra without also saying - "oh but you realise in the real world its often impossible to do that!"</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The white balance, contrast and sharpening settings can all be done later as required.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

Stuart, you make many valid points about varying light and color temperature headaches. I have done work in motion picture with film (real film LOL) and video and getting those setups changed around on the fly was second nature to us. White balancing and chip charting the media was done all the time. We didn't have endless post production facilities at our disposal. Plus, getting the setups right tended to keep the directors and cinematographers happy.<br>

Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>This is why I am cirtical of people who chant this mantra without also saying - "oh but you realise in the real world its often impossible to do that!"</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, some of the finest photos I've ever seen had histograms that were a travesty, if you believe the "gurus". That's why I use my eyes to study the image far more than the histos.<br>

Bill P.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Thats quite true William. There is also nothing to stop someone shooting RAW and changing those settings on the fly if they wanted to. If they use a RAW processor that defaults to the camera settings they could save themselves some time as well if they were close enough. They would also have the chance to make changes if they wanted. Another option can be RAW + JPEG they could send the JPEGs straight for printing if they were OK but they would have the RAW files to work on if they want to make heavier adjustments. What realy matter is being able to produce the image that you want and being happy with what you do. RAW gives more options for adjustment but it won't make a real lousy photographer into a could one.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>There is also nothing to stop someone shooting RAW and changing those settings on the fly if they wanted to. If they use a RAW processor that defaults to the camera settings they could save themselves some time as well if they were close enough.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You bet, Stuart. Getting it right early in the chain is the best way to a pleasing photograph. As you know, errors abound every time digits are horsed around with, and those errors are cumulative. As we used to say, "Less work for Mom!"<br>

How cool is that ?<br>

Cheers,<br>

Bill P.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Why not shoot jpeg/large/fine for these sorts of shots and not have a problem. You can view the shot...no good?...back off the exp comp, shoot again. Perfect. I don't get this obsession with RAW. It might be ok for careful landscapes where you plan to fiddle and tweak, but not snap shots, surely?</p>

<p>Can we not just say that the shot was over exposed? What there to discuss. Blown highlights have no artifacts to recover. Nothing changes.</p>

[stb]

<p>In such a situation, the highlights are so much brighter than the rest that exposing to get them fine will make the rest of the picture very dark. One can use so-called fill light effects in post processing, but it will not be very natural.</p>

<p>The only working solutions will involve lighting equipment or ask the people to move to another place. Negative film would handle the situation more graciously, but in my opinion, in this case, it might not be enough to get a pleasant picture.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Can we not just say that the shot was over exposed?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The shot above? Seems it is as no degree of exposure setting in the Raw converter pulled back the data. But the point is, what is over exposure? Its vastly, hugely different in a in-camera JPEG versus the actual Raw data. Again, go to the article referenced above and look at figure 3. The image to the left is what would result from the Camera generated JPEG. It IS over exposed! The meter told us to expose a certain way (based on film, not Raw) and if someone like Bill shot it this way, nothing would bring back the data. But the image next to <strong>it is the same </strong><strong>data</strong>. A simple movement of the Exposure slider results in an image that doesn't look over exposed (because its not) and with far less noise in the shadows due to expose to the right. </p>

<p>So if you shoot JPEG, the exposure and the info supplied by the camera isn't at all accurate for the Raw data. You end up with more noise and far less control over the rendering. The only thing affecting the Raw data is ISO and exposure. Set the camera for anything else, no effect on the Raw data. Not at all the case with the JPEG. You burn that into the JPEG and you're stuck (or happy) with what you get. But as far as option? Not a lot. </p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>As an example of what can be done at the lowest level of reconstruction, I worked on the blown higlight on the forehead of the gentleman in the center of the group. Here are the steps I used:</p>

<ul>

<li>First, I constructed a feathered selection of the blown area. </li>

<li>Next, I sampled a color from somewhere else on his face that I thought would be appropriate for that area and then used the paint bucket to flood the blown area with the new color. </li>

<li>Then, I used the refine edges command to obtain an selection / mask which highly favored the center of the blown area, and tapered the mask to black at the edges of the blow area. </li>

<li>I then used a "Curves" adjustment layer with that mask to increase the brightness of the center of the blown area just to the point where it looks like it about to be blown, but actually isn't. This adds a realistic hotspot exactly where it should be, but the new hotspot isn't blown. </li>

<li>Next, I inverted that mask to control the application of a new "Curves" adjustment layer around the periphery of the newly filled area. I then adjusted this second set of curves to blend the edges of the filled area with the surrounding image as well as possible. </li>

<li>I stopped at this point. However, since the blending with the adjacent image will at best be perfect at only one point around the periphery of the filled area, and since the filled area will have no texture, crease lines, shadowing, one has to introduce these corrections by additional steps such as painting in the fine corrections, smudging the edges of the repaired area, etc..</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>aahhh, the convenience of digital.</p>

[bernardwest]

<blockquote>The shot above? Seems it is as no degree of exposure setting in the Raw converter pulled back the data. But the point is, what is over exposure? Its vastly, hugely different in a in-camera JPEG versus the actual Raw data.</blockquote><p>

 

Yes! I've been banging on for ages about the concept of "correct" exposure needs to be rethought in the digital age. "Correct" is now even more subjective, depending on your workflow. What is "correct" for a jpg shooter isn't necessarily correct for a raw shooter, and vice versa.<p>

 

By the way, my take on ETTR is this - If your scene has a higher DR than the sensor can handle, then there isn't much point (other than to put the most critical highlights just short of raw clipping - as long as the brighter highlights than this are sacrificial). Where it should definitely be applied (if you have the time, that is) is for scenes with lower DR than the sensor can record. I can't seem to get out of bed early enough these days to employ it, as the sun is already high and blazing when I straggle out the door. :(

[robertash]

<p>Jenn,<br>

If you are shooting RAW and using NX2 to edit, you should be able to use the exposure compensation control under the "Quick Fixes" menu to the right. This might be an easy way to retrieve your highlights. Also, I find it very effective to spot meter on the subjects face for portraits; especially if the subject is of average toned complexion.<br>

My apologies if someone has made these suggestions in a previous post. I didn't read them all.</p>

[jenn_b1]

<p>Wow for all the comments. I have definately learned more about dynamic range than I could ever learn at school. Thank you to everyone for the advice/comments/"teaching". It is very much appreciated!</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The meter told us to expose a certain way (based on film, not Raw) and if someone like Bill shot it this way, nothing would bring back the data.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but the difference is that Bill doesn't shoot that way. Bill gets the setup correct, takes the shot in JPEG, and posts it. That's the lesson to be learned here.<br>

Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Why not shoot jpeg/large/fine for these sorts of shots and not have a problem. You can view the shot...no good?...back off the exp comp, shoot again. Perfect. I don't get this obsession with RAW.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen, that's what I've been doing since I started working in digital. I'd say that the obsession with RAW goes hand in hand with the worship of photoshop. Adobe has spent scads of money promoting the product and these are the results, slavish adherence to a new "industry standard". If my work was so shakey that I felt I had to 'photoshop' every shot, I'd question my abilities and look for something else to do.<br>

Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you are shooting RAW and using NX2 to edit, you should be able to use the exposure compensation control under the "Quick Fixes" menu to the right. This might be an easy way to retrieve your highlights.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, that idea is valid if the photo seems "hot", but a true blowout occurs when the sensor is overloaded (or underfed) and the onboard computer converts the signal to all 255s or all zeroes. No program can accurately guess at what the intermediate levels would have been.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Also, I find it very effective to spot meter on the subjects face for portraits; especially if the subject is of average toned complexion.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that is a time-tested approach and works great. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the same result can be gotten by bracketing up and down, just keep the folks smiling while you make the changes.<br>

Bill P. </p>

[bernardwest]

<blockquote>If my work was so shakey that I felt I had to 'photoshop' every shot, I'd question my abilities and look for something else to do.

Bill P.</blockquote><p>

 

Bill, your jpg is 'photoshopped' in-camera. It starts out with exactly the same raw data that raw users use. What's with the scare campaign?

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Bill, your jpg is 'photoshopped' in-camera. It starts out with exactly the same raw data that raw users use. What's with the scare campaign?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know what you're driving at, but a simple in-camera JPEG conversion is a far cry from the hours of fiddling most people seem mandated to do in photoshop. It's the same as dumping a RAW file into the computer and doing a JPEG conversion. No photoshop needed, just a format converter. <br>

And what do you mean by "Scare campaign"?<br>

Also, let's keep in mind that this topic has become a RAW vs. JPEG hijcak.<br>

Bill P.</p>

[bernardwest]

re. scare campaign.... We're all slaves to the corporate Adobe overlord! Little bit hyperbolish, don't ya think?

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>re. scare campaign.... We're all slaves to the corporate Adobe overlord! Little bit hyperbolish, don't ya think?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Bernie, I see what you're getting at here. My comments are based on the fact that every time I mention that I don't use p/s, the "experts" jump on me with both feet. Also, shooting JPEG seems to send these folks into fits. For example, I attend the PDN show here in NYC every year ( <a href="http://www.photoplusexpo.com/ppe/index.jspand">http://www.photoplusexpo.com/ppe/index.jspand</a> ), the show is ninety five percent digital, and it's mainly photoshop, what works with photoshop, photoshop seminars, lectures demonstrations, etc.<br>

Another example is when I read these threads, many of the contributors talk about using this tool and that slider without even mentioning that they're referring to p/s. It's just assumed that everyone uses it. That's not hyperbole, that's saturation. Pity.<br>

Bill P.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>True, but the difference is that Bill doesn't shoot that way. Bill gets the setup correct, takes the shot in JPEG, and posts it. That's the lesson to be learned here.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>With more noise in the shadows too. The camera ONLY captures Raw data. Raw data is linear encoded. If someone like Bill shot Raw+JPEG, big problem (or just Raw). He's got a limited bit depth, color gamut and amount of data compared to the Raw. Now if everyone is OK with that, fine. But for many of us, throwing away all that data is akin to popping a 35mm back on a 4x5 camera. And on top of all that, the rendering is fixed. And I would be the first to agree that the Raw to JPEG conversions are generally very pleasing. But if you don't like the rendering, or you did something (that apparently people like Bill never do, have the wrong WB set or picture style), they are SOL. Not so with the Raw. </p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with JPEG workflows as long as the person capturing the data fully understands what they give up in terms of data and flexibility. Lots don't. I suspect Bill does based on this posts. And I'm fine with that. But to say JPEG and Raw are anything close to equal, in terms of the data you have and can render in the future is simply untrue. </p>

[stb]

<p>To me, a Jpeg is like a slide and a RAW is like a negative. And some people were certainly able to produce excellent slides. Now, as far as I know, most wedding pros worked with negative films.</p>

 

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I suspect Bill does based on this posts. And I'm fine with that. But to say JPEG and Raw are anything close to equal, in terms of the data you have and can render in the future is simply untrue.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You bet. I am patently aware of what the situation is, which is why I stress proper setup. Also, I'm sure most folks don't realize that most (if not all) RAW formats (and there are MANY) are NOT uncompressed, they're just compressed less than JPEGs, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>But if you don't like the rendering, or you did something (that apparently people like Bill never do, have the wrong WB set or picture style), they are SOL. Not so with the Raw.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. I tweak WB and do other pre-print operations all the time in JPEG. I didn't know I couldn't do that !<br>

Life's full of surprises !</p>

<p>Bill P.<br>

Oh yeah, before anyone starts in, pre print prep is not retouching, it's pre print. Big difference.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting. I tweak WB and do other pre-print operations all the time in JPEG. I didn't know I couldn't do that !</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Tweak, a bit. And you're tweaking baked, 8-bit, gamma encoded pixels. The degree of tweaking is tiny compared to actually building, rendering virgin pixels from Raw data. Hence the suggestion about working on a JPEG with the incorrect WB compared to the Raw you dismissed above. Oh, and tweaking a 22mp JPEG is slower than building a metadata instruction that can be infinitely altered with no damage, in an application with unlimited history (LR) that resides with the Raw even after you quit the app (try that in Photoshop). Or the ability to spin off any number of virtual copies of tweaks or more, that take up the space on disk of a text doc, unlike each iteration of the JPEG which of course undergoes even more damage every time you save it to disk. </p>

<p>So now, on top of the increase in data and flexibility, we can discuss the profound differences in metadata versus pixel editing to "tweak" or render images as we desire. The quote you made about spending hours in Photoshop is less pertinent for those that understand when to move from metadata to pixel editing and the power of each. Of course, with JPEG, you can do some metadata editing in LR but the product was designed to handle Raw data from the get go. Every edit to a JPEG or rendered file ends up happening in high bit, wide gamut linear space, which is the design of the processing engine for handling Raw data. </p>