Burning/dodging: RAW or jpg?

shuttervox · 07-11-2009, 01:58 PM

Ok, first off here is a sample picture to provide some context:

Say I want to print this shot. The original file is a RAW. Although in this jpg the
highlights on the nose are blown out, there is a LOT of information to be found in
the RAW file... here is the nose with exposure pulled down using CameraRaw:

See, there is a lot of surviving texture there.

What is my best PP option to get this texture into my final print?
Is there is good way to do this with the raw file itself, and if not,
how much of the detail is going to survive the conversion to jpg?

Do most of you dodge and burn before or after converting the RAW file?

Thanks,

[kurt]

*qksilver* · 07-11-2009, 02:43 PM

I would start by using the recovery slider in camera raw. The other thing you can do is if you have CS4 use that targeted adjustment brush in Adobe camera raw to drop the exposure in just the areas you want.

I wouldnt expect much from burning an almost blown out area of a jpeg like that. Light burning is fine for midtones and shadows but highlights start to look really unrealistic when you burn them

**Marc Sabatella** · 07-11-2009, 03:36 PM

I would start with a highlight recovery tool. I'd also consider using a curve to bring down the highlights but bring up the shadows a bit. Or perhaps local contrast enhancement (if your application provides such a feature) to bring out detail within the lights and the shadows but without drastically changing the overall difference between light and shadow.

shuttervox · 07-12-2009, 01:11 AM

I would start with a highlight recovery tool. I'd also consider using a curve to brig down the highlights but brigg up the shadows a bit.

Oh ya, oops, I forgot about curves...

I wouldnt expect much from burning an almost blown out area of a jpeg like that. Light burning is fine for midtones and shadows but highlights start to look really unrealistic when you burn them

Ya, I can see what you mean. Do you think that this photo is just simply over exposed? Because I don't think I would want the eyes any dimmer... Or are blown out highlights acceptable in contrasty lighting situations?

Lowell Goudge · 07-13-2009, 06:38 PM

While it might be recoverable in RAW, I would have to say it is a little over exposed.

I have a similar shot of my daughters new kitten, this is a crop with no re-sizing, shot with a super Tak 35mm F2 (aperture unknown) and flash on my *istD

you can still, in an unedited (except crop) JPEG see the detail in the white / light fur.

I checked the greyscale value of the highlights in your shot, and it shows up at 253 (almost completely blown out, while the photo I posted has the highlights at about 205, down a good 1 to 1.5 stops. you should be able to do something in RAW with this, before going to JPEG/

It is interesting you processed this from an origonal in RAW, and the highlights are still blown out, Too bad you didn't have a RAW+ capture to see how the camera would have processed the highlights. It would be a good case of seeing how much impact setting either high or low contrast really has on the shots