Opinion on "blown out" image?

noahdsnell · 05-01-2013, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by MSL

My impression was that the image needed darkening, although not necessarily by boosting contrast. Possibly by either darkening the whole image, or just bringing down the highlights a little bit. I would definitely say it is an image worth experimenting with.

Darkening further or darkening without the added contrast?

**MSL** · 05-01-2013, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by noahdsnell

Darkening further or darkening without the added contrast?

Starting from the original, and playing with either contrast or just general darkening independently, at least at first.

wildman · 05-02-2013, 06:03 AM

Given that 1 picture is worth a 1000 words my take on it - for what it's worth.

noahdsnell · 05-03-2013, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by wildman

Given that 1 picture is worth a 1000 words my take on it - for what it's worth.

Interesting result. What was done to the image? Just darkening and desaturation?

**BigDave** · 05-03-2013, 07:26 PM

Noah:

You also may want to start with a Highlight Recovery function if you shot in Raw. This will pull detail back into the highlights and then let you work with the mid tones and shadows separately. Get the processing right and you have a very nice image!

Regards,

noahdsnell · 05-03-2013, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by BigDave

Noah:

You also may want to start with a Highlight Recovery function if you shot in Raw. This will pull detail back into the highlights and then let you work with the mid tones and shadows separately. Get the processing right and you have a very nice image!

Regards,

Hi,
I do shot RAW, but I could not recover the highlights simply by dragging the highlights down. Is there any other way to recover these highlights?

wildman · 05-03-2013, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by noahdsnell

Interesting result. What was done to the image? Just darkening and desaturation?

Straighten it, desaturated and lowered the luminosity of the blue, manually corrected the color balance with the channel mixer, increased contrast in the mid range, used a neutral density filter from top to bottom for better balance etc. Hard to remember all the steps exactly.

The highlights are truly burned so used it as a feature of the pic. Locally burned in the cobble stones to give it that wet cobble stone look.

I could have done better with a raw file but you get the idea anyway.

Last edited by wildman; 05-04-2013 at 06:03 AM.

wildman · 05-03-2013, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by noahdsnell

I do shot RAW, but I could not recover the highlights simply by dragging the highlights down. Is there any other way to recover these highlights?

No. burned highlights are just that - gone. There is no useful editable data there.

**BigDave** · 05-10-2013, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by wildman

No. burned highlights are just that - gone. There is no useful editable data there.

Actually, Burned, may not be lost. There does come a point at which you cannot recover any data, but a digital image favors over exposure (a bit) and you can get some of the information/image detail back. I use Paintshop Pro and the Highlight Recovery function can pull a fair amount of data out of a "washed out" area. This function is used in their RAW converter. I am sure there MUST be something in PS or LR that will allow this recovery also.

Regards,

wildman · 05-10-2013, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by BigDave

Actually, Burned, may not be lost. There does come a point at which you cannot recover any data, but a digital image favors over exposure (a bit) and you can get some of the information/image detail back.

It's all a matter of definition.

For me "burned" highlights are, by definition, those areas of the image where there is no useable data.
This image had areas where there was just nothing there at least on the low quality jpg screen dump I had to work with.
There is a certain level of luminosity above which the sensor can no longer differentiate between different levels of luminosity - it is all at the same level so far as the sensor is concerned even if there would be a perceptible difference to the naked eye. Above this level is my definition of "burned'.

**BigDave** · 05-14-2013, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by wildman

There is a certain level of luminosity above which the sensor can no longer differentiate between different levels of luminosity - it is all at the same level so far as the sensor is concerned even if there would be a perceptible difference to the naked eye.

Agreed Wildman. The data is in the upper reaches of the tone curve are for all intensive purposes, lost. Only in the Raw file can you pull the data back out. You could not do so with the JPG (though the changes you did with the image I like). But there comes a point to which the sensor has become saturated and though we may perceive a difference in the high tonal areas, yes, the sensor cannot handle the light level and even the Raw file will be blown out in these extra high light areas.

Regards,

tuco · 05-14-2013, 12:46 PM

Optionally, select the blue and decrease the blue's luminosity and increase its saturation a bit, add a vignette with color priority and small center, pull the blacks down and decrease, locally, the contrast and highlights common to bright lights.

wildman · 05-14-2013, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by BigDave

The data is in the upper reaches of the tone curve are for all intensive purposes, lost.

Yep.
But as you say there may be something there with proper PP. My motto is there is no data until ACR+PS says there is no data.

cali92rs · 05-20-2013, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by noahdsnell

I have adjusted the contrast and temperature a bit more, and did perspective adjustments on Lightroom. This is the result.

I love Vancouver, especially Gastown

Anyway, I like the second image better, one little nitpic though, I would close out that power line in the upper left hand corner. You got rid of most of it with the tighter crop, but it is still there.

05-02-2013, 06:03 AM	#18
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Given that 1 picture is worth a 1000 words my take on it - for what it's worth. Last edited by wildman; 05-06-2013 at 06:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I miss the "Image Comparison" function on K5 IIs	imtheguy	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	10	06-19-2020 11:50 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
Sale of image, requires "20x30 image size digital image" ?	NeverSatisfied	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	32	03-29-2013 05:38 AM
"Hanging mirror" on my 67 - who will help me out?	Rense	Pentax Medium Format	11	10-31-2012 05:48 PM
Buying First "Real" Camera and Need Opinion On ZX-5 w/Accesories	brandontowey	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	02-15-2009 07:13 AM

05-01-2013, 08:18 PM	#16
noahdsnell Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 68 Original Poster	Originally posted by MSL My impression was that the image needed darkening, although not necessarily by boosting contrast. Possibly by either darkening the whole image, or just bringing down the highlights a little bit. I would definitely say it is an image worth experimenting with. Darkening further or darkening without the added contrast?

05-01-2013, 08:26 PM	#17
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,756	Originally posted by noahdsnell Darkening further or darkening without the added contrast? Starting from the original, and playing with either contrast or just general darkening independently, at least at first.

05-03-2013, 04:42 PM	#19
noahdsnell Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 68 Original Poster	Originally posted by wildman Given that 1 picture is worth a 1000 words my take on it - for what it's worth. Interesting result. What was done to the image? Just darkening and desaturation?

05-03-2013, 07:26 PM	#20
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Noah: You also may want to start with a Highlight Recovery function if you shot in Raw. This will pull detail back into the highlights and then let you work with the mid tones and shadows separately. Get the processing right and you have a very nice image! Regards,

05-03-2013, 07:35 PM	#21
noahdsnell Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 68 Original Poster	Originally posted by BigDave Noah: You also may want to start with a Highlight Recovery function if you shot in Raw. This will pull detail back into the highlights and then let you work with the mid tones and shadows separately. Get the processing right and you have a very nice image! Regards, Hi, I do shot RAW, but I could not recover the highlights simply by dragging the highlights down. Is there any other way to recover these highlights?

05-03-2013, 08:08 PM	#22
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by noahdsnell Interesting result. What was done to the image? Just darkening and desaturation? Straighten it, desaturated and lowered the luminosity of the blue, manually corrected the color balance with the channel mixer, increased contrast in the mid range, used a neutral density filter from top to bottom for better balance etc. Hard to remember all the steps exactly. The highlights are truly burned so used it as a feature of the pic. Locally burned in the cobble stones to give it that wet cobble stone look. I could have done better with a raw file but you get the idea anyway. Last edited by wildman; 05-04-2013 at 06:03 AM.

05-03-2013, 08:11 PM	#23
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by noahdsnell I do shot RAW, but I could not recover the highlights simply by dragging the highlights down. Is there any other way to recover these highlights? No. burned highlights are just that - gone. There is no useful editable data there.

05-10-2013, 03:07 PM	#24
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Originally posted by wildman No. burned highlights are just that - gone. There is no useful editable data there. Actually, Burned, may not be lost. There does come a point at which you cannot recover any data, but a digital image favors over exposure (a bit) and you can get some of the information/image detail back. I use Paintshop Pro and the Highlight Recovery function can pull a fair amount of data out of a "washed out" area. This function is used in their RAW converter. I am sure there MUST be something in PS or LR that will allow this recovery also. Regards,

05-10-2013, 04:35 PM	#25
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by BigDave Actually, Burned, may not be lost. There does come a point at which you cannot recover any data, but a digital image favors over exposure (a bit) and you can get some of the information/image detail back. It's all a matter of definition. For me "burned" highlights are, by definition, those areas of the image where there is no useable data. This image had areas where there was just nothing there at least on the low quality jpg screen dump I had to work with. There is a certain level of luminosity above which the sensor can no longer differentiate between different levels of luminosity - it is all at the same level so far as the sensor is concerned even if there would be a perceptible difference to the naked eye. Above this level is my definition of "burned'.

05-14-2013, 12:09 PM	#26
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Originally posted by wildman There is a certain level of luminosity above which the sensor can no longer differentiate between different levels of luminosity - it is all at the same level so far as the sensor is concerned even if there would be a perceptible difference to the naked eye. Agreed Wildman. The data is in the upper reaches of the tone curve are for all intensive purposes, lost. Only in the Raw file can you pull the data back out. You could not do so with the JPG (though the changes you did with the image I like). But there comes a point to which the sensor has become saturated and though we may perceive a difference in the high tonal areas, yes, the sensor cannot handle the light level and even the Raw file will be blown out in these extra high light areas. Regards,

05-14-2013, 12:46 PM	#27
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Optionally, select the blue and decrease the blue's luminosity and increase its saturation a bit, add a vignette with color priority and small center, pull the blacks down and decrease, locally, the contrast and highlights common to bright lights.

05-14-2013, 06:11 PM	#28
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by BigDave The data is in the upper reaches of the tone curve are for all intensive purposes, lost. Yep. But as you say there may be something there with proper PP. My motto is there is no data until ACR+PS says there is no data.

05-20-2013, 03:29 PM	#29
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by noahdsnell I have adjusted the contrast and temperature a bit more, and did perspective adjustments on Lightroom. This is the result. I love Vancouver, especially Gastown Anyway, I like the second image better, one little nitpic though, I would close out that power line in the upper left hand corner. You got rid of most of it with the tighter crop, but it is still there.