Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2014, 04:12 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,807
QuoteOriginally posted by slowpez Quote
Thank you. I have redone the photo and think I may have made some small headway although now I have lost a lot of the lovely spring feather colors. Looks more like a fall version but the bright area does look better.
Susan if you use the brush in LR you should be able to make your adjustments to the one area without affecting the entire rest of the image.


04-23-2014, 04:23 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
What time of day was the image taken? The original sort of looks near sunset or rise due to hints of yellow in the feathers. I like it despite the bright spot. The second version looks too dark in the sky, almost like twilight. I generally prefer photos that look the way I saw them, though, so would work with whichever is the more authentic version.
04-23-2014, 04:25 PM   #18
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 49
Slopez
One comment from me. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you just can't get a pic the way you want it. Even with post processing.

The second pic you posted is much better. It gives me the feel that the bird is high up and picking up the light from the side. The darks to me are not too dark and the wings have just the right amount of blur. The nice blue sky really highlights it all well.
04-23-2014, 06:40 PM   #19
Senior Member
imaspy's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 294
i'm surprised to hear people commenting (oops, sorry, to READ) that adjusting the overall exposure is the answer.... this photo and the blown-out highlights could be (and were, it seems) improved a lot via a number of methods, including adjust brushes, levels, curves, the list goes on... but not the exposure

OP, don't stress about feeling like you learned something and then feeling like youve had the rug pulled out from under you. Getting to know the histogram is a useful thing, don't doubt that! But it's just one attribute of the image - don't forget you have other tools at your disposal - including your eye - to help with these things. it was a really great shot btw, you timed it well.

04-23-2014, 06:48 PM - 1 Like   #20
MSL
Pentaxian
MSL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Greater Toronto Area
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,721
I haven't read through all the comments, so apologies if I'm repeating. Short answer is there is a difference between overexposed - where you may have blown highlights, versus having an image with high contrast where the difference between the dark and light regions, especially if they are close neighbors, is too much. @crew1 keeps talking about selective adjustment, and that is exactly what you need for an image with too much contrast, as you don't just want to darken the whole image.
04-24-2014, 07:12 AM   #21
Veteran Member
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,462
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
Worse :-) The first one is fine. Some people overreact to perceived blown highlights and reduce the exposure which ruins everything else.
Thanks for having a look. Appreciate the input.

---------- Post added 04-24-14 at 10:20 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Susan if you use the brush in LR you should be able to make your adjustments to the one area without affecting the entire rest of the image.
Lightroom 4 - Adjustment Brush : The Basics - YouTube
I will give this another try but I am just terrible with the adjustment brush. At least it will give me back those lovely browns in the wings.

QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
What time of day was the image taken? The original sort of looks near sunset or rise due to hints of yellow in the feathers. I like it despite the bright spot. The second version looks too dark in the sky, almost like twilight. I generally prefer photos that look the way I saw them, though, so would work with whichever is the more authentic version.
It was taken between tides when tidal marshes have just enough water for the waders to do their thing. Most like around 10-11 AM. Lots of overcast though.

QuoteOriginally posted by sireddy Quote
Slopez
One comment from me. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you just can't get a pic the way you want it. Even with post processing.

The second pic you posted is much better. It gives me the feel that the bird is high up and picking up the light from the side. The darks to me are not too dark and the wings have just the right amount of blur. The nice blue sky really highlights it all well.
Thanks for taking the time to give me your input. It is much appreciated.

QuoteOriginally posted by imaspy Quote
i'm surprised to hear people commenting (oops, sorry, to READ) that adjusting the overall exposure is the answer.... this photo and the blown-out highlights could be (and were, it seems) improved a lot via a number of methods, including adjust brushes, levels, curves, the list goes on... but not the exposure

OP, don't stress about feeling like you learned something and then feeling like youve had the rug pulled out from under you. Getting to know the histogram is a useful thing, don't doubt that! But it's just one attribute of the image - don't forget you have other tools at your disposal - including your eye - to help with these things. it was a really great shot btw, you timed it well.
Thanks for your comments.

QuoteOriginally posted by MSL Quote
I haven't read through all the comments, so apologies if I'm repeating. Short answer is there is a difference between overexposed - where you may have blown highlights, versus having an image with high contrast where the difference between the dark and light regions, especially if they are close neighbors, is too much. @crew1 keeps talking about selective adjustment, and that is exactly what you need for an image with too much contrast, as you don't just want to darken the whole image.
Definitely going to give selective adjust a try. Thanks for having a look.
04-25-2014, 12:18 PM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Scotland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 96
Ok, here's my take on it. The bird has a chunk of white feathers which, because of the lighting and nature of the features, appear as a fairly homogenous white area. The rest of the image is great, it's just this white patch. So, you could reduce the white on that area (or the image as a whole, but then suffer broader consequences), but if you did that, you'd end up with an image which isn't "real" or reflective of what you saw.

However, a patch of homogenous white just looks wrong to us - we're thinking "blown highlights" even if it's not. So, we need to introduce contrast and really define the subtle shade differences just within that patch.

I've used my limited PS skills to create a luminosity mask (actually something I've called a +3 whites mask, which is basically just a mask which half selects the brightest white and almost nothing else). I've then applied a simple contrast/brightness adjustment layer using that mask. I've set contrast +75 and brightness -75, which actually makes the brightest whites brighter but the rest of the bright whites greyer. What this does is create some differential within what was a previously homogenous white patch.

You might not like it, but I think it looks more "real" and still has clear white flecks but more grey and doesn't, IMO, look blown out. Note: because I've been editing the jpg it's suffered a bit of posterisation.



04-25-2014, 10:43 PM   #23
Veteran Member
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,462
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pjm1 Quote
Ok, here's my take on it. The bird has a chunk of white feathers which, because of the lighting and nature of the features, appear as a fairly homogenous white area. The rest of the image is great, it's just this white patch. So, you could reduce the white on that area (or the image as a whole, but then suffer broader consequences), but if you did that, you'd end up with an image which isn't "real" or reflective of what you saw.

However, a patch of homogenous white just looks wrong to us - we're thinking "blown highlights" even if it's not. So, we need to introduce contrast and really define the subtle shade differences just within that patch.

I've used my limited PS skills to create a luminosity mask (actually something I've called a +3 whites mask, which is basically just a mask which half selects the brightest white and almost nothing else). I've then applied a simple contrast/brightness adjustment layer using that mask. I've set contrast +75 and brightness -75, which actually makes the brightest whites brighter but the rest of the bright whites greyer. What this does is create some differential within what was a previously homogenous white patch.

You might not like it, but I think it looks more "real" and still has clear white flecks but more grey and doesn't, IMO, look blown out. Note: because I've been editing the jpg it's suffered a bit of posterisation.
Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to give me a hand. I will keep working on the photo and see what I can come up. I like what you have done.
04-27-2014, 05:54 PM - 1 Like   #24
Veteran Member
OnTheWeb's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 791
There's a lot of detail there that was 'blown' away by the hot spot of light. It comes down to preference and what you believe your eye saw when you shot the image. 60 seconds in onOne effects with just a bit of darkening of the hot spot with slight warming adjustment to just that area.

---------- Post added 04-27-14 at 08:55 PM ----------

forgot... Beautiful image capture you did on the BIF.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5  Photo 
04-28-2014, 04:32 AM   #25
Veteran Member
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,462
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by OnTheWeb Quote
There's a lot of detail there that was 'blown' away by the hot spot of light. It comes down to preference and what you believe your eye saw when you shot the image. 60 seconds in onOne effects with just a bit of darkening of the hot spot with slight warming adjustment to just that area.

---------- Post added 04-27-14 at 08:55 PM ----------

forgot... Beautiful image capture you did on the BIF.
Thanks. Great job. Appreciate it.
04-30-2014, 07:48 AM   #26
Senior Member
gryhnd's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southeastern MA
Posts: 240
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
Worse :-) The first one is fine. Some people overreact to perceived blown highlights and reduce the exposure which ruins everything else.
I agree. Second revision I don't care for. Too dull.

On my uncalibrated lug-around laptop, the bright spot is rather blown out, but on my calibrated IPS monitor, it looks much better. Yes, it's brighter, but that is also the reality of these birds and the environment they live in.

When I'm shooting osprey from a fixed position, I take a few test shots (sometimes at a tree or other object similarly lit) and manually set my exposure settings and ISO based off the one with the best overall balance. Then I continue to shoot that way until the light or my shooting direction changes substantially. Lather, rinse, repeat.

My own favorite osprey shot suffers a bit from the same thing. I futzed with it for a while, but something about that spot on the wing tip just told more of a story about the light. To me. So I let it go.


Last edited by gryhnd; 04-30-2014 at 08:02 AM.
04-30-2014, 11:05 AM   #27
Veteran Member
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,462
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by gryhnd Quote
I agree. Second revision I don't care for. Too dull.

On my uncalibrated lug-around laptop, the bright spot is rather blown out, but on my calibrated IPS monitor, it looks much better. Yes, it's brighter, but that is also the reality of these birds and the environment they live in.

When I'm shooting osprey from a fixed position, I take a few test shots (sometimes at a tree or other object similarly lit) and manually set my exposure settings and ISO based off the one with the best overall balance. Then I continue to shoot that way until the light or my shooting direction changes substantially. Lather, rinse, repeat.

My own favorite osprey shot suffers a bit from the same thing. I futzed with it for a while, but something about that spot on the wing tip just told more of a story about the light. To me. So I let it go.
Thanks for the tips. I do pretty much the same thing when determining my exposure settings. Beautiful shot.
05-01-2014, 03:27 PM - 1 Like   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,294
Hi Susan. I'll join the pile-on, if I may. Lots of good info and suggestions above. Back to your earlier questions about the histogram in LR: when first starting PP work on an image, it's very useful to use the histogram as I gather you have been doing -- making sure there's no clipping at the high end. (One way this can be deceptive is if there's a small spike that gets lost off the right end of the histogram, however often in such cases the blown highlights are too small to worry about.) But once you start adjusting curves and/or exposure-related sliders, you don't need to get to actual clipping to make certain areas look unnatural. If the right end of the histogram falls off steeply, there's a lot of compression in the highlights and they will tend to look flat, which is much the same as looking clipped.

Not every image needs to go from full black to full white, and this might be one such image. Bright whites make sense but maybe you've gone too far with the darker plumage and shadows.
05-01-2014, 07:38 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Susinok's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
Posts: 478
Your first photo is beautiful! I would not stress so hard on one area. Look at the picture over all and be proud of it.
05-02-2014, 06:17 AM   #30
Veteran Member
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,462
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
Hi Susan. I'll join the pile-on, if I may. Lots of good info and suggestions above. Back to your earlier questions about the histogram in LR: when first starting PP work on an image, it's very useful to use the histogram as I gather you have been doing -- making sure there's no clipping at the high end. (One way this can be deceptive is if there's a small spike that gets lost off the right end of the histogram, however often in such cases the blown highlights are too small to worry about.) But once you start adjusting curves and/or exposure-related sliders, you don't need to get to actual clipping to make certain areas look unnatural. If the right end of the histogram falls off steeply, there's a lot of compression in the highlights and they will tend to look flat, which is much the same as looking clipped.

Not every image needs to go from full black to full white, and this might be one such image. Bright whites make sense but maybe you've gone too far with the darker plumage and shadows.
Thanks for the information. That sure helps in understanding the histogram and I think you have pinpointed what I am doing wrong. Appreciate it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Susinok Quote
Your first photo is beautiful! I would not stress so hard on one area. Look at the picture over all and be proud of it.
Thanks for the kind words Susinok.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adjustment, alt, brush, button, comments, critique, detail, exposure, guess, histogram, image, light, photography, pic, pixels, region, sky, slider, spot, thanks, try
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to tell if the meter is accurate. GateCityRadio Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 6 12-02-2013 10:23 PM
How to tell when a Drive is going south? philbaum Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 15 10-28-2010 10:00 AM
How to tell if SR is working? slow2focus Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 12-21-2009 09:49 PM
How to tell if film is used or not? gsrokmix Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 5 12-03-2009 04:42 PM
How to tell if a neg is over/under developed? KungPOW Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 7 12-09-2008 08:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top