Correcting blow-out

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    In this image: 020b.jpg

    the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
    of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

    Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
    I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
    without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
    area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
    affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
    that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
    too fine to do a selection on.

    I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
    can't figure it out. Maybe something else.

    Any technique suggestions?

    Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. tony cooper

    BF Guest

    What is gone is gone. Here is my try bringing out the dark areas a
    little more which you may or may not like.
    BF, Nov 15, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    I have never seen anything like that, and it's still there "the S shape"
    and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too.
    Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain't normal.

    Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and
    more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
    Joel, Nov 15, 2008
  4. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    The picture was taken in Savannah, and I live in Orlando. Had I
    noticed the white building in the shot, with the problem it caused, I
    would have re-shot from a different angle. But I didn't. And I can't
    go back.

    That's a little better, but without telling me what you did and how,
    it isn't helpful.
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    I thought I was being clear, but I guess I wasn't. I'm not looking
    for someone to repair the image. I'm looking for suggestions on how
    *I* can repair the image.

    Nice of you to try to adjust it, but if you don't say what steps you
    think will work for me, then it isn't much help.
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
  6. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    I have no idea what you are talking about. This particular photo was
    taken with my pocket camera...a Nikon Coolpix P2. We'd gone for a
    walk around the block after lunch, spotted this stairway, and I was
    too lazy to go back to the car and get my D40 out of the trunk.
    There's no problem with the P2's lens.
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
  7. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    Tony, this is not a 15 second shop like that of John, but at few
    minutes more - here's my version(s):-..o

    Down here is what I did (the green one)
    I did'nt do it as if for a printing job
    but fast and without detail to show you
    how I would have went with it.

    Select Color Range (selected RGB 238/240/255)
    Deselect the sky and branches
    CTRL/U hue-135 Saturation +88 Lightness -15
    Select right side of buiding
    Feather 5
    CTRL H CTRL M down to input 150
    Select steppies at (now) green building
    CTRL H CTRL U ..... hue 0 Saturation100 Lightness 0
    CTRL D
    Select Sky Branches included
    Select Color Range
    Deselect Branches
    CTRL U hue -16 Saturation +88 Lightness -5
    CTRL D
    Select Windows
    SHFT/CTRL I (deselcting Windows to prevent sharpening in it)
    Pasted some leaves back against the sky
    Smart Sharpen at 127 x .5
    Dave, Nov 15, 2008
  8. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    Click on full size. You can of course stay with the original white
    color, but this was my way of showing you what you get get
    out of adding texture and why I would have added it to it.

    The painting in the file - well I used that directory because it
    is the only (near) empty directory and I did not want to create
    a temp dir.
    Dave, Nov 15, 2008
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Now that's an approach that I had not considered. Changing the
    building from white to yellow does nothing to restore the blown-out
    detail (gone is gone)at the top of the background building, but it
    does soften up the appearance. The eye is fooled because the contrast
    between the main subject and the background is less stark.

    That's what I like about a project like this. I can work on a project
    one way, and along comes someone with a idea that had not occurred to
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
  10. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    and, sorry for the detailed explanation Tony (which is of course not
    necessary for you) but I made notes for myself while I worked on it
    and simply posted it, and also there is the possibility it can be
    useful for newbies following the thread.

    I am surprise you say nothing about the texture because
    it added to the blown out portions. Carefully used, it may
    'recover' the blown outs.

    This opens a very important question.
    If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered?
    I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be
    addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other
    big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the
    year tut:)
    Dave, Nov 15, 2008
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    I read the post, copy/pasted it to Notepad, and will go over the steps
    in detail later. I'll try following them in Photoshop. The color
    change just jumped out as a something that I hadn't previously thought
    about doing.

    When I see a question that may involve several different techniques, I
    generally wait a few days to see what other solutions come up. I'll
    copy/paste them, and then try all of them.

    Keep in mind that it's not *this* image that is particularly important
    to me. That shot is interesting, but not great. What is important to
    me is dealing with any image with a similar problem and how to solve
    it. I don't expect this to be the last image I'll ever shoot with a
    major flaw.
    No, this particular image was taken with a Nikon P2. Had I shot in
    RAW with my Nikon D40, I would have worked with that.
    Your point on applying texture ties in with another area that I've
    recently been working on: Apply Image. I intend to try to duplicate
    this image, apply a texture to the entire image, merge the two with
    Apply Image, make the main image a layer mask, and brush out the
    offending area to let the textured area show. Dunno how that'll work
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
  12. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    thanx John
    Dave, Nov 15, 2008
  13. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    I am not talking about the overexposured but the distortion. And about
    the overexposured, just try the technique I have been whining over and over
    in the past few days.

    The distortion is the worst I have ever seen and I dunno if you can be
    able to straighten it out.
    Joel, Nov 15, 2008
  14. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    I have no idea what distortion you see. Are you under the impression
    that the steps run straight down?
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2008
  15. tony cooper

    KatWoman Guest

    RAW does a good job with capturing the highlight details
    I like using recover you can get a bit further

    I like that a it can be done in Bridge so you can show clients before
    opening and further tweaks in PS

    someone good with curves and channels might prefer that technique
    but if it's not there it 's not there

    best solution is to paint it in
    KatWoman, Nov 15, 2008
  16. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    You just look at

    1. The wall of the right side

    2. Drawing a verticle line at the lamp pole, windows, around the stairs etc.
    then you will see the distortion.

    3. Drawing several verticle/horizontal lines somewhere at the 2/5 or 3/5
    (somewhere in the middle) and you may see the distortion. And I hope either
    the house supposes to build like that, or something ain't right with my

    And about the overexposured. Just like I have been whining about.

    1. Make a DUPE of the original

    2. Adjusting one layer to correct the overexposured until you are happy with
    the result. DO NOT worry about the other area

    3. Using Masking command to reveal the good part of the original (lower
    layer). How good you do is how you control the Brush and Opacity.

    If you need to work more then just the overexposured, then repeat the same
    Joel, Nov 16, 2008
  17. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Perhaps someone else will comment on this, but what I see is the
    result of normal perspective. Not "distortion".
    Joel...I fully understanding masking, how to do it, and what it does.
    I have for years. What *you* don't seem to understanding about
    masking is that what it accomplishes is to reveal something under one
    layer that is on the underneath layer. And - this is the tricky part
    for you, evidently - what is underneath must be better for masking to
    be beneficial.

    In other words, if you have a silk purse layer under a pig's ear
    layer, brushing away masking can improve the image. But - and this is
    the case in this image - there's no silk purse. The problem is not
    how to blend in the improvement, but how to effect an improvement.
    Everyone here - including me - agrees that nothing can be done to the
    flawed area to make it right. Somewhat better, but not right.

    What *could* be done is to bring in an entirely different photograph
    of an appropriate Savannah-style house shot at the appropriate
    distance, free transform that image to get the size proportional and
    perspective right, place that image as a layer under the primary
    layer, make the primary layer a layer mask, and brush away to reveal
    that new image. That quite possible with sharp edges of the primary
    building. The only delicate work would be around the lamp post.

    However, I don't have such a photograph.
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2008
  18. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    If you don't wanna draw then it's your choice.
    I do understand what you understand, but you don't seem to understand that
    trying to adjust the explosure will change the whole photo not just any
    specific area. That's why you may need LAYER and if you don't want using
    Mask then you can always use Erase tool.

    So what I'm trying to say that understanding is one thing using the
    understanding is other story.

    And how to blend more than one image together is how you control the Brush
    and Opacity combination.

    Photoshop has quite afew options to straighten the photo causes by lens,
    but in your photo quite afew areas have some curve shapes (U and S) and they
    ain't all the way to the edge of the photo but right in the middle (and it
    effect the edges too).

    - Look at the lamp post it isn't straight | but wavy }

    - Look at the windows, they ain't / \, / /, \ \ or [ ] but \ /

    and many other areas too. Yes, it's possible that many lens can cause the
    photo to bend out of shape, or in general the photo may look like either
    / \, / / or \ \, and the fish-eye lens will have the ( ) shape. But
    yours ain't none of them. All the above ecept fish-eye lens can be
    corrected using Photoshop, but the wavy shape then I don't think it's

    Yes, the newer CS2 and CS3 (I don't have CS4 to confirm this but I believe
    it too should have the feature) have the command called Liquify which can
    straighten the wavy or curve, but it's almost impossible to get a smooth
    result without showing the error. Yes, Liquify is the tool I use pretty
    often (around 5% of all my works)

    Free Transform is a good tool to fix the LEANING building but not wavy
    shape, Liquify can straighten the curve shape *but* very limited, and you
    will need other dirty trick to hide some error creates by Liquify.
    Joel, Nov 16, 2008
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Joel, I'm trying to be patient here and I'm trying to avoid making
    uncomplimentary remarks about your ability to comprehend what you
    read, but - I assure you - I fully understand the use of layers in
    Photoshop. I fully understand the use of a layer mask. I fully
    understand and know how to use a modified layer partially exposed
    using a layer mask.
    That lamp post is probably well over 100/150 years old. That's a
    lamp post in the historic section of Savannah. It's made out of cast
    iron in sections. It's not wavy, but it may have been bent. The
    historic commission in Savannah forbids property owners from changing
    the houses in that district.
    I pulled guidelines into the image. The windows are straight. The
    wooden shutters may be a bit warped, but that's age, not distortion.

    You aren't by chance wearing spectacles with fresnel lenses, are you?
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2008
  20. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    Just.. but they lost as you said, for now)
    Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
    but there's always the possibility of more data in RAW

    yep, nice to have the preview facility
    Sound as if you were quite busy during the election preparation.
    It is on it's way for South Africa (early new year) and even with
    the politics in SA becoming more and more comical each day, a relative
    big part of the country are not interested nowadays (and will keep
    ourselves busy with Photoshop while others play not's and crosses:)
    Dave, Nov 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.