Correcting blow-out

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

  1. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    and heard in the manner of Rosanne Rosanna Danna:)
    Dave, Nov 17, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. tony cooper

    Dave Guest

    Thanks John, this was my conclusion.
    Of course it can not create data
    but it can dig deeper for data
    Dave, Nov 17, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    Well, if you ZOOM IN closer 300-400% perhap and look at *both* sides of
    the objects, especially the lamp post (and the lamp too), and hand rail

    Zoom in very close and look at *both* the wall & Green Line I drew you may
    see that the green-line looks like it's bending (because the wall playing
    trick on our eyes). It believe the problem Tony and many others don't see
    it because they look at the photo in small scale, and I often look for

    So, if he is going to print something like 4x6 then it should be ok, or no
    need to fix some small error. But if he wanna print large then it may not
    worth the trouble.

    And if he really really wanna go for it then I would suggest to switch to
    16-bit mode to reduce the artifact. Heck, I even see quite a bit of
    artifacts (digital blocks) on many areas even without zoom in any closer.
    Joel, Nov 17, 2008
  4. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    Me? the photo is already processed so I wouldn't count on it. And I often
    don't like to mess with the already processed file (no problem with camera
    processed but sometime people can destroy the color channel).
    Joel, Nov 17, 2008
  5. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    Just by following this thread I sense that many folks know quite afew
    commands, but the problem that very few has a real plan, can be able to
    smell the result just by looking at the problem.

    And part of the problem that because of the "I know this" and "I know
    that" can cause a much bigger problem than what it really is, and it may
    slow down the learning .. or 10-20 years from now the person may not be able
    to get passed the basic learning process.

    Example, for quite sometime and especially in this thread I many times
    mentioned Layer & Quick Mask command, and many folks including Tony still
    don't get it. Tony several times tolk me that he knows and understand
    exactly what Layer & Mask etc. do, but he doesn't seem to know how to use
    them the way they suppose to. Or just by reading the question alone I can
    tell that Tony (I am not trying to pick on you but because you are the
    original poster asking about the problem) still doesn't fully understand how
    to use those commands correct. Or he knows what they are but don't know how
    to take advantage of them (yet).

    So how about just split the whole problem into much smaller pieces and
    trying to put them back together to solve the whole problem. And just
    forget the RAW wishful as it's no match for Photoshop (if you have enough
    Photoshop skill).

    - Level, there are several commands to adjust the brightness to bring back
    the overexposured pixels, but I just use LEVEL as it's a very common tool.
    Newer Photoshop has Hi-Lite/Shadow, Explosure, Tone, and many many other
    commands would do the similar.

    Yes, you can use Level to darken the overexposured pixel (as long as you
    didn't destroy it). But as we all know that Level and other commands will
    darken the *whole* image, or when the overexposured looks normal then the
    normal area will become underexposured.

    -That's why I kept mentioning about Layer & Quick Mask as they will be the
    next tool to fix the newer error causes by LEVEL command.

    - After Level, Layer & Quick Mask and you are still not very happy with the
    leaves, tree branches etc.. then *again* repeat the same step, and this time
    you work on the leaves and tree branches.

    - Then Layer & Masking *again* for the leaves & tree branches.

    - If Level won't help with the leaves or some area's, as I see some color
    bleeching (I forget what it's called) which often causes by cheap lens and
    the light (sun), then you can use "Selective Color" to remove the color
    around the edge of the leaves, tree branches, walls etc..

    - Then *again* using Layer * Masking to fix the problem.

    What I am trying to say that almost *none* of single Photoshop's command
    is the perfect command, but they work real well with the right combination.
    Same with the Brush Tool, it works well with the combination of brush type,
    size, and opacity.

    - Then after you have the overexposured solved, and not happy with the rest
    of the photo, and or you a little brighter then again adjusting the left
    size to the brightness you wish. And as you know that the right side will
    once again be overexposured when you brighten the left side.

    - Then *again* using Layer & Mask to fix the problem.

    Those are the very basic commands that all Photoshop users should have
    them already mastered, now just learn to combine them to work together as a
    team. And if you know those very basic commands well, then you shouldn't
    need to spend more than 2-3 minutes (or around 5-10 mins on a complex
    problem) to fix most problems.

    And learn to adapt then exact commands to other problem, example you can
    use the very same trick to fix the "blow-out" to underexplosured, shadow,
    flare, color casting etc.. or you can use the same trick to replace the
    whole background. And again, you may need to master to Brush Stroke as it
    often be one of the most important commands of the whole process.
    Joel, Nov 17, 2008
  6. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    I find it difficult to respond to this. Joel's premise is so patently
    non-sensical that a sensible answer is beyond reach. The photo in
    question has a blow-out problem that resulted in missing detail. To
    repair the problem - really, to minimize the problem because real
    repair is impossible - requires steps not associated with a layer

    If a second photograph with sufficient detail was available (which
    there is not), that photograph could be brought in as a layer and
    revealed by use of a layer mask. The layer masking technique is *not*
    the solution to the problem, but it could be a way to merge in the

    There are steps that can be taken with the photograph available that
    can be done by altering the original in a layer and revealing those
    alterations in a layer placed above this altered layer, and this would
    employ layer masking. However, the problem here is what those
    alterations are...not how those alterations can be blended in.

    Joel seems to be taking the position that the solution is in the use
    of a layer mask. That's totally incorrect. The layer mask is a tool
    to reveal and blend in a solution, not a solution in itself.

    It's interesting to note that various people in this newsgroup, and in
    the newsgroup, have attempted repairs and shown
    their work. The results have been from not-so-great to KatWoman's
    very good. Not one of the these people have mentioned the use of a
    layer mask as the solution.

    Joel, on the other hand, has not submitted any attempt at correction.
    Rather, he's continually harped on a part of the process that
    implements but does not correct. His only contribution has been
    "proof" that the image is distorted. In that, he mistakes perspective
    for distortion. He mistakes a bent lamp post (it's clear in the image
    where the lamp post has been bent at a joint) for distorted lamp post.

    Joel may have some Photoshop understanding and skills. He has not
    shown any in this thread, though, and has succeeded only in looking
    tenaciously foolish.
    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2008
  7. tony cooper

    KatWoman Guest

    Tony it's like talking to a WALL
    WHOOOSH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>over the head
    he answers what was never asked
    and yes layer masks were used in my corrections

    Joel says
    ,........So how about just split the whole problem into much smaller pieces
    trying to put them back together to solve the whole problem. And just
    forget the RAW wishful as it's no match for Photoshop (if you have enough
    Photoshop skill).

    which I proved wrong with my attempt
    and guess what Joel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RAW is a BIG PART OF PS TOOLS think other's are fools to ignore parts of the program you find
    useful when you reject outright the BEST and first also easiest way to
    correct most images
    with the most options with least destruction to the image

    For everyone else if you still reading
    I recommend beginning in RAW with any image
    for some images that is all they need
    for others you will be a long way towards fixed with just RAW adjusting

    then PS to your heart's desire
    KatWoman, Nov 17, 2008
  8. tony cooper

    KatWoman Guest

    thanks tony
    I am new to using RAW
    & I really love using it

    wanted to see how much I could get back

    most my blowout is on white color clothing in the full sun
    I find I am able to get quite a bitof detail back into it
    and tone down the glare
    KatWoman, Nov 17, 2008
  9. tony cooper

    KatWoman Guest

    it's a good one
    you always make good images & nice contributions

    having fun with your new camera?
    KatWoman, Nov 17, 2008
  10. tony cooper

    Joel Guest

    The simple answer is YES or NO depending on how you describe possible or
    impossible, Possible if the data or channel is still there to be adjusted,
    or impossible if the data or channel isn't there.

    And in most cases there usually some data, and if it's put in the wrong
    hand then the available data can easily be destroyed.
    The Layer & Mask isn't the solution of any specific problem but the
    *combination* of the whole problem.
    Now you are talking, but still not there yet.
    It will be corrected when you understand the whole process which you are
    not there yet.
    You forget to remember that it doesn't matter what technique CatWoman or
    DodMan uses, if CatWoam or DogMan can recover the data from already
    processed (by Tony) which you saying it's blow-out or no data, then it says
    that you are WRONG right there.

    IOW, if CatWoman or DogMan can get a hold of the original with more data
    then CatWoman or DogMan may be able to recover even more. And it doesn't
    matter if CatWoman or DogMan uses Layer & Mask or not, because it's just a
    technique which you doesn't seem to understand.
    OK if you think it's bent from left to right and right to left then I am
    sorry you are right and I am wrong (happy?)
    Joel, Nov 17, 2008
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Making an exception here and top posting. Please, Joel, don't offer
    me any more help. You make my teeth ache.

    I have the feeling that if you tried to explain how to fry a chicken,
    that you would start with specifying the temperature of the frying pan
    and forget to mention that first the chicken must be killed and
    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2008
  12. Thanks :)
    Absolutely loving it thanks.
    Since getting it and a Tamron 80-210 (which actually works out as a 135-315
    equivalent as it's an old full frame lens), I've managed to start getting
    work published in the newspapers. Woo-Hoo.
    \(used to be\) Fat Sam, Nov 18, 2008
  13. tony cooper

    KatWoman Guest

    hope they are coming with $$$$$$ or the credits bring you some
    KatWoman, Nov 18, 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.