blown out sleeves

[drmac]

My son plays on a soccer team that has either white shirts or white shorts. My shots typically have one or the other blown out when I adjust for other parts of the picture. (see image)...

How do I correct that specific area in CS3? Or does anyone have suggestions on how to correct this issue?

[Flo]

I would try the highlight levels maybe? It will recover the texture of the whites.

[hawkeye60]

Copy to another layer and use the burn tool set to highlights with an exposure of about 15%.

[conkeroo]

Open Adobe Bridge (comes with CS3), left click once and then hit ctrl+R to open in the raw program. Then use the recovery slider.

[Robert_Lay]

In a JPG image the "Recovery" slider is not going to put detail back in those areas that were hard clipped.

In fact, there is nothing that will do that. Artificially lowering the value of pixels will make the blown out areas less bright but will not replace lost information due to hard clipping.

Soft clipping can be recovered (up to about 1 f-stop) if the image was shot in RAW format.

There is little or no basis that I can imagine for having used ISO 3200.

Next time, try shooting in RAW, use the lowest ISO setting that still allows you to get the shutter speeds you need for action shots, and check your Highlight Alert feature occasionally to make sure you are not blowing out the highlights.

[61ache]

A couple easy options

1) on your curves adjustment you can select portions of the image and show you where the values fall on the curves layer.

2) Place multiple layers. You can use the gradient tool (for example) to mask off highlights. Use one layer to correct curves on the field. Then merge the layers together.

[conkeroo]

...Artificially lowering the value of pixels will make the blown out areas less bright....

Isnt that the whole point, to make it appear like those areas aren't blown out?

[Robert_Lay]

Isnt that the whole point, to make it appear like those areas aren't blown out?


Doesn't work!

Take a segment of an image that has its pixels all at the same level - say, 247 out of 255. Next, process each pixel in that segment to a different value - say 240. You now have the segment looking darker than it did before, but have you injected any detail - no!

Detail is the variation from pixel to pixel that gives texture. If all the pixels in an area are of the same value, it is called posterization.

[PhotosGuy]

If you haven't totally blown all the highlights out, you can try to level out the exposure using a selection & a Layer Mask. PS, see post #9; PS Elements in Post # 14
A question about sky (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=338140) and the Airport runway shoot link in my post.

[Walczak Photo]

I have to go with Bob on this one...once the highlights are blown, there's no real way to "recover" them. Levels, curves or anything else, all you are doing is darkening a "pure white" area, but you're not adding any actual detail to it. You could clone or paste them in from another image where they are not blown out, but once the data in the image itself is lost, it's lost. It's one of the few downsides of digital.

As they say, with digital you should always expose for the highlights. Of course if your camera has Highlight Priority, it helps to have it turned on and to check the images frequently. Personally because I shoot so much "on the fly" (critters and such), I usually have my EV comp set down about a 1/3 of a stop or so just for this reason. It's just been my experience that it's much easier to touch up an image that's a bit dark rather than deal with the blown highlight issue.

I know that doesn't help with this image, but it's certainly something to keep in mind next time!

Peace,
Jim

[black_z]

It's funny how some people say to underexpose and others say to overexpose!

[conkeroo]

Doesn't work!

Take a segment of an image that has its pixels all at the same level - say, 247 out of 255. Next, process each pixel in that segment to a different value - say 240. You now have the segment looking darker than it did before, but have you injected any detail - no!

Detail is the variation from pixel to pixel that gives texture. If all the pixels in an area are of the same value, it is called posterization.
Im not saying you can recover detail at all, but if you can make the blown area look less than pure white, it gives the appearance of not being blown. To the naked eye (and not checked in PS or whatever) if it doesn't look blown, then that's acceptable. Especially in this instance when its only a small part of the image that's affected. If these clipped areas were "recovered" and you didn't check it in PS, would you know they were blown? Of course not.

[Robert_Lay]

Im not saying you can recover detail at all, but if you can make the blown area look less than pure white, it gives the appearance of not being blown. To the naked eye (and not checked in PS or whatever) if it doesn't look blown, then that's acceptable. Especially in this instance when its only a small part of the image that's affected. If these clipped areas were "recovered" and you didn't check it in PS, would you know they were blown? Of course not.

First of all, none of this is exact science - much of it is subjective and/or dependant upon circumstances.

My point is this - a really good critic of photographic images is going to be sensitive to what he sees as posterized areas or areas without detail - especially when they occur in the mid-tone range and cover large areas.

Of course, with a forgiving or less sophisticated audience, much can be overlooked so long as it is not too obvious.

The bottom line is that it doesn't hurt to be as knowledgeable as possible about such matters and how to avoid them. A lot of very astute photographers have posted their observations here and the consensus seems to be the ETTR is the best strategy in digital, primarily so as to minimize noise. Yes, in film days the rule was to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

My personal opinion is that ETTR needs a little adjustment in that the shoulder of the transfer characteristic in digitals is so often very abrupt. As a result it is very easy to lose detail in the highlights. That's reason enough to always shoot RAW just so as to give yourself the best of all chances for a good result.

[joedlh]

The first thing I would try is to berate the coach for picking a black and white uniform. Don't you hate that!? I agree with Robert. If you've blown out the whites, you won't be able to get back any detail. If you shoot in raw, you have a better chance. Also, if your camera has highlight tone priority, set it. This will compromise the blacks a bit, but black is after all, rather featureless. Another alternative is to wait for a rainy day and take your shots toward the end of the game when all the whites are slimed with mud. ;)

[conkeroo]

First of all, none of this is exact science - much of it is subjective and/or dependant upon circumstances.
It doesnt matter if it is an exact science, as I already said, with regards to this shot, you could reduce the brightness of the particular blown areas and visually it would be fine. Regardless if it is an astute critique or not. Not all critique comes by way of analyzing the image in PS.

My point is this - a really good critic of photographic images is going to be sensitive to what he sees as posterized areas or areas without detail - especially when they occur in the mid-tone range and cover large areas.Anyone who takes the time to look at an image properly will see the offending areas. For eg, a landscape shot where the entire sky is blown, this would be observed by any photographer who knows what they are looking at but with regards to this shot, the area is only small and so, once "fixed" (which is what the OP asked) would not be visible by anyone who is critiqueing, pro or not. Only through using an app. like PS would you perceive the posterization.

Of course, with a forgiving or less sophisticated audience, much can be overlooked so long as it is not too obvious.
Apart from the fairly self important air to this statement (or the apparent dig at yours truly..!) as I already stated....
If these clipped areas were "recovered" and you didn't check it in PS, would you know they were blown? Of course not.The bottom line is that it doesn't hurt to be as knowledgeable as possible about such matters and how to avoid them. A lot of very astute photographers have posted their observations here and the consensus seems to be the ETTR is the best strategy in digital, primarily so as to minimize noise. Yes, in film days the rule was to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.At no point did I disagree with you on this. My comments are made with regards to this shot and the use of the recovery slider to "fix" the blown areas.

My personal opinion is that ETTR needs a little adjustment in that the shoulder of the transfer characteristic in digitals is so often very abrupt. As a result it is very easy to lose detail in the highlights. That's reason enough to always shoot RAW just so as to give yourself the best of all chances for a good result.Again I didn't disagree with you on this, in fact I always shoot raw myself for that same reason.

[cdifoto]

Under these circumstances, I wouldn't even worry about it. No one's really going to be concentrating on his sleeves. At least not if the photo captures a great moment.

You do what you can within the limitations of digital and don't sweat the small stuff.


From a technical perspective, turning down the contrast in-camera can help if you don't want to shoot RAW.

[Walczak Photo]

It's funny how some people say to underexpose and others say to overexpose!


Just my opinion here, but I think this is one of those "film to digital" things. I'm not sure of the exact terminology here so if I'm saying this wrong, please forgive me but in the days of film, people were told to "expose for the shadows" because if you lost shadow detail with film, basically it was just gone. Film had/has a much higher latitude(?) to highlights than it does for shadows. Digital on the other hand is just the opposite. Because of the way that a digital sensor works, there is an absolute limit to how bright highlights can be before they "blow out" and as with shadows in film, once the detail is lost, it's just lost...in otherwords, with digital you should expose for the highlights.

Personally because of what I shoot (mainly critters and such) and the way I shoot (often "on the fly") I don't really have time or desire to be thinking too much about exposure per say. If I'm standing there trying to take a picture of a fox for example and I'm trying to calculate the "optimum exposure"...chances are I've already missed my shot. Because of this with highlights and digital, as I said before, I usually have my Exposure Comp bumped down just a bit to under expose the image just a little and thus, in most cases, preserve the highlight detail. It's just easier with digital to brighten up a dark image a little as apposed to trying to recover highlight detail that's no longer there. There certainly are extremes in both cases, be it film or digital, where you can go too much, but my main goal is simply to get the shot "in the ball park" and fix anything else later in pp.

Peace,
Jim