Lightroom Tip: Adjusting More than 5 Stops of Exposure

Lightroom's exposure adjustment has a range of -5 to +5 stops.  You can exceed that limit by using an adjustment brush.  You can paint the entire screen with a large brush or apply it to any portion of the image as usual.  The effect of the adjustment brush is cumulative and you can apply it more than once.

Note: Of course, this only makes sense if your camera captured detail in the first place.  This won't magically bring back clipped details.

Read More

Limits of Highlight Recovery With Lightroom and ACR

I love many things about Lightroom, and one of them is that it is very good at highlight recovery.  However, the highlight recovery tool has limits.


Recently, I took a shot of the space shuttle.


Blogged here.

This was how the shot looked before postprocessing:

The scene outside is very bright and is a little distracting. Moreover there is little visible detail in that area.

I tried using highlight recovery, applied via an adjustment brush.  I first tried using auto mask:

The highlight recovery was exaggerated for demo purposes, but you can see the result was not usable because of the very obvious masking borders.  I then tried just a regular adjustment brush.

Now there were no jagged edges.  And if you look at the histogram it looks amazing - no blown out highlights.  Or are there?  The reality is that there are actually no details that were recovered.  Here is the same section of the photo, this time with an exposure reduction instead of highlight recovery.

If you look at the histogram, there is a very tall spike and then no data whatsoever beyond it, a clear example of clipping.  Comparing the histograms alone, it may seem that the highlight recovery was able to recover some data where the exposure adjustment could not.  However, when the images are examined closely, we can see that the amount of data recovered in both cases is actually the same:

The highlight recovery (left) did not recover any more detail than was recovered through an exposure reduction (right).  So the histogram for the highlight recovery is a little misleading.

I'm not saying that highlight recovery is useless.  Depending on the effect I'm after, it is sometimes a more appropriate tool than exposure adjustment.  However, if I really want to know what data was clipped, then exposure adjustment is an easier and less misleading way to show the clipped highlights.

Among other things, to me, this emphasized the need to reevaluate the Fuji S5 and the D600.  I did just that and I'll be posting the results very soon.

Read More

Choosing the Exposure for Dynamic Range

Over the weekend, we visited Knott's Berry Farm, one of the first theme parks in the U.S.  What I like about Knott's is that the lines are much shorter than those of Disneyland therefore we get to experience more rides within the same amount of time.  I also think Knott's has a more interesting variety of rides for young children like our 5-year old, and has more thrill rides (though not as many as Magic Mountain).  Although the production value is not as high as that of Disneyland, it is still quite high.

During our visit the heat was intense, reaching 95°F (35°C), just one degree below the all-time record of 96 for that area, and 10 degrees hotter than the average for this time of the year.  With the sun blazing overhead, the dynamic range was very wide.  I used two different exposure strategies to deal with the dynamic range.

PROTECTING HIGHLIGHTS
When the ambient is very bright, it is very easy to exceed the highlight range of a digital camera and blow the highlights.  I used to not care so much about it myself.  In the shot below, you can see that the highlights from the sunlight-as-kicker have no detail at all.

However, when I started learning about shooting film, I became more attentive to highlights. With print film (negative film) I have tremendous latitude for exposing highlights, and it's almost impossible to blow highlights.  With digital, once a certain threshold of light is reached, the sensor can't record any more details, and all I suddenly get is white (i.e. blown highlights).  Blown highlights are therefore one indicator that the image was shot digitally.

(BTW there's nothing wrong per se with looking digital.  It's just a personal preference.  I grew up during a time when digital video was used mostly for lower-budget movies and shows.)

On this occasion I was using two cameras, the Fuji S5 Pro and the Nikon D90.  They have different amounts of shadow range and highlight range therefore I used different exposure strategies.  In the shots below, I took some test shots to show the effect of the exposure strategies.  For the S5, I took a baseline shot using its 'standard' dynamic range mode, and another shot at the same exposure but this time activating its full 400% dynamic range (you can ignore the absence of a highlight on the neck of the baseline shot -- the sun was going down and a shadow fell on the cheek and neck of the mannequin head).  I also took a pair of shots with the Nikon D90: first a baseline shot with a normal exposure, and a second shot that was deliberately underexposed by two stops.  BTW these were at ISO 400, the widest dynamic range for the D90.

In postprocessing I adjusted the shots to recover the highlights and in the case of the underexposed D90 shot, to normalize the exposure as well.  Here is the result:

With the S5's standard mode, there was almost no highlight recovered.  Conversely, with the 400% dynamic range mode, all highlights were fully recovered.  There was not a single pixel that was blown.

With the D90's normal exposure, I was able to recover a few of the highlights but you can see large patches that were blown (the temple, cheekbone and the entire side of the neck).  However, with the deliberately underexposed shot, most of the highlights could be recovered.  There is only a patch of lost highlight near the base of the neck.  

Full resolution S5 400% DR with adjustment (click to download)

Full resolution D90 -2EV with adjustment (click to download)

The downside of this deliberate underexposure is the greater amount of noise in the midtone and shadow areas (after all, I needed to increase exposure 2 stops in postprocessing to compensate for the underexposure).  For me, I usually prefer having extra noise (and using noise reduction) than losing relevant highlights.

---

Back to Knott's Berry Farm.  The sky was cloudless for most of the afternoon, so with the S5, I used manual exposure and set the exposure for the shadow.  Here's a sample shot, straight-out-of-the-cam:

Looking only at the LCD screen, the bright patch of pavement might seem worrying (IIRC it was blinking), but I was confident that most, if not all, of the highlights would be recoverable with the S5, so I concerned myself with getting an adequate exposure of shadow areas to minimize noise.

And here's the adjusted shot (not a single pixel was lost).

As for the Nikon D90, I set the exposure to avoid losing highlights as much as possible.  First, when judging the exposure I paid attention to the blinkies and histogram, dialing down exposure as needed.  Second, I used the 'Extra High' setting of Active D-Lighting, which meant that the camera would underexpose slightly to avoid losing highlight detail.  For JPEGs, it would also boost the shadow and midtone areas to compensate for the underexposure.   However, I was shooting raw, so the boosting would be done in postprocessing.  Here's a sample shot, SOOC:

If I looked only at the LCD screen, it would look very underexposed.  However, I knew that for my purposes, this was the 'correct' exposure.  Here's how the shot looked after adjustment in post-processing.

Most of the highlights were preserved.  There is only a small patch lost, near my wife's elbow.

Here are a few more shots from our visit.  I used two lenses, the Tokina 10-17 fisheye (paired with the S5) and the Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D (with the D90).

For when my kids are a little older

Knott's has a Peanuts-themed area for younger children, Camp Snoopy

A junior version of the elevator drop

We didn't spend as much time as we wanted because of the scorching heat, but we still had fun.

Read More

Photoshop Elements 10 Depth of Field Effect

I tried out Photoshop Elements 10's depth of field effect on the shot above.  It's a big improvement over the original shot:

The original shot.  What's with the evil eye, lady?

This is one effect that I can't pull off in Lightroom.  To create the appearance of a shallow depth of field with PSE 10, I used the guided mode to walk me through the steps.  First, I used a selection brush to identify the subject.  Next I clicked on the button "add blur."  Finally I dragged a lever to determine the intensity of the effect.  It's a pretty simple process, although a similar result can probably be achieved using a gaussian blur with a layer mask.

Read More

Merging a Group Shot Manually

When you plan to merge a group photo and take the shot accordingly, the results of an automatic photomerge can look great.  But what if you weren't planning on merging the group shot?  In that case, merging a group shot manually may help you get better results.

Over the weekend, we visited my parents.  Our kids had a great time and I was able to capture several shots with great expressions.

Unfortunately, as in many group shots, none of the shots had the best expression for each person in the shot.  Here are a couple of shots that I took:

Shot 1.  f/9, 1/250, ISO 640.  

Shot 2. f/11, 1/250, ISO 640.

[As a footnote, both shots were with TTL flash using a handheld 25" shoot-through umbrella (the SB-800 was triggered using CLS Advanced Wireless Lighting).  I brought the handheld umbrella with me because I knew we were going to shoot outdoors in the hot desert sun.]

Anyway, I have Photoshop Elements 9, which has a feature called Photomerge that was designed specifically for combining the best expressions among several group shots.  The problem here is that I wasn't working with Photomerge in mind so I didn't do the things that I should've done like use a tripod and use a consistent exposure.  So when I tried Photomerge it didn't work very well:

Photomerge fail :(

Instead I went to the second shot, extracted the image of my dad and my son using Topaz Remask.  I pasted the extracted image as a new layer on the first shot.  After transforming the pasted image to match the scale of the target shot and doing my best to align them, there were still misalignments and differences in exposure:

Check out the obvious line on my father's arm and sleeve

To blend the pasted portion more seamlessly with the target shot, I used eraser (brush mode) along the edges of the new layer.  

I partially erased the pasted image especially along the edges.

Voila.  It's not going to survive close scrutiny but it's much better than the Photomerge result (or either of the unedited shots) and took only a few minutes.  Here's the shot again for reference:

Read More

Understanding Post-Processing by Mitchell Kanashkevich

cover of Understanding Post-Processing

 Besides Rick Sammon's Light It! app, another tutorial I read over the weekend and that I'm excited about is Mitchell Kanashkevich's ebook Understanding Post-Processing.  Whereas Rick Sammon's app is addressed toward beginners and novices, Mitchell's ebook is primarily for intermediate or advanced amateurs and even pros.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mitchell Kanashkevich is a travel photographer who's career as a pro started taking off not too long ago.  He's very modest about describing how he got there, but his gallery shows that his newfound success in his photographic career is no accident.

ABOUT THE EBOOK
Many times, I've taken photos of scenes that had gorgeous lighting to my mind's eye but I felt I was unable to recreate that beauty in the photo that I took.  When I saw Mitchell's photos, I thought that many of his final images glowed with the kind of light that I have sometimes seen and sought to capture.

Mitchell has two ebooks, Seeing the Light and this one, Understanding Post-Processing.  I thought to myself: I've seen beautiful light, so perhaps his first ebook is not the critical piece that I'm missing.  I figured I would probably get his first ebook eventually, but I thought I had more to learn from his second book.

Mitchell's ebook is written with Photoshop and Lightroom in mind, though the techniques can be translated to other software as well, including Photoshop Elements 9 (whew, thank goodness).  His book assumes that the reader already has a good working knowledge of postprocessing programs, so it's not for the postprocessing novice and is written pithily (really -- it's 37 pages).  If, for example, layer masking is new to you, you might find this book challenging.  Rather, his book is for a reader who knows the technical steps of using various features of postprocessing programs, but is looking for direction in applying those techniques to photos.  (That's exactly where I am right now.)

Mitchell first discusses briefly the main tools that he uses, then he goes through 5 case studies of how he used those tools to achieve his final results, step-by-step.  In describing his steps, Mitchell explains his thought process, and shows the settings he used together with screen captures of the edits.  See thumbnails of his book at his website here.  The case studies all follow a similar process, but each one emphasizes a particular tool, thus providing readers with a view of Mitchell's general postprocessing workflow, as well as a better understanding of how particular tools can be used.

How well does the book fulfill its promise?  If you're a photographer with the level of postprocessing skill for whom this ebook is intended, none of the techniques are truly novel or earth-shattering.  However, this guide afforded me a glimpse into a gifted photographer's thoughts as he works on his images, and walking through the images showed me not only how he realizes his creative vision, but more importantly for my purposes, gave me insight and direction for elevating my post-processing work.

Read More