Help! overexposed image (Page 2): I have my repair version but don't know how to add it to reply.

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

I have my repair version but don't know how to add it to reply.

Got it added processed in ACR then clone stamped head.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Add a little more contrast and the photo would be just about perfect.

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

That sounds about right.

kubota king Loc: NW , Pa.

artBob wrote:

As you can see, fixes centering around burning just don't look right. I'd leave the burn out, since it occurs in other areas and indicates it's a bright day. That brightness seemed to wash out the photo a bit, so I changed some settings in raw and then adjusted the curves as shown.

Otherwise, it's much time spent cloning and painting, to match the burned out areas to their sources.

A lot of my customers would disagree with you . I know my last customer loved the photos like this one that I did for her that needed the exact repairs to them . Tommy

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

aguiden wrote:

What can I do about the man's head? Decreasing exposure isn't helping.

You mean decreasing exposure after you took the shot?

No...it won't help; you've already way overexposed the image.

The best thing to do is to learn from this.

Realize that you had an enormous dynamic range in this image and you were shooting them with the light source behind them...so to exposure their faces correctly, you had to let the background go nuke.

The other alternative is to filter the bright sun with something like a bed sheet, or get them into the shade or a different kind of light.

I'd recommend you get this book by Lindsay Adler "Shooting in Sh*#Y light"

It will save you a TON of headaches and trying to save images after the fact.

Even if you were successful in getting his head toned down...the blond is blown out also and so is the sky. Both most definitely take our eye away from the faces.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You may not realize it now but it appears that you focused on the guy in the dark shirt which unfortunately put the others faces in varying degrees of "blurriness" or "out of focusness"

You need also to get folks more on the same "plane" and parallel to the camera sensor to make sure that this doesn't happen.

If you have the opportunity, I'd try this one again, and fix the lighting by either shooting them in the shade, or scrimming the light or something and also to get them more on an even plane.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

aguiden wrote:

What can I do about the man's head? Decreasing exposure isn't helping.

Some trivial Lightroom adjustments - not exposure.

Another try
Another try...

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

pithydoug wrote:

Some trivial Lightroom adjustments - not exposure.

By jove I think he's got it! Nice job Doug.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

cjkorb wrote:

By jove I think he's got it! Nice job Doug.

I could not open the original so I took one that someone else has modified. I wonder what I could have done if the original was bigger or .cr2 (canon raw)

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

pithydoug wrote:

Some trivial Lightroom adjustments - not exposure.

When you try to darken an area with no data (the blown sky) you get that muddy gray look. Not acceptable, really.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

CaptainC wrote:

When you try to darken an area with no data (the blown sky) you get that muddy gray look. Not acceptable, really.

Acceptability is up to the OP. Was the correction ideal, hell no, i agree you can't bring back blown out. Is it somewhat better with the blown out area toned down, yes. All that was intended, nothing more. Your comment about not acceptable, is not acceptable, really.

In addition I was working with a grabbed .jpg of questionable quality and not a raw file.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

pithydoug wrote:

Acceptability is up to the OP. Was the correction ideal, hell no, i agree you can't bring back blown out. Is it somewhat better with the blown out area toned down, yes. All that was intended, nothing more. Your comment about not acceptable, is not acceptable, really.

In addition I was working with a grabbed .jpg of questionable quality and not a raw file.

It is not a personal attack on your humanity - just a comment that muddy highlights are not acceptable. It looks awful. The result is definitely not better than a blown out area. The blown out area at least is even across the image and not splotchy, muddy grey..

The fix that Jim King did on the man's bald head is darn good. With more work, the hair on the two blondes could be repaired as well.

Clive22 Loc: Sacramento, CA

I'm an amateur, quite the noob. But, I was thinking of HDR and I wondered if, as rpavich responded recognizing the dynamic range issue, the OP have used AEB and then blended the photos using a photo program? Or is that just not done in portraits?

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

CaptainC wrote:

It looks awful. The result is definitely not better than a blown out area. The blown out area at least is even across the image and not splotchy, muddy grey..

I will disagree with your assertion. While the toning down did add some gray it was secondary. With the original shot one's eye finds the bright blown out area first and then you find the people. With the white toned down, you find the people first and THEN notice the dullness. The picture is all about the people not halo.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

pithydoug wrote:

I will disagree with your assertion. While the toning down did add some gray it was secondary. With the original shot one's eye finds the bright blown out area first and then you find the people. With the white toned down, you find the people first and THEN notice the dullness. The picture is all about the people not halo.

The background is just as important as the subject. You are free to disagree all you want. I learned MANY years ago that if you have to make excuses or explain...don't show it.