Can I fix the hot spots
Jul 21, 2014 19:59:53 #
Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100
Jul 21, 2014 20:05:15 #
catzeye wrote:
Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100
Your problem was that your shutter speed was so slow, it admitted too much light. You could try again with 1/30, but the best thing you could do would be use a neutral density filter ..... this would allow you to use a slow shutter speed but would could out a great of the light going to the sensor. As far as correcting this photo in PP, it can't be done - the whites are blown out.
Jul 21, 2014 20:17:57 #
catzeye wrote:
Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100
Post the original I would love to try my hand at it. Note: post a PNG not a JPG better yet, post the raw somewhere I can pick it up.
Jul 21, 2014 20:22:43 #
If you have light room you might be able to bring in some of the highlights from the raw file. It might have been possible to get a good light meter reading if you had set your aperture more towards f22 slowing down the amount of light getting through the lens. Otherwise the ND filter ( I use an adjustable one) would be your next best try. Good luck, it's great fun when you get this kind of shot.
catzeye wrote:
Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100
Jul 21, 2014 20:24:47 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Post the original I would love to try my hand at it. Note: post a PNG not a JPG better yet, post the raw somewhere I can pick it up.
I'll be watching closely. What does a PNG offer that a JPG does not?
Jul 21, 2014 20:36:24 #
Jul 21, 2014 20:48:58 #
It was so rainy and overcast and I thought I would need more light. Because of the rain I only got to shoot 2. Thanks for the advise
Jul 21, 2014 20:55:57 #
Lens Cap wrote:
If you have light room you might be able to bring in some of the highlights from the raw file. It might have been possible to get a good light meter reading if you had set your aperture more towards f22 slowing down the amount of light getting through the lens. Otherwise the ND filter ( I use an adjustable one) would be your next best try. Good luck, it's great fun when you get this kind of shot.
I got the ND filters, but didn't grab them when I left. I'll know to make sure I have everything with that I might need.
Jul 21, 2014 20:57:43 #
Rongnongno wrote:
No compression. THAT eliminates all artifacts and problems.
Please explain. I am not sure I understand about the compression.
Jul 21, 2014 21:10:16 #
JPG compression works by compressing like pixels. This in turn creates a loss. That loss is compounded when you save over and over.
A PNG can be compressed too but that compression if loss-less. Otherwise the images share the same limitations, 8 bit color depth and limited dynamic range.
A PNG can be compressed too but that compression if loss-less. Otherwise the images share the same limitations, 8 bit color depth and limited dynamic range.
Jul 21, 2014 21:49:49 #
I used the "patch" tool in PhotoShop to move some of the darker falls to the lighter blown out ones. Once you have blown out areas where no information exists, you have to steal information from other areas and patch it in.
Jul 22, 2014 07:13:38 #
Rongnongno wrote:
JPG compression works by compressing like pixels. This in turn creates a loss. That loss is compounded when you save over and over.
A PNG can be compressed too but that compression if loss-less. Otherwise the images share the same limitations, 8 bit color depth and limited dynamic range.
A PNG can be compressed too but that compression if loss-less. Otherwise the images share the same limitations, 8 bit color depth and limited dynamic range.
To expand. DNG and RAW are usually 12-14bit pixel values. JPG is 8 bit. So jpg has 256 possible vaues for R, G, and B whereas DNG and RAW potentially have up to 32,000+ values for each. This limits banding allowing for better transitions.
The whites may still have some recoverable detail. How about the RAW?
Jul 22, 2014 07:27:57 #
catzeye wrote:
Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100
More than likely you can do a lot to recover the highlights. I'm not sure what RAW conversion software you are using, but ACR will provide you the ability to bring a lot of detail out.
--Bob
Jul 22, 2014 07:44:01 #
Rongnongno wrote:
JPG compression works by compressing like pixels. This in turn creates a loss. That loss is compounded when you save over and over.
A PNG can be compressed too but that compression if loss-less. Otherwise the images share the same limitations, 8 bit color depth and limited dynamic range.
A PNG can be compressed too but that compression if loss-less. Otherwise the images share the same limitations, 8 bit color depth and limited dynamic range.
I'm petty sure you can PP a Jpeg over and over a 100 times without the loss you are talking about as long as you make a copy of the original first and do your PP on the copy and that way you are not doing any thing to the original at all. Iv'e been doing it this way and haven't seen any lose to the original at all and each time I save it I give it a different extension number such as the original number is say 25 the next one would be 25-1 and then 25-2 and so on. Let me know what you think...Rich
Jul 22, 2014 08:21:53 #
bigwolf40 wrote:
I'm petty sure you can PP a Jpeg over and over a 100 times 25-1 and then 25-2 and so on. Let me know what you think...Rich
What you are saying is somewhat correct. I have played with JPEG for a long time now. I have shown on UHH that it takes about 15 saves of the same file to show any visible loss of a file. But you are actual losing some of the detail from right from the first save although not visible to the naked eye. Your method of saving as, is fine as long as you don't start working with the AS in this case. I have found that saving as PSD or TIFF when I know I am not finished with the file. And when a think I am done. I Save As a different file, never losing the Original. I keep all my work files in a separate folder where I can delete them in one shoot instead of finding it a few months, or years latter. Never getting ride of the Original file.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.