Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Constant ETTR...
Page <<first <prev 8 of 8
Jan 12, 2019 14:13:59   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
anotherview wrote:
Re your concern: "I don't think I can get the bright tone from an image that is shot underexposed."

In Adobe Camera Raw, you can use the Targeted Adjustment Tool in conjunction with the HSL Adjustments panel to to brighten colors that appear underexposed. HSL stands for "Hue, Saturation, and Luminance."

Press the T key to bring up the TAT. The cursor will change to a crosshairs and a small circle with a dot in the middle of it.

In the HSL panel, select the Luminance tab.

Place the TAT cursor on an image color area you want to brighten.

While holding down the left button of the mouse, drag the TAT cursor to the right. The selected color will brighten.

If the color looks washed out, then first try selecting the Saturation tab. Reset the Luminance adjustment.
Place the TAT cursor over this color and drag the mouse to the right. This color will saturate more.

Note that getting a color to look natural in relation to the rest of the image may take some further tweaking between Saturation and Luminance. Your eye will tell you the right degree of adjustment.

I hope this suggestion helps.
Re your concern: "I don't think I can get th... (show quote)


I'm probably going to regret my reply to this post but what the hell...

Of course this "suggestion helps" and it's mighty kind of your to take your time to respond, especially if a person uses ACR or another processing program that has those features you describe: however, this solution seems to violate the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it rule." It almost sounds like it's a case of breaking it just so we can fix it. "If it's Raw it has to be processed anyway so what's one more step among the other many steps, right" - and I get that, but, if it can be fixed with a camera setting and take advantage of the proper technique as described by our resident experts and yields the desired results, why not just set the camera and forget it. Or maybe I'm missing something. I had a look at "via's" 500pix images and they look pretty well exposed to me, for what that's worth. Maybe there's another reason why he should alter his technique as suggested and if so, I would like to know what that reason is, just out of curiosity, in the event I missed something in the conversation that comes to bear on why he should do a 180* in the first place. Thanks...

Reply
Jan 12, 2019 22:48:38   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Yes, another technique may work to gain desired results. So be it.

For my part, I've developed a few techniques over the years to enable me to adjust my photographs to bring out their potential. Here I only offered a technique someone might find useful. Please consider my suggestion in that spirit.
gessman wrote:
I'm probably going to regret my reply to this post but what the hell...

Of course this "suggestion helps" and it's mighty kind of your to take your time to respond, especially if a person uses ACR or another processing program that has those features you describe: however, this solution seems to violate the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it rule." It almost sounds like it's a case of breaking it just so we can fix it. "If it's Raw it has to be processed anyway so what's one more step among the other many steps, right" - and I get that, but, if it can be fixed with a camera setting and take advantage of the proper technique as described by our resident experts and yields the desired results, why not just set the camera and forget it. Or maybe I'm missing something. I had a look at "via's" 500pix images and they look pretty well exposed to me, for what that's worth. Maybe there's another reason why he should alter his technique as suggested and if so, I would like to know what that reason is, just out of curiosity, in the event I missed something in the conversation that comes to bear on why he should do a 180* in the first place. Thanks...
I'm probably going to regret my reply to this post... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 13, 2019 20:07:26   #
Bipod
 
Post processing filters are like everything else: some good, some bad.
The trick is knowing which is which.

But the publishers of processing software packages don't make it easy.
Using these packages is like going down a buffet line where there are bottles of
ketchup, mustard, glue, hot sauce, paint, relish, castor oil....all labeled "Yummy!"

The software should warn the user when he is about to do something that will
degrade the image (losing resolution, acutance, contrast or gradation). Otherwise,
he may not find out until he makes a print or sends the image file off to an editor.

One information-lossy operation may be OK, but apply several lossy-filters
in succession (which is easy to do without realizing it!) and the image will suffer.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 8
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.