Author Topic: HELP!!! The Shadows "ate" my Image! (Read 4273 times)

rjmiz · « **on:** February 01, 2008, 16:27 »

Back lit subjects are lost in the Shadows, How do we fix an image that is
Perfect in every way...except the subject is just too dark...EASY!

http://microstockpix.com/forum/shad/shad.html

vikavalter · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2008, 18:47 »

on the bad side you get more noise in shadows than you already had

rjmiz · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2008, 19:20 »

Noise will happen on occasion, but thats if you use curves or levels to make adjustments.
With this method, it either works or it don't. There is no in between. By deploying a screen blend to a layer
in itself does not produce noise per se. The problem can be created by many factors ISO, small camera sensor, poor exposure etc.

Thats why I developed this technique. A bit less noise results (not much though). I use Neat Image Plug-in for heavy duty noise.
Problems with noise usually occur in situations where you have "Underexposed" an image, and are attempting
to brighten the underexposed potions of that image. Most methods I have seen in the past use curves or levels.

There is another option to consider here to. That would be the
Shadow/Highlight adjustment found under "Image>Adjustments>Shadow/Highlights." in Photoshop.

I hope this helps.
Be well and have some fun this weekend,
The MIZ

PS I would also like to mention that I lean towards Over exposure rather than under, simply because of the noise you mentioned about.
It's been my experience that I have less problems adjusting images that are "Over exposed" rather than the other way around.

vikavalter · « **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2008, 03:01 »

Did you know you can avoid the masking with just double click under the layers name and sliding half to the highlights triangle all the way to the left tawards the blacks in the blending options of the layer?

rjmiz · « **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2008, 03:07 »

Are you referring to "Blend if"

vikavalter · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2008, 03:12 »

yes, you should definitly write a tutorial on this one

rjmiz · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2008, 03:14 »

I have. Its on my website. In order not to spam this forum, I limit my tutorials to only 1 per week.
I really don't think anyone would appreciate my jamming up this forum with my clutter. Perhaps next week.

The best to you, and your weekend,
The MIZ

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2008, 10:42 »

Miz,

I finally understood masks in one of your previous tutorials months ago. Before that, masks were a mistery to me. As I already said, I use old PSP7, and yet the magic of mask was already available, and all those years I was ignorant about its use. I read people talking about using masks and I had no clue of what they were for. I will post a "before and after" example of one image I edited after learning masks from you. Thank you.

Anyway, I have a question, related to the noise issue reported here. Have you submitted images with such "heavy" edition (like here, 3 layers of screen blend) to sites that review submissions? They can be so incredibly picky about noise...

Regards,
Adelaide

rjmiz · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2008, 18:37 »

I have to smile sometimes when people refer to noise in a photograph. Back in the
days when I was in the high school photo club, we used to call it "GRAIN".

With the onset of digital imagery we now refer to it as noise, and as though it were a bad thing. Well thats
not always the case in the fine art photography circle. (which by the way, is my REAL passion)

As far as my experience goes with noise, I virtually have none. My camera is a Canon 1Ds Mark II and rarely
if ever, produces any noise. I never shoot above 400 ISO, and I tend to OVER expose rather than under expose
my images.

It's a known fact in the post processing end of this hobby, that over exposed images are easier to
recover and make salvageable ; The same does not hold true for underexposed, and/or backlit subjects.

Sorry I could be of little help. Good luck with your work,
The MIZ

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2008, 10:50 »

Miz,

Being someone who started in photography over 25 years ago, I'm quite acquainted with grain, which, in some cases, is indeed a very pleasant touch (especially in B&W, I don't really like high grain in color images in general). I think there is a subtle yet visible distiction between film grain and digital noise, especially noise created in a heavy edition (been there, done that).

Nevertheless, top microstock sites are insanely picky towards anything that looks like noise (even cloth or paper textures, which are naturally rough, are sometimes mistakenly considered "noise" or "artifacting"), that's why I asked about their acceptance of such heavily edited images, in case you submit to them. I'm not lucky enough to have such a high-end camera, and even with my Canon 400D I may get some noise, especially on skies (not often, but sometimes).

It's curious that you say the overexposed images are easier to heal than underexposed ones. I had the impression it was the opposite, since normally overexposed images have blown highlights whose details are lost, whereas underexposed images more rarely get to the point of clipping lowlights significantly. Do you have any tutorial showing this? I would be very interested.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2008, 11:01 »

Blown hillights can be cloned most of the time and the overexposure produce less noise when you re-adjust the curves than the underexposed ones if I follow my experience.

I always overexpose my pictures a bit (but less than 1IL) because it make me have much brighter colors and avoid noise if I misunderstood the scene and adjustment is needed. If it's done whit care, I have no problem whit hillights...

rjmiz · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2008, 15:08 »

Please allow me to clarify my claim "That overexposed" Images are easier to post process.

It's my fault for assuming the reader would know that any highlights that are clipped, or gone to pure white (255)
are NOT recoverable. I assumed the reader would know that ALL information in that portion of the image is lost forever
and can never be recovered.

I was referring to over exposed, where information in the image would still there.
Photoshop can only work with information that is still contained inside the image.

I apologize for not making that clearer.

Best regards to you,
The MIZ