Blown out images in post

[Charles Murray]

What's up everyone,
In my quest to better myself as a photographer I have come to an impasse. I've been under the assumption that when setting up my shot captured in RAW I should be taking it a little under exposed so I can bring out all the details in post without the highlights be blown out. But when I do this and goes to raise the exposure in lightroom, the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image. What exactly am I doing wrong?

 

[Light Guru]

have you tried bringing down the highlights?

 

[Ysarex]

What's up everyone,
In my quest to better myself as a photographer I have come to an impasse. I've been under the assumption that when setting up my shot captured in RAW I should be taking it a little under exposed so I can bring out all the details in post without the highlights be blown out. But when I do this and goes to raise the exposure in lightroom, the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image. What exactly am I doing wrong?

Show us. Create a free Dropbox account and post one of the raw files there along with your processed version.

You're first assumption is a bad one. Do not deliberately underexpose raw files. With a raw file you should either 1. Expose such that the camera software generates a good-exposure JPEG or, if you're more serious, 2. Expose the sensor to place the diffuse highlights at the sensor threshold.

Joe

 

[dxqcanada]

 

[Charles Murray]

What's up everyone,
In my quest to better myself as a photographer I have come to an impasse. I've been under the assumption that when setting up my shot captured in RAW I should be taking it a little under exposed so I can bring out all the details in post without the highlights be blown out. But when I do this and goes to raise the exposure in lightroom, the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image. What exactly am I doing wrong?

Show us. Create a free Dropbox account and post one of the raw files there along with your processed version.

You're first assumption is a bad one. Do not deliberately underexpose raw files. With a raw file you should either 1. Expose such that the camera software generates a good-exposure JPEG or, if you're more serious, 2. Expose the sensor to place the diffuse highlights at the sensor threshold.

Joe

Alright, I'll have to do this tomorrow morning when I get off duty. Didn't expect such quick responses! But you're saying that when I take the picture I should make sure the highlights are right at the threshold?

Edit: I could take a couple example shots on my phone to show what I'm getting

 

[dxqcanada]

 

[Ysarex]

What's up everyone,
In my quest to better myself as a photographer I have come to an impasse. I've been under the assumption that when setting up my shot captured in RAW I should be taking it a little under exposed so I can bring out all the details in post without the highlights be blown out. But when I do this and goes to raise the exposure in lightroom, the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image. What exactly am I doing wrong?

Show us. Create a free Dropbox account and post one of the raw files there along with your processed version.

You're first assumption is a bad one. Do not deliberately underexpose raw files. With a raw file you should either 1. Expose such that the camera software generates a good-exposure JPEG or, if you're more serious, 2. Expose the sensor to place the diffuse highlights at the sensor threshold.

Joe

Alright, I'll have to do this tomorrow morning when I get off duty. Didn't expect such quick responses! But you're saying that when I take the picture I should make sure the highlights are right at the threshold?

Edit: I could take a couple example shots on my phone to show what I'm getting

Different people chose different approaches. Here's a rule: Image quality increases with increasing exposure and the inverses is likewise correct. Second rule: Clipped highlights are forever. If your exposure clips all four sensor channels

-- there's no LR slider that's going to fix that. So exposing the sensor in your camera is like a game of chicken. It's the version of the game where you floor the gas peddle and drive straight for the edge of a cliff. The winner slams on the breaks and stops closest to the cliff edge without going over, proves his manhood, and takes the cheerleader to the prom. Going over the cliff edge is really bad

, you get a memorial wreath and flowers at the prom. So a lot of folks (including your camera manufacturer) will tend to make a conservative choice about when to slam on the breaks. The photo may not be quite as good as it could be but accepting a little quality loss is a lot better than driving off the cliff

. If you stop too far from the cliff edge you go to the prom without a date and stand outside with the other losers smoking and trying to look cooler than the loser next to you.

Back to the first rule: Momentarily setting aside the possibility of

, it's a clear and simple rule -- you're going to get the best image, best color, lowest noise, cleanest shadow detail, all good stuff from more sensor exposure. A clear case of more is better. The next question then is how much does it matter. Is there a big difference. And the answer to that is it depends. It's much less of a difference now that it was a few years ago. Our cameras have gotten a whole lot better. Do you have a modern APS or larger sensor camera? Then you can afford to slam on the breaks real early and stay far away from that cliff edge -- you'll have a very hard time seeing the difference. Do you have a smaller sensor camera or maybe an older model? Try not to underexpose very much, just remember a minor quality compromise is better than

.

I noted above that your camera manufacturer may tend toward a little lead-footed breaking as they approach the cliff edge. You noted you save raw files so it's a minor issue: the camera designers are well aware of what happens when you go over the cliff so they typically engineer a little safety factor into the camera's exposure system and JPEG engine. That leads to this general rule: If you have a well exposed camera JPEG odds are the raw file is conservatively exposed and could have benefited from some additional exposure usually in the range of 1/2 to a full stop.

Here's some reading: class notes. Pay special attention to the section in Chapter IV titled Option 1. It addresses this issue of sensor exposure.

Joe

P.S. Let's see some of your raw files.

 

[Designer]

You're first assumption is a bad one. Do not deliberately underexpose raw files. With a raw file you should either 1. Expose such that the camera software generates a good-exposure JPEG or, if you're more serious, 2. Expose the sensor to place the diffuse highlights at the sensor threshold.

Joe

But you're saying that when I take the picture I should make sure the highlights are right at the threshold?

No, that's the LIMIT, not the target. Read Ysarex's post again. You should be making correct exposures, not unthinkingly hugging one end of the histogram "just because".

 

[Charles Murray]

What's up everyone,
In my quest to better myself as a photographer I have come to an impasse. I've been under the assumption that when setting up my shot captured in RAW I should be taking it a little under exposed so I can bring out all the details in post without the highlights be blown out. But when I do this and goes to raise the exposure in lightroom, the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image. What exactly am I doing wrong?

Show us. Create a free Dropbox account and post one of the raw files there along with your processed version.

You're first assumption is a bad one. Do not deliberately underexpose raw files. With a raw file you should either 1. Expose such that the camera software generates a good-exposure JPEG or, if you're more serious, 2. Expose the sensor to place the diffuse highlights at the sensor threshold.

Joe

Alright, I'll have to do this tomorrow morning when I get off duty. Didn't expect such quick responses! But you're saying that when I take the picture I should make sure the highlights are right at the threshold?

Edit: I could take a couple example shots on my phone to show what I'm getting

Different people chose different approaches. Here's a rule: Image quality increases with increasing exposure and the inverses is likewise correct. Second rule: Clipped highlights are forever. If your exposure clips all four sensor channels View attachment 146683 -- there's no LR slider that's going to fix that. So exposing the sensor in your camera is like a game of chicken. It's the version of the game where you floor the gas peddle and drive straight for the edge of a cliff. The winner slams on the breaks and stops closest to the cliff edge without going over, proves his manhood, and takes the cheerleader to the prom. Going over the cliff edge is really bad View attachment 146683, you get a memorial wreath and flowers at the prom. So a lot of folks (including your camera manufacturer) will tend to make a conservative choice about when to slam on the breaks. The photo may not be quite as good as it could be but accepting a little quality loss is a lot better than driving off the cliff View attachment 146683. If you stop too far from the cliff edge you go to the prom without a date and stand outside with the other losers smoking and trying to look cooler than the loser next to you.

Back to the first rule: Momentarily setting aside the possibility of View attachment 146683, it's a clear and simple rule -- you're going to get the best image, best color, lowest noise, cleanest shadow detail, all good stuff from more sensor exposure. A clear case of more is better. The next question then is how much does it matter. Is there a big difference. And the answer to that is it depends. It's much less of a difference now that it was a few years ago. Our cameras have gotten a whole lot better. Do you have a modern APS or larger sensor camera? Then you can afford to slam on the breaks real early and stay far away from that cliff edge -- you'll have a very hard time seeing the difference. Do you have a smaller sensor camera or maybe an older model? Try not to underexpose very much, just remember a minor quality compromise is better than View attachment 146683.

I noted above that your camera manufacturer may tend toward a little lead-footed breaking as they approach the cliff edge. You noted you save raw files so it's a minor issue: the camera designers are well aware of what happens when you go over the cliff so they typically engineer a little safety factor into the camera's exposure system and JPEG engine. That leads to this general rule: If you have a well exposed camera JPEG odds are the raw file is conservatively exposed and could have benefited from some additional exposure usually in the range of 1/2 to a full stop.

Here's some reading: class notes. Pay special attention to the section in Chapter IV titled Option 1. It addresses this issue of sensor exposure.

Joe

P.S. Let's see some of your raw files.

I understand what you're saying, shoot for proper exposure that doesn't clip. Here are a few examples of what I was doing.
Dropbox - IMG_2297.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_2344.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_0339.CR2

Dragging the brightness up kills the contrast.

 

[Ysarex]

I understand what you're saying, shoot for proper exposure that doesn't clip. Here are a few examples of what I was doing.
Dropbox - IMG_2297.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_2344.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_0339.CR2

Dragging the brightness up kills the contrast.

Yes, get as much exposure as possible without diffuse highlight clipping, but the next step then, having seen these three photos, is pay attention to the lighting contrast and don't let your camera meter or you be led astray.

This photo:

is a good sensor exposure. Your camera was set to evaluative metering and in this scene did a good job. The diffuse highlights are captured and well placed near the sensor threshold. You do have two instances of specular highlights (reflections) that are clipped as they should be. You can't not clip specular highlights on a sunny day and so if they're in your shot and you don't like them, move them out of your shot or shoot something else.

Here's the raw file histogram for the above photo:

I've circled the specular highlight clipping -- you can see where the histogram hits the sensor threshold and just draws up a vertical line. That's an excellent exposure.

Your other two photos are another matter. Here's the raw file histogram for the mustang:

And so my comment about paying attention to lighting contrast. You have an overcast sky. It is the only light source for this photo. You have a photo with plenty of contrast and dark shadows and yet you're trying to include in the photograph the light source as well as the subject -- that's a yikes! I put a magenta line on the histogram to identify where your subject basically starts to record. THREE STOPS to the right of that you see the line that indicates the clipped sky. The camera meter stabbed for the middle and clipped the sky anyway but only underexposed your subject by THREE STOPS -- that's a yikes! Look at the first photo (bldg.) histogram as it trails off the to the left (shadow) end and note the difference in this one where I noted ouch! The histogram for the mustang is breaking apart too soon on your subject's shadow detail -- underexposure.

You can still pull a reasonable image from that raw file, but there's nothing to be done with the blown white sky.

I don't think the sky hurts much in this photo and since it's blown anyway a little more exposure for the rest of the photo would help a whole lot. This does beg the question: Do we walk away from lighting conditions like this? Does the white sky bother you? If yes then maybe walk away. White sky doesn't bother you then increase exposure for the rest of the scene since the sky's blown anyway.

Dragging the brightness up kills the contrast.

Processing photos like this takes additional skill. The bldg photo was pretty easy. It has some large shadow areas and when I lightened those then yes the contrast went way down, so I had to compensate for that. The mustang was a lot more work and required me to do some masking. You may or may not want to pursue the processing skills -- it's time consuming. The goal you really want to pursue is: did you recognize this lighting condition with the mustang before you tripped the shutter and then decide how you wanted to handle it.

Your third photo of the room interior: You raised the ISO to 640 and encountered a similar situation to the mustang photo where the bright light behind the windows caused the camera meter to drag down the overall exposure. Those windows are so much brighter than the rest of the scene that they're going to clip. But already at ISO 640 you sure didn't need to further underexpose by another two stops which is what happened in that case.

Joe

 

[john.margetts]

My attempt at 'Improving the picture IMG_2297.cr2. I don't see your "the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image".

 

[Charles Murray]

Dang, Thanks Joe. I do wish to get better at processing. It's fun to me, i just am not sure exactly how some things work. For instance, the Mustang shot I came up with a similar edit to yours. I wasn't as saturated, but close. The building however, i could not figure out the blown out cloud. It just annoyed me so i decided to scrap the edit. The inside shot puzzled me, and i attribute it to my lack of knowledge. Is there something i can read to explain what you mean exactly by the camera meter? I'm completely self taught so there are certain things that i have not figured out. That being one of them. Thanks a ton for your help by the way. You're way more knowledgeable than i am. I appreciate it.

 

[Charles Murray]

My attempt at 'Improving the picture IMG_2297.cr2. I don't see your "the image gets really blown out and loses all contrast and just becomes a dull almost grayish color across the whole image".


View attachment 146713

It happens, sometimes its not as noticeable, for example, here is my edit of the indoors shot. You can tell that the brightness has been bumped up, but it loses a bit of that color clarity. Dropbox - IMG_2297.JPG

Edit: forgive the crappy watermark.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Being self taught you might want to keep working on learning how to meter scenes and getting proper exposures. I sometimes will aim the camera more downward and meter the scene, then reframe the shot - I want the meter to read the light on the subject, not the light coming in from the background (from behind the trees or from the windows). I often take more than one shot and vary the exposure a stop each time to get at least one with a proper exposure under these type lighting conditions.

With something like the car with a crappy hazy sky in the background, I'd frame tighter and lower and minimize the amount of sky in the frame - I'd think about cropping off maybe the top 1/4 or so of the picture (who needs lousy sky and treetops when you've got the car? lol). If it's a nice day with blue sky and white fluffy clouds, that's when I'd be more likely to get a nice scene with sky and trees, etc.

 

[Ysarex]

Dang, Thanks Joe. I do wish to get better at processing. It's fun to me, i just am not sure exactly how some things work. For instance, the Mustang shot I came up with a similar edit to yours. I wasn't as saturated, but close. The building however, i could not figure out the blown out cloud. It just annoyed me so i decided to scrap the edit. The inside shot puzzled me, and i attribute it to my lack of knowledge. Is there something i can read to explain what you mean exactly by the camera meter? I'm completely self taught so there are certain things that i have not figured out. That being one of them. Thanks a ton for your help by the way. You're way more knowledgeable than i am. I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Here's a link to an XMP file for the bldg photo: IMG_2344.XMP Copy the XMP file to your directory where the original CR2 file is located and LR should read it and show you everything that I did. Note to check that I used the adjustment brush, linear gradient, and an HSL adjustment.

I placed a link to class notes in an above post that does mention metering. You can check this tutorial out: Understanding Camera Metering and Exposure

You had your camera set to Canon's default "evaluative" metering when you took these photos. You want to pay attention to two other options: 1. weighted average and 2. spot and start to consider using them. "Evaluative" metering (Nikon "matrix" or X camera "pattern") all employ software algorithms that try and make decisions about the lighting condition. That puts you into the condition of trying to second guess your meter trying to second guess the lighting -- yikes. You can learn to make the call without any guessing at all.

Joe