How to fix this picture?

[Aaaak]

Hey,
I'm quite newbie on all this, I feel like I'm pleasantly exploring photography but I don't know much [emoji16] but something I know nothing about: post production. Now, I want to take this opportunity to try it out.

So, I have a beautiful thing that I found somewhere far from home, I can't just go there to try again, still I'd love to "save" this pic which seems all wrong to me.

This is a plastic bottle of Coca-Cola filled with water and put into a whole on a roof. The light goes thru the bottle and you can have a good lighting inside, without any electricity. Cool, ya?
But I just couldn't get it right [emoji24]
Either the roof was too dark or the bottle too bright.

Now, I ask you two things:

1. Let's say I won't have the opportunity to shot it again. I loved the "lamp" and I'd like to keep the image anyway, how could I fix it, making the best out of this sample?

2. What did I do wrong? What should I change to get a better result?

What I want is a "soft" light from the bottle and still capture the inside of the roof clearly.

Thank you

 

[idcanyon]

1. If your photo editing tool has a "Shadows" tool of some sort then bring that all the way up to recover whatever detail is lurking in the shadows. If you have a raw file you can typically bring up a remarkable amount. What you do get will be kind of a mess in terms of image quality. If you did shoot a brighter shot also, then you can think about combining the best part of the images using HDR software or an able image editor that supports masking.

2. This is a high dynamic range situation. I can think of a couple of approaches. Neither are very beginner friendly. You can take two photos and merge the best parts of each, as mentioned above. Or you can add light in just the right amount to light up the structure without overpowering the bottle's light. That can be done using flash, or depending on the situation, maybe with a reflector.

 

[FotosbyMike]

Quick edit in Snapseed 2.0

 

[Designer]

What I want is a "soft" light from the bottle and still capture the inside of the roof clearly.

Greetings!

For one of us to fiddle with this shot to see if we can help it, please go to your personal profile and "Photos O.K. to edit"

 

[Aaaak]

1. If your photo editing tool has a "Shadows" tool of some sort then bring that all the way up to recover whatever detail is lurking in the shadows. If you have a raw file you can typically bring up a remarkable amount. What you do get will be kind of a mess in terms of image quality. If you did shoot a brighter shot also, then you can think about combining the best part of the images using HDR software or an able image editor that supports masking.

2. This is a high dynamic range situation. I can think of a couple of approaches. Neither are very beginner friendly. You can take two photos and merge the best parts of each, as mentioned above. Or you can add light in just the right amount to light up the structure without overpowering the bottle's light. That can be done using flash, or depending on the situation, maybe with a reflector.

Thank you. I have a photoshop version for tablet and I think it might have this kind of features. I could try it on pc later in the week as well. Thank you for the tips! When I saw all those buttons and it just getting messier [emoji44] but with your helpful guidance I might do something worthy.
About the changes on the set. I did try flash but I just have experience on it too [emoji28] it was just ugly, the roof was too close, short house, and I only have the standard flash that already comes on camera.
Thank you very much

Quick edit in Snapseed 2.0

Wow! That's much better! I knew it wasn't hopeless [emoji7]
Thank you very much [emoji4]
If you don't mind, I'd like to keep it as "my" best version of this picture.

What I want is a "soft" light from the bottle and still capture the inside of the roof clearly.

Greetings!

For one of us to fiddle with this shot to see if we can help it, please go to your personal profile and "Photos O.K. to edit"

I am sorry I'm Noob on forum too, I didn't know there was a right place for this. And I had the camera settings doubt too. Anyway, thank you, I'll explore forum better before posting next time.


Thank you all for the help.
I'll post my experiences on editor later.

Cya!

Sent from my C2104 using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

1. Let's say I won't have the opportunity to shot it again. I loved the "lamp" and I'd like to keep the image anyway, how could I fix it, making the best out of this sample?

What little you can do with what you have now is hardly worth the effort. You don't have enough data recorded. If when you took the photo you saved a raw file then a great deal could be done.

2. What did I do wrong? What should I change to get a better result?

You tried to photograph a light source along with what the light source is illuminating and you relied on the automated software in your camera to do the work. That's a dead end. Some of the more sophisticated cameras now include features that would do a better job but not a whole lot better. Nikon cameras have a function called ADL, Canon cameras HTP and Fuji cameras DR. Those functions would help some.

Photographing a subject (roof) along with the illuminating light source is really hard to pull off. It's especially hard to pull off with a small light source. I had to go to the basement and get a load of laundry so I grabbed my camera. Our 100 year old basement is unfinished and has bare bulbs in the ceiling.

I set an exposure that would record the detail of the bulb in the raw file -- you can see the spiral of the tube and you can see the vent holes in the base in my version on the right. With that exposure the camera created the photo you see on the left. In processing the raw file the camera blew out the detail in the lamp and threw most of the ceiling into a black abyss. To get the camera software to process the image and retain the detail in the lamp I would have had to reduce the exposure even more sending even more of the ceiling into black.

The photo on the right is hand processed by me from the same raw file. You can't take the camera version on the left and edit that to get my version on the right. There's no data in the camera version of the photo -- the camera software threw that data out. As I noted a camera with functions like I mentioned above could do better but they won't do half as well as I did. What I had to have was:

1. An exposure that recorded the bulb.
2. A raw file that I could hand process.

Joe

 

[Aaaak]

1. Let's say I won't have the opportunity to shot it again. I loved the "lamp" and I'd like to keep the image anyway, how could I fix it, making the best out of this sample?

What little you can do with what you have now is hardly worth the effort. You don't have enough data recorded. If when you took the photo you saved a raw file then a great deal could be done.

2. What did I do wrong? What should I change to get a better result?

You tried to photograph a light source along with what the light source is illuminating and you relied on the automated software in your camera to do the work. That's a dead end. Some of the more sophisticated cameras now include features that would do a better job but not a whole lot better. Nikon cameras have a function called ADL, Canon cameras HTP and Fuji cameras DR. Those functions would help some.

Photographing a subject (roof) along with the illuminating light source is really hard to pull off. It's especially hard to pull off with a small light source. I had to go to the basement and get a load of laundry so I grabbed my camera. Our 100 year old basement is unfinished and has bare bulbs in the ceiling.

View attachment 108598

I set an exposure that would record the detail of the bulb in the raw file -- you can see the spiral of the tube and you can see the vent holes in the base in my version on the right. With that exposure the camera created the photo you see on the left. In processing the raw file the camera blew out the detail in the lamp and threw most of the ceiling into a black abyss. To get the camera software to process the image and retain the detail in the lamp I would have had to reduce the exposure even more sending even more of the ceiling into black.

The photo on the right is hand processed by me from the same raw file. You can't take the camera version on the left and edit that to get my version on the right. There's no data in the camera version of the photo -- the camera software threw that data out. As I noted a camera with functions like I mentioned above could do better but they won't do half as well as I did. What I had to have was:

1. An exposure that recorded the bulb.
2. A raw file that I could hand process.

Joe

It's really thoughtful of you to have so much work to try to explain this to me.

I didn't quite understand all of you just said, but I can see now that it was much more complex than I thought at first to capture it the way I wanted to. I don't have raw files, as I said I don't know how and I don't use "complex" edition tools... so I preferred to use jpeg simply to save memory. I regret it now [emoji53] Well, I see I'll have to get used to edition, since all of you gave solutions which involve image manipulation... and I'll need a new SF card to have raw files.

My camera is an old second handed Canon Rebel XTi, it wouldn't be miraculous anyway.

Thank you very much for the kindness.



Sent from my C2104 using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

1. Let's say I won't have the opportunity to shot it again. I loved the "lamp" and I'd like to keep the image anyway, how could I fix it, making the best out of this sample?

What little you can do with what you have now is hardly worth the effort. You don't have enough data recorded. If when you took the photo you saved a raw file then a great deal could be done.

2. What did I do wrong? What should I change to get a better result?

You tried to photograph a light source along with what the light source is illuminating and you relied on the automated software in your camera to do the work. That's a dead end. Some of the more sophisticated cameras now include features that would do a better job but not a whole lot better. Nikon cameras have a function called ADL, Canon cameras HTP and Fuji cameras DR. Those functions would help some.

Photographing a subject (roof) along with the illuminating light source is really hard to pull off. It's especially hard to pull off with a small light source. I had to go to the basement and get a load of laundry so I grabbed my camera. Our 100 year old basement is unfinished and has bare bulbs in the ceiling.

View attachment 108598

I set an exposure that would record the detail of the bulb in the raw file -- you can see the spiral of the tube and you can see the vent holes in the base in my version on the right. With that exposure the camera created the photo you see on the left. In processing the raw file the camera blew out the detail in the lamp and threw most of the ceiling into a black abyss. To get the camera software to process the image and retain the detail in the lamp I would have had to reduce the exposure even more sending even more of the ceiling into black.

The photo on the right is hand processed by me from the same raw file. You can't take the camera version on the left and edit that to get my version on the right. There's no data in the camera version of the photo -- the camera software threw that data out. As I noted a camera with functions like I mentioned above could do better but they won't do half as well as I did. What I had to have was:

1. An exposure that recorded the bulb.
2. A raw file that I could hand process.

Joe

It's really thoughtful of you to have so much work to try to explain this to me.

I didn't quite understand all of you just said, but I can see now that it was much more complex than I thought at first to capture it the way I wanted to. I don't have raw files, as I said I don't know how and I don't use "complex" edition tools... so I preferred to use jpeg simply to save memory. I regret it now [emoji53] Well, I see I'll have to get used to edition, since all of you gave solutions which involve image manipulation... and I'll need a new SF card to have raw files.

My camera is an old second handed Canon Rebel XTi, it wouldn't be miraculous anyway.

Thank you very much for the kindness.



Sent from my C2104 using Tapatalk

Your Canon Rebel has the ability to save raw files -- it's a built in feature. Your camera can save CR2 files, you just need to set the option in the menu. Canon cameras come with raw processing software that is free. The program Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is supplied with all Canon cameras on a CD in the box with the camera. If you don't have that CD you can download the program for free from Canon's website. There are also other free software programs you can get that will let you process Canon CR2 files -- Raw Therapee, LightZone and DarkTable come to mind. You have what you need if you want to pursue learning how to do it.

Joe

 

[Aaaak]

Thank you very much, Joe.


Sent from my C2104 using Tapatalk

 

[tgalloway]

In additional to shooting RAW you might also play with your AEB features. This brackets a shot by taking (generally) 3 images at once. 1 slightly darker. 1 at your set exposure settings. 1 slightly lighter. You can control all of this, in terms of how far up or down you capture.

You can then use this series of pictures in Photoshop for overlay effects, to get the pieces you need from each shot.

This camera feature might have been more commonly used before Photoshop (it was for me), because we didn't have LCD screens to proof what we were doing on our first rigs. You trusted your gut and your meter...and then took multiple exposures, just to be sure. It's still handy.

 

[waday]

A larger file (especially RAW) would have been easier to work with...

 

[Aaaak]

In additional to shooting RAW you might also play with your AEB features. This brackets a shot by taking (generally) 3 images at once. 1 slightly darker. 1 at your set exposure settings. 1 slightly lighter. You can control all of this, in terms of how far up or down you capture.

You can then use this series of pictures in Photoshop for overlay effects, to get the pieces you need from each shot.

This camera feature might have been more commonly used before Photoshop (it was for me), because we didn't have LCD screens to proof what we were doing on our first rigs. You trusted your gut and your meter...and then took multiple exposures, just to be sure. It's still handy.

I never knew what was that for, thank you for the explanation. I'll try this out later.

A larger file (especially RAW) would have been easier to work with...

View attachment 108663

Thank you [emoji1] now you guys might have an idea of how genius this feature is [emoji362]
And I must start shooting in raw!

 

[fotomarc]

If you didn't say what the image was of, I would have had a hard time trying to work it out! I was thinking it looked like a pigs nose.

Raw and HDR are the best options for high contrast situations.