Processing help needed

[JohnTrav]

I am still learning how rouse my photoshop and photoshop camera raw programs to process my photos. I also have Lightroom 4 but barely ever use it because it runs so slow on my computer.

Petty ,ugh right no I am having trouble figuring out how to edit photos with some blown out highlights while some of it is underexposed it seems. I read books such as "the digital negative" and other Scott kelby books on using these programs and also watch YouTube video tutorials and utilize google. For some reason I just can not figure this out.

Here are the shots of before and after of what I was working on that IMO I am doing a terrible job on

This was also a panorama shot stitched together in photoshop them processed in camera raw if that means anything to anyone. Also the gear I used was my canon 7D with my canon 70-200 f/2.8L. No fill flash was used and I prolly should have used it. Any help will be appreciated.

Pretty much what I was trying to do was tone down the blown out sky (I failed)

Here is the before:



Here is the after:

 

[amolitor]

What are you trying to accomplish? The first one looks fine to me. The sky is very very light, but that's what it looked like.

There DOES seem to be a ridgeline in the background on the right that perhaps you're trying to bring out? You just need a more subtle hand on the curves control there. You've dragged the entire top end of the tonal range down -- don't do that!

You might need to perform local adjustments to bring that ridge out.

 

[Big Mike]

The problem is that you have blown out areas in the photo to start with.

In digital photography, once the image (or parts of it) reach the level of exposure that represents pure white...we call it blown out. Once an area is blown out, it can no longer retain any other useful data....which means that once it's blown out, there is no color or texture left.

So even though you can process the image and try to reduce the exposure...there is nothing there except pure white...and so you get plain grey.

The solution for this, is to prevent blowing out the photo in the first place. Check your histograms as you shoot.

When you are trying to shoot a scene like your example, you have to realize that the scene has a very wide 'dynamic range'....a very large difference from the brightest areas to the darkest areas. And you also have to realize that your camera also has a dynamic range (that it can capture)...and the scene's range is larger than that of the camera.
So it means that you can't get everything (both highlights and shadows) properly exposed in a single exposure.

Since the dawn of photography, photographers have had to make choices. In this case, you would have to choose between exposing for the bright areas (the sky) and the darker areas. You can help to get more range in the image by processing carefully...but you can't get anything out of areas that have been blown out.

I'd suggest you look into HDR techniques. Basically, you would take at least two different exposures, so that you have the whole scene well exposed....then take the photos and use software to merge them.

 

[JohnTrav]

What are you trying to accomplish? The first one looks fine to me. The sky is very very light, but that's what it looked like.

There DOES seem to be a ridgeline in the background on the right that perhaps you're trying to bring out? You just need a more subtle hand on the curves control there. You've dragged the entire top end of the tonal range down -- don't do that!

You might need to perform local adjustments to bring that ridge out.

In this I wanted to tone down the sky so it was not blown out. While doing that I did darken the entire image and it did not turn out like I wanted it to. Maybe the sky is just lost. It was very clear and bright out the day I shot this.

 

[JohnTrav]

The problem is that you have blown out areas in the photo to start with.

In digital photography, once the image (or parts of it) reach the level of exposure that represents pure white...we call it blown out. Once an area is blown out, it can no longer retain any other useful data....which means that once it's blown out, there is no color or texture left.

So even though you can process the image and try to reduce the exposure...there is nothing there except pure white...and so you get plain grey.

The solution for this, is to prevent blowing out the photo in the first place. Check your histograms as you shoot.

When you are trying to shoot a scene like your example, you have to realize that the scene has a very wide 'dynamic range'....a very large difference from the brightest areas to the darkest areas. And you also have to realize that your camera also has a dynamic range (that it can capture)...and the scene's range is larger than that of the camera.
So it means that you can't get everything (both highlights and shadows) properly exposed in a single exposure.

Since the dawn of photography, photographers have had to make choices. In this case, you would have to choose between exposing for the bright areas (the sky) and the darker areas. You can help to get more range in the image by processing carefully...but you can't get anything out of areas that have been blown out.

I'd suggest you look into HDR techniques. Basically, you would take at least two different exposures, so that you have the whole scene well exposed....then take the photos and use software to merge them.

That's for the tips mike. I will start to check my histogram more as I shoot. I do have my camera set to show my histogram and rgb next to the images on my LCD screen as I shoot. I know reading histograms is very important in digital photography. I have researched it before on how to read them an think I understand it for the most part of what I am looking at.

As far as HDR techniques I have tried some in the last. Not having a tripod with me at the time though was limiting. I could have utilized my bracketing feature on my camera though and probly still got the shot. I never did a HDR panorama though. Seems like something I might have to try out.

 

[Big Mike]

I'm wondering why you did a panorama of this scene. It looks like something you could have shot, without stitching, just by standing back a few feet.

I never did a HDR panorama though. Seems like something I might have to try out.

Certainly possible...but may cause some problems.

Depending on the scene, it may be better to do an 'old school' HDR where you simply replace parts of the scene with careful masking, rather than just having the software 'merge' the different images.

 

[JohnTrav]

I'm wondering why you did a panorama of this scene. It looks like something you could have shot, without stitching, just by standing back a few feet.

Certainly possible...but may cause some problems.

Depending on the scene, it may be better to do an 'old school' HDR where you simply replace parts of the scene with careful masking, rather than just having the software 'merge' the different images.

I was backed up as far as possible and I did not have my wide angle lens with me. I plan on investing in either a 17-40 f/4L or a 16-35 f/2.8 L some time in the bear future.

I never did an old school HDR by replacing parts of a picture and masking it. I will have to look in to that and see how it is done.

Thanks for the advise

 

[Light Guru]

What are you trying to accomplish? The first one looks fine to me. The sky is very very light, but that's what it looked like.

There DOES seem to be a ridgeline in the background on the right that perhaps you're trying to bring out? You just need a more subtle hand on the curves control there. You've dragged the entire top end of the tonal range down -- don't do that!

You might need to perform local adjustments to bring that ridge out.

In this I wanted to tone down the sky so it was not blown out. While doing that I did darken the entire image and it did not turn out like I wanted it to. Maybe the sky is just lost. It was very clear and bright out the day I shot this.

Problem is because it was so blown up there was nothing to recover and so the processing just made the sky look fake a muddy.

 

[JohnTrav]

I guess next time I can try and se a polarizing filter and maybe that will help.

 

[DarkShadow]

Or graduated neutral density filter.

 

[JohnTrav]

Or graduated neutral density filter.

I will look in to picking one if them up. I know I gave a polarizing filter in my bag for my 70-200 already.