Any hope for this image?

"James Of Tucson" wrote in message

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG

No sweat. Use curves and be happy.

If the wind was so strong, why is the seagull looking so undisturbed?

If the wind was so strong, why is the seagull looking so >undisturbed?

Good question! We’re up on a clifftop, and he’s down by the water. The perspective is an illusion. I’m up on a little hill above the lighthouse, pointing down at it, trying really hard to keep the sun behind it. Behind me is a gray sky, and the wind was seriously strong enough to bend the door hinge on a (rented) Chevy truck.

Here is where I was that morning (and my first attempt at stitching two images)

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_uppe r_lower.jpg

Went back the next day, and the place was *swarming* with tourists. I felt so lucky to get this picture, without people on the bridge, people on the trail at the top of the falls, in the park at the bottom of the falls, etc. Now if only I could afford lenses that weren’t soft 🙁

James Of Tucson wrote:

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG
I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

There is quite a lot of shadow detail to play with, and not too noisy.

Here’s a quick shot with curves in Lab mode.
http://geigy.2y.net/tmp/IMG_0801-lighthouse.jpg
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

OT: The blurred blobs indicate that your camera’s image sensor needs to be cleaned.

Andrew

I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow.

You can try to do it that way:

– duplicate level with your original picture
– desaturate the new level
– apply strong gaussian blur (30..40)
– set blending mode to soft light

hth Robert

I can’t seem to access the picture, however…

If you inspect each of the RGB channels independently, you may find that one contains more detail than the others.

Copy the contents of this channel onto a new layer and cycle through the blending modes to find one that suits better (eg: Pin light)

Hope this helps

A.

"James Of Tucson" wrote in message

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG
I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

"James Of Tucson" wrote:

I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

Mike Russell’s example shows just how much detail there really is available. In addition to that, I’d say take the measure tool, apply it to the bit of horizon (waterline?) visible and use that with an arbitrary rotation of the canvas to stand the "leaning tower" upright. ——————
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

Thanks for the replies! I’ve learned a lot just from this one example, and I truly thank you.

One piece of information I omitted, was that there was another shot, from a slightly different angle, that was shot with a very slow shutter, so has too much motion blur to be useful. It just occurred to me that it might be possible to use some of the texture detail, or something, from that shot to improve this one.

I must say I was quite surprised to see how much detail exists in this image that I had written off as too dark to be useful.

"OT: The blurred blobs indicate that your camera’s image sensor needs to be
cleaned. "

Right, a somewhat disappointing aspect of a digital SLR. Even if I’d noticed it there, it would have had to stay put. The bulb blower trick has worked ok so far. I’m dreading the first time I have to swab it.

I take a lot of shots with a bright sky in the background, I change lenses pretty often, and I do my travelling in the pollen season and at the seaside… If I’d known about this problem before, I might have waited another 10 years to try to get back into photography 😉

Hi James … you touched on a great tip. In the future try using a tripod and doing several different exposures of the same scene and angle. Then use photoshop to add the right expoure for one part to the correct exposure for another. If you had done that, using a tripod, for the lighthouse you would have had no problem.

Craig Flory

And I was kicking myself on the way down the road from this place… BUT, the wind was so high that it would have blown my camera, tripod and all, off the cliff into the sea. 30km/h, perhaps more. If the truck door hadn’t bent, it might have gone sailing 🙂

"OT: The blurred blobs indicate that your camera’s image sensor needs to be
cleaned. "

Right, a somewhat disappointing aspect of a digital SLR. Even if I’d noticed it there, it would have had to stay put. The bulb blower trick has worked ok so far. I’m dreading the first time I have to swab it.

*DON’T TOUCH THE SENSOR!* Take it to a camera shop that is authorised to do repairs on your make of camera and get them to do it. If they damage the sensor, they get to pay for the replacement.

However, cleaning just inside the lens mount may help to reduce the amount of foreign material which can get to the sensor.

Andrew

*DON’T TOUCH THE SENSOR!* Take it to a camera shop that is authorised to do repairs on your make of camera and get them to do it. If they damage the sensor, they get to pay for the replacement.

Now, for every warning like that, there are a dozen claims that the "CopperHill" method works just fine.

There isn’t a camera shop within a thousand miles of me that I even begin to trust.

*DON’T TOUCH THE SENSOR!* Take it to a camera shop that is authorised to do repairs on your make of camera and get them to do it. If they damage the sensor, they get to pay for the replacement.

Now, for every warning like that, there are a dozen claims that the "CopperHill" method works just fine.

<shrugs> It’s your camera. Do whatever you want to it.

There isn’t a camera shop within a thousand miles of me that I even begin to trust.

Sounds like an excellent reason to go on a long journey taking photos 🙂 Any camera shops you do trust on the Oregon coast?

Andrew

Any camera shops you do trust on the Oregon coast?

Well, I’d settle for Eugene or even Portland, I guess,.

The only camera store in Tucson AZ that I’ve found, was a really bad experience
from the moment I walked in the door. To be fair, I don’t know about Phoenix,
and San Diego is a bit less than a thousand miles away…

But this dust thing appears to happen routinely enough, that there’s no way I’d be able to afford a service call every time.

So far, the bulb blower has done an okay job.

No Problem. I saved your jpg image to hard drive, opened it up with Photoshop CS, applied Image/Adjustments/Shadows and Highlights, and wala, all kind of detail.

Jon
"James Of Tucson" wrote in message

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG
I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

Jon_Dear wrote:

No Problem. I saved your jpg image to hard drive, opened it up with Photoshop CS, applied Image/Adjustments/Shadows and Highlights, and wala, all kind of detail.

Would you be kind enough to post it to a website and give the URL here?

—
John McWilliams

I don’t have a website to post to.

Jon
"John McWilliams" wrote in message

Jon_Dear wrote:

No Problem. I saved your jpg image to hard drive, opened it up with Photoshop CS, applied Image/Adjustments/Shadows and Highlights, and wala, all kind of detail.

Would you be kind enough to post it to a website and give the URL here?
—
John McWilliams

I opened it in CS2 and used the shadow-highlight adjustment to bring out a lot of detail in the lighthouse and also darken the sky to get a halo effect around the lighthouses. Unfortunately, I do not have website to put it on to show you.

"James Of Tucson" wrote in message

Any camera shops you do trust on the Oregon coast?

Well, I’d settle for Eugene or even Portland, I guess,.

The only camera store in Tucson AZ that I’ve found, was a really bad experience
from the moment I walked in the door. To be fair, I don’t know about Phoenix,
and San Diego is a bit less than a thousand miles away…
But this dust thing appears to happen routinely enough, that there’s no way I’d be able to afford a service call every time.

So far, the bulb blower has done an okay job.

I haven’t used these myself – but you might want to check out these CCD cleaning swabs from Photographic Solutions:
http://www.photosol.com/swabproduct.htm

Hello James,

James Of Tucson wrote:

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG
I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

Duplicated image layer.
Desaturated the duplicate.
Inverted duplicate.
Gaussian blur radius 5 for duplicate.
Choosed blending mode "overlay".
Used curves to adjust duplicate to get a fill-flash effect. Combined the layers.
Used unsharp mask with radius 0.9 to sharpen and with radius 5.0 to enhance local contrast.
(I used my self-written USM plugin, which avoids halos)

I used gimp, however this should be possible in PS also. Of course there are editing artifacts (halo around sun) that should be fixed or avoided, it is still not optimal this way.

<http://home.arcor.de/peter.heckert/IMG_0801new.JPG>

regards,

Peter

Any camera shops you do trust on the Oregon coast?

Well, I’d settle for Eugene or even Portland, I guess,.

The only camera store in Tucson AZ that I’ve found, was a really bad experience
from the moment I walked in the door. To be fair, I don’t know about Phoenix,
and San Diego is a bit less than a thousand miles away…
But this dust thing appears to happen routinely enough, that there’s no way I’d be able to afford a service call every time.

So far, the bulb blower has done an okay job.

A quick insertion. My wife (now ex) dropped & busted the lens on my Olympus. I chose to take it to the authorized place, which was 60 Km away, despite that it wasn’t a warranty issue. They fixed the lens. They totally screwed up the electronics. I took it back. 2 weeks later I called to see how it was. They said they required a part from Japan that was taking too long so they were awaiting receipt of a brand new camera from New York. I picked up the new camera the following day. I was happy.
Keith.

_+arrooke wrote:

My wife (now ex) dropped & busted the lens on my Olympus.

Looks like you have your priorities straight!
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Peter Heckert wrote:

Hello James,

James Of Tucson wrote:

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG
I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

Duplicated image layer.
Desaturated the duplicate.
Inverted duplicate.
Gaussian blur radius 5 for duplicate.
Choosed blending mode "overlay".
Used curves to adjust duplicate to get a fill-flash effect. Combined the layers.
Used unsharp mask with radius 0.9 to sharpen and with radius 5.0 to enhance local contrast.
(I used my self-written USM plugin, which avoids halos)

I used gimp, however this should be possible in PS also. Of course there are editing artifacts (halo around sun) that should be fixed or avoided, it is still not optimal this way.

<http://home.arcor.de/peter.heckert/IMG_0801new.JPG>

Excellent, Peter! And a tour de force for the GIMP.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"James Of Tucson" wrote:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow.

Detail is there but also a horse-load of noise:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/IMG_0801-01.jpg
I used density masking in linear working-space.

Timo Autiokari

_+arrooke wrote:

My wife (now ex) dropped & busted the lens on my Olympus.

Looks like you have your priorities straight!
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

heh,heh,heh. That was but one item in the list.

Mike Russell wrote:

Peter Heckert wrote:

Hello James,

James Of Tucson wrote:

I shot this lighthouse in the worst possible light. No possible way I could have been there at any other time. The wind was so strong it damaged the door on the truck I was in. Moments after I left, a huge storm began. This is the photo I got:

http://www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/IMG_0801.JPG
I kind of like the silhouette effect, but there does appear to be some detail in the image that I wish I could bring out somehow. So I wonder if there’s anything I can do to make this image worth keeping, or if I just need to go back to the Oregon coast and plan on being here at dawn…

Duplicated image layer.
Desaturated the duplicate.
Inverted duplicate.
Gaussian blur radius 5 for duplicate.
Choosed blending mode "overlay".
Used curves to adjust duplicate to get a fill-flash effect. Combined the layers.
Used unsharp mask with radius 0.9 to sharpen and with radius 5.0 to enhance local contrast.
(I used my self-written USM plugin, which avoids halos)

I used gimp, however this should be possible in PS also. Of course there are editing artifacts (halo around sun) that should be fixed or avoided, it is still not optimal this way.

<http://home.arcor.de/peter.heckert/IMG_0801new.JPG>

Excellent, Peter! And a tour de force for the GIMP.

I see pretty distinct haloing around the locus of the sun (mostly behind the lighthouse.).

Mike’s appears the best, and I wonder if you would, please, Mike, give a step by step on the lab process you used…. I tried it, didn’t get too far, and got better results with just Adj.->Shadow Highlight, and a bit of curve, but results not as good with either of yours, nor Timo’s.

—
John McWilliams

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." – Albert Einstein

John McWilliams wrote:
….
[re lighthouse image]

Mike’s appears the best, and I wonder if you would, please, Mike, give a step by step on the lab process you used…. I tried it, didn’t get too far, and got better results with just Adj.->Shadow Highlight, and a bit of curve, but results not as good with either of yours, nor Timo’s.

You’re on the right track. Shadow/Highlight folowed by curves is a very good combination of techniques.

For this image: http://geigy.2y.net/tmp/IMG_0801-lighthouse.jpg I converted the lighthouse image to Lab, and used the following curve:

Lightness: (0,0) (4,24) (6,41) (9,47) (12,51) (15,52) (27,54) (47,56) (100,100)
a: (-76,-128) (75,127)
b: (-70,-128) (69,127)

Lab is great for underexposed images because, unlike RGB, there is no danger of adding a color cast when boosting dark areas. Usually underexposed images need a color boost too, and that is done by making a and b steeper. —
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com