Correcting blow-out

TC
Posted By
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
Views
1865
Replies
65
Status
Closed
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg

the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

JJ
John J
Nov 15, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts.

Select, copy to new layer then use curves. Caveat: if there is no detail or range (which is likely) then the best you can expect is a general change.

Enjoy!
JJ
John J
Nov 15, 2008
I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.

Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)
B
BF
Nov 15, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
What is gone is gone. Here is my try bringing out the dark areas a little more which you may or may not like.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s108/Billfor/savannah020c .jpg
J
Joel
Nov 15, 2008
John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.

Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
JJ
John J
Nov 15, 2008
Joel wrote:
John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.
Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.

It ain’t the lens. It is all about the dynamic range of the sensor. With some digital cameras you don’t really know what the internal processor for automatic exposure is doing to your image.

It really ain’t the lens at all! I’d hate to know that people are putting dollars where an informed mind would suffice, but that’s the norm.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:35:19 -0600, John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

The picture was taken in Savannah, and I live in Orlando. Had I noticed the white building in the shot, with the problem it caused, I would have re-shot from a different angle. But I didn’t. And I can’t go back.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

That’s a little better, but without telling me what you did and how, it isn’t helpful.

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
TC
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:58:53 -0500, BF wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
What is gone is gone. Here is my try bringing out the dark areas a little more which you may or may not like.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s108/Billfor/savannah020c .jpg

I thought I was being clear, but I guess I wasn’t. I’m not looking for someone to repair the image. I’m looking for suggestions on how *I* can repair the image.

Nice of you to try to adjust it, but if you don’t say what steps you think will work for me, then it isn’t much help.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
TC
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:00:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.
Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This particular photo was taken with my pocket camera…a Nikon Coolpix P2. We’d gone for a walk around the block after lunch, spotted this stairway, and I was too lazy to go back to the car and get my D40 out of the trunk. There’s no problem with the P2’s lens.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
D
Dave
Nov 15, 2008
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:52:38 -0500, tony cooper
I thought I was being clear, but I guess I wasn’t. I’m not looking for someone to repair the image. I’m looking for suggestions on how *I* can repair the image.

Nice of you to try to adjust it, but if you don’t say what steps you think will work for me, then it isn’t much help.

Tony, this is not a 15 second shop like that of John, but at few minutes more – here’s my version(s):-..o

http://kuns.fotopic.net/c1584265.html

Down here is what I did (the green one)
I did’nt do it as if for a printing job
but fast and without detail to show you
how I would have went with it.

Select Color Range (selected RGB 238/240/255)
Deselect the sky and branches
———Building———
Filter/Texture/Cracuelure
CTRL/U hue-135 Saturation +88 Lightness -15
Select right side of buiding
Feather 5
CTRL H CTRL M down to input 150
———Stairs———
Select steppies at (now) green building
CTRL H CTRL U ….. hue 0 Saturation100 Lightness 0
CTRL D
———Sky———
Select Sky Branches included
Select Color Range
Deselect Branches
CTRL U hue -16 Saturation +88 Lightness -5
CTRL D
Select Windows
SHFT/CTRL I (deselcting Windows to prevent sharpening in it) ———Leaves———
Pasted some leaves back against the sky
Smart Sharpen at 127 x .5
D
Dave
Nov 15, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:49:10 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:52:38 -0500, tony cooper
I thought I was being clear, but I guess I wasn’t. I’m not looking for someone to repair the image. I’m looking for suggestions on how *I* can repair the image.

Nice of you to try to adjust it, but if you don’t say what steps you think will work for me, then it isn’t much help.

Tony, this is not a 15 second shop like that of John, but at few minutes more – here’s my version(s):-..o

http://kuns.fotopic.net/c1584265.html

Click on full size. You can of course stay with the original white color, but this was my way of showing you what you get get out of adding texture and why I would have added it to it.

The painting in the file – well I used that directory because it is the only (near) empty directory and I did not want to create a temp dir.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:49:10 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:52:38 -0500, tony cooper
I thought I was being clear, but I guess I wasn’t. I’m not looking for someone to repair the image. I’m looking for suggestions on how *I* can repair the image.

Nice of you to try to adjust it, but if you don’t say what steps you think will work for me, then it isn’t much help.

Tony, this is not a 15 second shop like that of John, but at few minutes more – here’s my version(s):-..o

http://kuns.fotopic.net/c1584265.html

Down here is what I did (the green one)
I did’nt do it as if for a printing job
but fast and without detail to show you
how I would have went with it.

Now that’s an approach that I had not considered. Changing the building from white to yellow does nothing to restore the blown-out detail (gone is gone)at the top of the background building, but it does soften up the appearance. The eye is fooled because the contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.

That’s what I like about a project like this. I can work on a project one way, and along comes someone with a idea that had not occurred to me.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
D
Dave
Nov 15, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:50:10 -0500, tony cooper
Down here is what I did (the green one)
I did’nt do it as if for a printing job
but fast and without detail to show you
how I would have went with it.

Now that’s an approach that I had not considered. Changing the building from white to yellow does nothing to restore the blown-out detail (gone is gone)at the top of the background building, but it does soften up the appearance. The eye is fooled because the contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
That’s what I like about a project like this. I can work on a project one way, and along comes someone with a idea that had not occurred to me.

and, sorry for the detailed explanation Tony (which is of course not necessary for you) but I made notes for myself while I worked on it and simply posted it, and also there is the possibility it can be useful for newbies following the thread.

I am surprise you say nothing about the texture because
it added to the blown out portions. Carefully used, it may ‘recover’ the blown outs.

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered? I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)
JJ
John J
Nov 15, 2008
Dave wrote:

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered? I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)

A blow-out is where the sensors are overwhelmed, signal is far out of range. It translates to no significant texture.

The approach shown to add texture and colorize is probably the best.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:03 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:50:10 -0500, tony cooper
Down here is what I did (the green one)
I did’nt do it as if for a printing job
but fast and without detail to show you
how I would have went with it.

Now that’s an approach that I had not considered. Changing the building from white to yellow does nothing to restore the blown-out detail (gone is gone)at the top of the background building, but it does soften up the appearance. The eye is fooled because the contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
That’s what I like about a project like this. I can work on a project one way, and along comes someone with a idea that had not occurred to me.

and, sorry for the detailed explanation Tony (which is of course not necessary for you) but I made notes for myself while I worked on it and simply posted it, and also there is the possibility it can be useful for newbies following the thread.

I am surprise you say nothing about the texture because
it added to the blown out portions. Carefully used, it may ‘recover’ the blown outs.

I read the post, copy/pasted it to Notepad, and will go over the steps in detail later. I’ll try following them in Photoshop. The color change just jumped out as a something that I hadn’t previously thought about doing.

When I see a question that may involve several different techniques, I generally wait a few days to see what other solutions come up. I’ll copy/paste them, and then try all of them.

Keep in mind that it’s not *this* image that is particularly important to me. That shot is interesting, but not great. What is important to me is dealing with any image with a similar problem and how to solve it. I don’t expect this to be the last image I’ll ever shoot with a major flaw.

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW,

No, this particular image was taken with a Nikon P2. Had I shot in RAW with my Nikon D40, I would have worked with that.

could the blown out portions being recovered?

I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)

Your point on applying texture ties in with another area that I’ve recently been working on: Apply Image. I intend to try to duplicate this image, apply a texture to the entire image, merge the two with Apply Image, make the main image a layer mask, and brush out the offending area to let the textured area show. Dunno how that’ll work yet.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
D
Dave
Nov 15, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:46:44 -0600, John J wrote:
The approach shown to add texture and colorize is probably the best.

thanx John
J
Joel
Nov 15, 2008
tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:00:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.
Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This particular photo was taken with my pocket camera…a Nikon Coolpix P2. We’d gone for a walk around the block after lunch, spotted this stairway, and I was too lazy to go back to the car and get my D40 out of the trunk. There’s no problem with the P2’s lens.

I am not talking about the overexposured but the distortion. And about the overexposured, just try the technique I have been whining over and over in the past few days.

The distortion is the worst I have ever seen and I dunno if you can be able to straighten it out.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 15, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:16:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:00:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.
Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This particular photo was taken with my pocket camera…a Nikon Coolpix P2. We’d gone for a walk around the block after lunch, spotted this stairway, and I was too lazy to go back to the car and get my D40 out of the trunk. There’s no problem with the P2’s lens.

I am not talking about the overexposured but the distortion. And about the overexposured, just try the technique I have been whining over and over in the past few days.

The distortion is the worst I have ever seen and I dunno if you can be able to straighten it out.

I have no idea what distortion you see. Are you under the impression that the steps run straight down?


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
K
KatWoman
Nov 15, 2008
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:50:10 -0500, tony cooper
Down here is what I did (the green one)
I did’nt do it as if for a printing job
but fast and without detail to show you
how I would have went with it.

Now that’s an approach that I had not considered. Changing the building from white to yellow does nothing to restore the blown-out detail (gone is gone)at the top of the background building, but it does soften up the appearance. The eye is fooled because the contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
That’s what I like about a project like this. I can work on a project one way, and along comes someone with a idea that had not occurred to me.

and, sorry for the detailed explanation Tony (which is of course not necessary for you) but I made notes for myself while I worked on it and simply posted it, and also there is the possibility it can be useful for newbies following the thread.

I am surprise you say nothing about the texture because
it added to the blown out portions. Carefully used, it may ‘recover’ the blown outs.

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered? I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)

RAW does a good job with capturing the highlight details I like using recover you can get a bit further

I like that a it can be done in Bridge so you can show clients before opening and further tweaks in PS

someone good with curves and channels might prefer that technique but if it’s not there it ‘s not there

best solution is to paint it in
J
Joel
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:16:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:00:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.
Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This particular photo was taken with my pocket camera…a Nikon Coolpix P2. We’d gone for a walk around the block after lunch, spotted this stairway, and I was too lazy to go back to the car and get my D40 out of the trunk. There’s no problem with the P2’s lens.

I am not talking about the overexposured but the distortion. And about the overexposured, just try the technique I have been whining over and over in the past few days.

The distortion is the worst I have ever seen and I dunno if you can be able to straighten it out.

I have no idea what distortion you see. Are you under the impression that the steps run straight down?

You just look at

1. The wall of the right side

2. Drawing a verticle line at the lamp pole, windows, around the stairs etc. then you will see the distortion.

3. Drawing several verticle/horizontal lines somewhere at the 2/5 or 3/5 (somewhere in the middle) and you may see the distortion. And I hope either the house supposes to build like that, or something ain’t right with my eyes.

And about the overexposured. Just like I have been whining about.

1. Make a DUPE of the original

2. Adjusting one layer to correct the overexposured until you are happy with the result. DO NOT worry about the other area

3. Using Masking command to reveal the good part of the original (lower layer). How good you do is how you control the Brush and Opacity.

If you need to work more then just the overexposured, then repeat the same steps.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 16, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:55:43 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:16:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:00:32 -0600, Joel wrote:

John J wrote:

I looked at your image. Unfortunately, the blown highlights are way out of the range of the camera’s ability to render range, detail. It ain’t about your camera. It’s about photography.

You can fake it with PS using curves, adding texture, fixing the color but … hey, there are limits to one-shot digital works.
Here’s the image equalized. A 15 second effort.
http://www.digoliardi.net/fix.jpg

Best of luck!

(‘course, someone will chime in here with "Use High Dynamic Range!" Well, sure. It’s too late for that.)

I have never seen anything like that, and it’s still there "the S shape" and you can look at the light and house POSTs, wall, and the rail too. Something is very wrong with the lens, it just ain’t normal.
Now look at the wall, the windows, the rail, the lamp post and more and more. I would say start with the lens then go from there.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This particular photo was taken with my pocket camera…a Nikon Coolpix P2. We’d gone for a walk around the block after lunch, spotted this stairway, and I was too lazy to go back to the car and get my D40 out of the trunk. There’s no problem with the P2’s lens.

I am not talking about the overexposured but the distortion. And about the overexposured, just try the technique I have been whining over and over in the past few days.

The distortion is the worst I have ever seen and I dunno if you can be able to straighten it out.

I have no idea what distortion you see. Are you under the impression that the steps run straight down?

You just look at

1. The wall of the right side

2. Drawing a verticle line at the lamp pole, windows, around the stairs etc. then you will see the distortion.

3. Drawing several verticle/horizontal lines somewhere at the 2/5 or 3/5 (somewhere in the middle) and you may see the distortion. And I hope either the house supposes to build like that, or something ain’t right with my eyes.

Perhaps someone else will comment on this, but what I see is the result of normal perspective. Not "distortion".
And about the overexposured. Just like I have been whining about.
1. Make a DUPE of the original

2. Adjusting one layer to correct the overexposured until you are happy with the result. DO NOT worry about the other area

3. Using Masking command to reveal the good part of the original (lower layer). How good you do is how you control the Brush and Opacity.
If you need to work more then just the overexposured, then repeat the same steps.

Joel…I fully understanding masking, how to do it, and what it does. I have for years. What *you* don’t seem to understanding about masking is that what it accomplishes is to reveal something under one layer that is on the underneath layer. And – this is the tricky part for you, evidently – what is underneath must be better for masking to be beneficial.

In other words, if you have a silk purse layer under a pig’s ear layer, brushing away masking can improve the image. But – and this is the case in this image – there’s no silk purse. The problem is not how to blend in the improvement, but how to effect an improvement. Everyone here – including me – agrees that nothing can be done to the flawed area to make it right. Somewhat better, but not right.

What *could* be done is to bring in an entirely different photograph of an appropriate Savannah-style house shot at the appropriate distance, free transform that image to get the size proportional and perspective right, place that image as a layer under the primary layer, make the primary layer a layer mask, and brush away to reveal that new image. That quite possible with sharp edges of the primary building. The only delicate work would be around the lamp post.

However, I don’t have such a photograph.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
J
Joel
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:

You just look at

1. The wall of the right side

2. Drawing a verticle line at the lamp pole, windows, around the stairs etc. then you will see the distortion.

3. Drawing several verticle/horizontal lines somewhere at the 2/5 or 3/5 (somewhere in the middle) and you may see the distortion. And I hope either the house supposes to build like that, or something ain’t right with my eyes.

Perhaps someone else will comment on this, but what I see is the result of normal perspective. Not "distortion".

If you don’t wanna draw then it’s your choice.

And about the overexposured. Just like I have been whining about.
1. Make a DUPE of the original

2. Adjusting one layer to correct the overexposured until you are happy with the result. DO NOT worry about the other area

3. Using Masking command to reveal the good part of the original (lower layer). How good you do is how you control the Brush and Opacity.
If you need to work more then just the overexposured, then repeat the same steps.

Joel…I fully understanding masking, how to do it, and what it does. I have for years. What *you* don’t seem to understanding about masking is that what it accomplishes is to reveal something under one layer that is on the underneath layer. And – this is the tricky part for you, evidently – what is underneath must be better for masking to be beneficial.

In other words, if you have a silk purse layer under a pig’s ear layer, brushing away masking can improve the image. But – and this is the case in this image – there’s no silk purse. The problem is not how to blend in the improvement, but how to effect an improvement. Everyone here – including me – agrees that nothing can be done to the flawed area to make it right. Somewhat better, but not right.
What *could* be done is to bring in an entirely different photograph of an appropriate Savannah-style house shot at the appropriate distance, free transform that image to get the size proportional and perspective right, place that image as a layer under the primary layer, make the primary layer a layer mask, and brush away to reveal that new image. That quite possible with sharp edges of the primary building. The only delicate work would be around the lamp post.
However, I don’t have such a photograph.

I do understand what you understand, but you don’t seem to understand that trying to adjust the explosure will change the whole photo not just any specific area. That’s why you may need LAYER and if you don’t want using Mask then you can always use Erase tool.

So what I’m trying to say that understanding is one thing using the understanding is other story.

And how to blend more than one image together is how you control the Brush and Opacity combination.

Photoshop has quite afew options to straighten the photo causes by lens, but in your photo quite afew areas have some curve shapes (U and S) and they ain’t all the way to the edge of the photo but right in the middle (and it effect the edges too).

– Look at the lamp post it isn’t straight | but wavy }

– Look at the windows, they ain’t / \, / /, \ \ or [ ] but \ /

and many other areas too. Yes, it’s possible that many lens can cause the photo to bend out of shape, or in general the photo may look like either / \, / / or \ \, and the fish-eye lens will have the ( ) shape. But yours ain’t none of them. All the above ecept fish-eye lens can be corrected using Photoshop, but the wavy shape then I don’t think it’s possible.

Yes, the newer CS2 and CS3 (I don’t have CS4 to confirm this but I believe it too should have the feature) have the command called Liquify which can straighten the wavy or curve, but it’s almost impossible to get a smooth result without showing the error. Yes, Liquify is the tool I use pretty often (around 5% of all my works)

Free Transform is a good tool to fix the LEANING building but not wavy shape, Liquify can straighten the curve shape *but* very limited, and you will need other dirty trick to hide some error creates by Liquify.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 16, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:23:04 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

You just look at

1. The wall of the right side

2. Drawing a verticle line at the lamp pole, windows, around the stairs etc. then you will see the distortion.

3. Drawing several verticle/horizontal lines somewhere at the 2/5 or 3/5 (somewhere in the middle) and you may see the distortion. And I hope either the house supposes to build like that, or something ain’t right with my eyes.

Perhaps someone else will comment on this, but what I see is the result of normal perspective. Not "distortion".

If you don’t wanna draw then it’s your choice.

And about the overexposured. Just like I have been whining about.
1. Make a DUPE of the original

2. Adjusting one layer to correct the overexposured until you are happy with the result. DO NOT worry about the other area

3. Using Masking command to reveal the good part of the original (lower layer). How good you do is how you control the Brush and Opacity.
If you need to work more then just the overexposured, then repeat the same steps.

Joel…I fully understanding masking, how to do it, and what it does. I have for years. What *you* don’t seem to understanding about masking is that what it accomplishes is to reveal something under one layer that is on the underneath layer. And – this is the tricky part for you, evidently – what is underneath must be better for masking to be beneficial.

In other words, if you have a silk purse layer under a pig’s ear layer, brushing away masking can improve the image. But – and this is the case in this image – there’s no silk purse. The problem is not how to blend in the improvement, but how to effect an improvement. Everyone here – including me – agrees that nothing can be done to the flawed area to make it right. Somewhat better, but not right.
What *could* be done is to bring in an entirely different photograph of an appropriate Savannah-style house shot at the appropriate distance, free transform that image to get the size proportional and perspective right, place that image as a layer under the primary layer, make the primary layer a layer mask, and brush away to reveal that new image. That quite possible with sharp edges of the primary building. The only delicate work would be around the lamp post.
However, I don’t have such a photograph.

I do understand what you understand, but you don’t seem to understand that trying to adjust the explosure will change the whole photo not just any specific area. That’s why you may need LAYER and if you don’t want using Mask then you can always use Erase tool.

Joel, I’m trying to be patient here and I’m trying to avoid making uncomplimentary remarks about your ability to comprehend what you read, but – I assure you – I fully understand the use of layers in Photoshop. I fully understand the use of a layer mask. I fully understand and know how to use a modified layer partially exposed using a layer mask.

Photoshop has quite afew options to straighten the photo causes by lens, but in your photo quite afew areas have some curve shapes (U and S) and they ain’t all the way to the edge of the photo but right in the middle (and it effect the edges too).

– Look at the lamp post it isn’t straight | but wavy }

That lamp post is probably well over 100/150 years old. That’s a lamp post in the historic section of Savannah. It’s made out of cast iron in sections. It’s not wavy, but it may have been bent. The historic commission in Savannah forbids property owners from changing the houses in that district.

– Look at the windows, they ain’t / \, / /, \ \ or [ ] but \ /

I pulled guidelines into the image. The windows are straight. The wooden shutters may be a bit warped, but that’s age, not distortion.

You aren’t by chance wearing spectacles with fresnel lenses, are you?


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
D
Dave
Nov 16, 2008
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:09:49 -0500, "KatWoman"

Is KatWoman on leave or why is she so quiet?

ey at least one of you noticed

i DAVE & thanks

as stuck on USA elections- I am a news junkie and was not a fan of O y haters over that choice are 10x more nasty than the worst here in NG BY
FAR
een in a war of words – My team lost but live to fight another day…….

Just.. but they lost as you said, for now)

RAW does a good job with capturing the highlight details I like using recover you can get a bit further

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I like that a it can be done in Bridge so you can show clients before opening and further tweaks in PS

yep, nice to have the preview facility
someone good with curves and channels might prefer that technique but if it’s not there it ‘s not there

best solution is to paint it in

Sound as if you were quite busy during the election preparation. It is on it’s way for South Africa (early new year) and even with the politics in SA becoming more and more comical each day, a relative big part of the country are not interested nowadays (and will keep ourselves busy with Photoshop while others play not’s and crosses:-)
S
samandjanet
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer and set the blending mode to overlay. Now apply gaussian blur and adjust the radius to about 10 pixels. Lastly flatten the image, and constrict the levels a smidge to boost the image.

Like I said, it won’t fix it perfectly, but it will help.
D
Dave
Nov 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

Sam, you used to be "Fat Sam".
(Please remember, English is not my native language)
Now, to me, this can point to 2 absolute different meanings. Either, you are (after so long) used to it
or
you are losing weight.
Which one?
S
samandjanet
Nov 16, 2008
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

Sam, you used to be "Fat Sam".
(Please remember, English is not my native language)
Now, to me, this can point to 2 absolute different meanings. Either, you are (after so long) used to it
or
you are losing weight.
Which one?

LOL. I’m losing weight.. Quite a lot of it in fact..
TC
tony cooper
Nov 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer

I try all methods. I don’t expect them to significantly improve this image, but the process helps me learn how to make future corrections.

How do you invert a layer? The Select>Inverse is grayed out for a full layer. I can invert a selection, but not a layer.

and set the blending mode to overlay.
Now apply gaussian blur and adjust the radius to about 10 pixels. Lastly flatten the image, and constrict the levels a smidge to boost the image.

Like I said, it won’t fix it perfectly, but it will help.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
JJ
John J
Nov 16, 2008
Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?
S
samandjanet
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer

I try all methods. I don’t expect them to significantly improve this image, but the process helps me learn how to make future corrections.
How do you invert a layer? The Select>Inverse is grayed out for a full layer. I can invert a selection, but not a layer.

Ah, I should have clarified that, as it’s not under the layers menu. Sorry. Ensure the new desaturated layer is selected, then go to Image > Adjustments
Invert
D
Dave
Nov 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever
D
Dave
Nov 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:10:27 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

Sam, you used to be "Fat Sam".
(Please remember, English is not my native language)
Now, to me, this can point to 2 absolute different meanings. Either, you are (after so long) used to it
or
you are losing weight.
Which one?

LOL. I’m losing weight.. Quite a lot of it in fact..

he he, I thought so, but had to make sure:-0
D
Dave
Nov 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:29:50 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

thinking again, I should be able to convince a photographer with a view camera and a black cloth over his head, anything on digital:-)))
TC
tony cooper
Nov 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:03:26 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer

I try all methods. I don’t expect them to significantly improve this image, but the process helps me learn how to make future corrections.
How do you invert a layer? The Select>Inverse is grayed out for a full layer. I can invert a selection, but not a layer.

Ah, I should have clarified that, as it’s not under the layers menu. Sorry. Ensure the new desaturated layer is selected, then go to Image > Adjustments
Invert
OK…that works. I don’t see a significant effect on the image, but at least I’ve learned some new that might work in another image.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
S
samandjanet
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:03:26 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer

I try all methods. I don’t expect them to significantly improve this image, but the process helps me learn how to make future corrections.

How do you invert a layer? The Select>Inverse is grayed out for a full layer. I can invert a selection, but not a layer.

Ah, I should have clarified that, as it’s not under the layers menu. Sorry. Ensure the new desaturated layer is selected, then go to Image > Adjustments
Invert
OK…that works. I don’t see a significant effect on the image, but at least I’ve learned some new that might work in another image.

It’s a technique I use for images where there’s an extreme difference between the highlight and shadow areas, and I want to balance them out a bit. I thought it might help a little with this image, but after tryingit myself, it didn’t really touch the blown highlight. It did lift the details in the shadows a bit though.
JJ
John J
Nov 16, 2008
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW
I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

The "more data (highlighs) in RAW".

Given that the digital camera is analog converted to digital …. oh, you wrote to sound clever. Never mind (said in the manner of Rosanna Danna Danna).

🙂
JJ
John J
Nov 16, 2008
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:29:50 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW
I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?
of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

thinking again, I should be able to convince a photographer with a view camera and a black cloth over his head, anything on digital:-)))

You might think so, but I’ve been into digital and film photography for a long, long time. I go way back in each field.
K
KatWoman
Nov 16, 2008
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:29:50 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

thinking again, I should be able to convince a photographer with a view camera and a black cloth over his head, anything on digital:-)))

OK just for the curiosity factor I made the RAW experiment

it took me just so far

what I did
open image in RAW
ignored left side of image and concentrate on only blow out areas recovery 100%
exposure pull under a little
sliders for all the colors
added to blue and green channels, got little more details went to highlight & light sliders pushed up and added got little more

saved as copy of orig open both in PS
drag shift layer on top of each other
mask portion to show darkened blowout area

it was better but not perfect still had big white blowout on top porch added transparent gradient sky on darken to bring up bldg edge select color range on white blowout
control J
then added texture to white areas-blend by mode to layer below

add curve to inverse fix levels on right side gold building

http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-screenshot723.jpg http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannahraw701.jpg
http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08460/savannah-kats879.jpg
K
KatWoman
Nov 16, 2008
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in message
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:03:26 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer

I try all methods. I don’t expect them to significantly improve this image, but the process helps me learn how to make future corrections.

How do you invert a layer? The Select>Inverse is grayed out for a full layer. I can invert a selection, but not a layer.

Ah, I should have clarified that, as it’s not under the layers menu. Sorry. Ensure the new desaturated layer is selected, then go to Image > Adjustments
Invert
OK…that works. I don’t see a significant effect on the image, but at least I’ve learned some new that might work in another image.

It’s a technique I use for images where there’s an extreme difference between the highlight and shadow areas, and I want to balance them out a bit. I thought it might help a little with this image, but after tryingit myself, it didn’t really touch the blown highlight. It did lift the details in the shadows a bit though.

OK just for the curiosity factor I made the RAW experiment

it took me just so far

what I did
open image in RAW
ignored left side of image and concentrate on only blow out areas recovery 100%
exposure pull under a little
sliders for all the colors
added to blue and green channels, got little more details went to highlight & light sliders pushed up and added got little more

saved as copy of orig open both in PS
drag shift layer on top of each other
mask portion to show darkened blowout area

it was better but not perfect still had big white blowout on top porch added transparent gradient sky on darken to bring up bldg edge select color range on white blowout
control J
then added texture to white areas-blend by mode to layer below

add curve to inverse fix levels on right side gold building

http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-screenshot723.jpg http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannahraw701.jpg
http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08460/savannah-kats879.jpg
K
KatWoman
Nov 16, 2008
"John J" wrote in message
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW
I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

The "more data (highlighs) in RAW".

Given that the digital camera is analog converted to digital …. oh, you wrote to sound clever. Never mind (said in the manner of Rosanna Danna Danna).

🙂

cut the guy some semantic slack

He is not a native English speaker
what he meant is quite easy to understand
JJ
John J
Nov 16, 2008
KatWoman wrote:

OK just for the curiosity factor I made the RAW experiment

Not bad!
JJ
John J
Nov 16, 2008
KatWoman wrote:

cut the guy some semantic slack

He is not a native English speaker
what he meant is quite easy to understand

I think he has a very good sense of humor and his English is better than myan. English is my second language, too.
S
samandjanet
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background.
Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg
K
KatWoman
Nov 16, 2008
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in message
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background.
Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg

I thought of it
but as he said it was more a document of his trip I felt it was not the right choice
I like the white fence and porches -it is part of the city’s charm and overall look

PLUS that was not what he asked
and he is a good enough PS user to have thought of it himself my first rule is to respect the photographer’s orig vision do the least harm
and in this case answer the question how to fix it
but of course I would offer a client that solution
J
Joel
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:

<snip>
– Look at the lamp post it isn’t straight | but wavy }

That lamp post is probably well over 100/150 years old. That’s a lamp post in the historic section of Savannah. It’s made out of cast iron in sections. It’s not wavy, but it may have been bent. The historic commission in Savannah forbids property owners from changing the houses in that district.

– Look at the windows, they ain’t / \, / /, \ \ or [ ] but \ /

I pulled guidelines into the image. The windows are straight. The wooden shutters may be a bit warped, but that’s age, not distortion.
You aren’t by chance wearing spectacles with fresnel lenses, are you?

OK, here is the link of the photo, and you may want to ZOOM IN very close to see the curve. And because of the way of how general photo looks, I can’t find a good way to mark the horizontal.

Also, all those line are 100% STRAIGHT so if you put against the wall or other larger subject you may see the line isn’t straight or bending.

http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tonystraightsavanna h020xf5.jpg

ZOOM IN to see more detail.
J
Joel
Nov 16, 2008
tony cooper wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:35 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

This isn’t a perfect fix, and it won’t retrieve data that isn’t tehre to start with, but it might help a bit.
Duplicate the layer, then desaturate the new one.
Invert the new layer

I try all methods. I don’t expect them to significantly improve this image, but the process helps me learn how to make future corrections.
How do you invert a layer? The Select>Inverse is grayed out for a full layer. I can invert a selection, but not a layer.

I don’t use the command often, but you may want to try the "Selective Color" command, and you may want to select the specific area first.

And again, it may be good idea to use with the basic Layer & Masking too.. well, I have the result of "selective color" in my head and I think it may need the Layer & Masking technique to smooth the error around the edge.

Selective Color is a very powerful, useful command, and it will be even more useful if you use with other useful command like Layer & Masking & Selection etc..

and set the blending mode to overlay.
Now apply gaussian blur and adjust the radius to about 10 pixels. Lastly flatten the image, and constrict the levels a smidge to boost the image.

Like I said, it won’t fix it perfectly, but it will help.
S
samandjanet
Nov 17, 2008
KatWoman wrote:
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in
message
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background. Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg

I thought of it
but as he said it was more a document of his trip I felt it was not the right choice
I like the white fence and porches -it is part of the city’s charm and overall look

PLUS that was not what he asked
and he is a good enough PS user to have thought of it himself my first rule is to respect the photographer’s orig vision do the least harm
and in this case answer the question how to fix it
but of course I would offer a client that solution

Agreed.
That’s why you’ll notice I didn’t suggest that until well afer I had already offered up a proper suggestion for a fix.
The replacement background was more a trivial tongue-in-cheek suggestion.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 17, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:23:15 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background.
Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg

Actually, that was one of my first thoughts. I went through the images I’d taken on that trip and looked for something that would be suitable. Unfortunately, I didn’t have anything close.

That’s a photograph of a house in the historic district of Savannah. The only suitable insert that could be used – and still represent the scene as taken – would be some other historic house that could conceivably be across the street.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
TC
tony cooper
Nov 17, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:30:31 -0500, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:29:50 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

thinking again, I should be able to convince a photographer with a view camera and a black cloth over his head, anything on digital:-)))

OK just for the curiosity factor I made the RAW experiment
it took me just so far

what I did
open image in RAW
ignored left side of image and concentrate on only blow out areas recovery 100%
exposure pull under a little
sliders for all the colors
added to blue and green channels, got little more details went to highlight & light sliders pushed up and added got little more
saved as copy of orig open both in PS
drag shift layer on top of each other
mask portion to show darkened blowout area

it was better but not perfect still had big white blowout on top porch added transparent gradient sky on darken to bring up bldg edge select color range on white blowout
control J
then added texture to white areas-blend by mode to layer below

add curve to inverse fix levels on right side gold building
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-screenshot723.jpg http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannahraw701.jpg
http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08460/savannah-kats879.jpg
Quite an impressive job!

Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
D
Dave
Nov 17, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:28:47 -0600, John J wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW
I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

The "more data (highlighs) in RAW".

Given that the digital camera is analog converted to digital …. oh, you wrote to sound clever. Never mind (said in the manner of Rosanna Danna Danna).

🙂

and heard in the manner of Rosanne Rosanna Danna:-)
JM
John McWilliams
Nov 17, 2008
Joel wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

<snip>
– Look at the lamp post it isn’t straight | but wavy }
That lamp post is probably well over 100/150 years old. That’s a lamp post in the historic section of Savannah. It’s made out of cast iron in sections. It’s not wavy, but it may have been bent. The historic commission in Savannah forbids property owners from changing the houses in that district.

– Look at the windows, they ain’t / \, / /, \ \ or [ ] but \ /
I pulled guidelines into the image. The windows are straight. The wooden shutters may be a bit warped, but that’s age, not distortion.
You aren’t by chance wearing spectacles with fresnel lenses, are you?

OK, here is the link of the photo, and you may want to ZOOM IN very close to see the curve. And because of the way of how general photo looks, I can’t find a good way to mark the horizontal.

Also, all those line are 100% STRAIGHT so if you put against the wall or other larger subject you may see the line isn’t straight or bending.
http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tonystraightsavanna h020xf5.jpg
ZOOM IN to see more detail.
Joel,

That’s perspective, not distortion, at least for the most part. The distortion that exists would be a function of an equivalent of a shorter than 50mm lens, but it’s minimal.


john mcwilliams
JM
John McWilliams
Nov 17, 2008
John J wrote:
Dave wrote:

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered? I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)

A blow-out is where the sensors are overwhelmed, signal is far out of range. It translates to no significant texture.

The approach shown to add texture and colorize is probably the best.

If there’s no data there, even a large RAW file won’t help. But it’d certainly make adjustments easier and better for those areas that are merely highly overexposed.


john mcwilliams
JM
John McWilliams
Nov 17, 2008
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:28:47 -0600, John J wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW
I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you tell me more about that?
of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever
The "more data (highlighs) in RAW".

Given that the digital camera is analog converted to digital …. oh, you wrote to sound clever. Never mind (said in the manner of Rosanna Danna Danna).

🙂

and heard in the manner of Rosanne Rosanna Danna:-)
I thought it was Emily Lattella who said that. "Oh, well: Never mind!"
[Both by Gilda Radnor on SNL]


john mcwilliams
D
Dave
Nov 17, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:11:41 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

John J wrote:
Dave wrote:

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered? I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)

A blow-out is where the sensors are overwhelmed, signal is far out of range. It translates to no significant texture.

The approach shown to add texture and colorize is probably the best.

If there’s no data there, even a large RAW file won’t help. But it’d certainly make adjustments easier and better for those areas that are merely highly overexposed.

Thanks John, this was my conclusion.
Of course it can not create data
but it can dig deeper for data
J
Joel
Nov 17, 2008
John McWilliams wrote:

Joel wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

<snip>
– Look at the lamp post it isn’t straight | but wavy }
That lamp post is probably well over 100/150 years old. That’s a lamp post in the historic section of Savannah. It’s made out of cast iron in sections. It’s not wavy, but it may have been bent. The historic commission in Savannah forbids property owners from changing the houses in that district.

– Look at the windows, they ain’t / \, / /, \ \ or [ ] but \ /
I pulled guidelines into the image. The windows are straight. The wooden shutters may be a bit warped, but that’s age, not distortion.
You aren’t by chance wearing spectacles with fresnel lenses, are you?

OK, here is the link of the photo, and you may want to ZOOM IN very close to see the curve. And because of the way of how general photo looks, I can’t find a good way to mark the horizontal.

Also, all those line are 100% STRAIGHT so if you put against the wall or other larger subject you may see the line isn’t straight or bending.
http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tonystraightsavanna h020xf5.jpg
ZOOM IN to see more detail.
Joel,

That’s perspective, not distortion, at least for the most part. The distortion that exists would be a function of an equivalent of a shorter than 50mm lens, but it’s minimal.

Well, if you ZOOM IN closer 300-400% perhap and look at *both* sides of the objects, especially the lamp post (and the lamp too), and hand rail etc..

Zoom in very close and look at *both* the wall & Green Line I drew you may see that the green-line looks like it’s bending (because the wall playing trick on our eyes). It believe the problem Tony and many others don’t see it because they look at the photo in small scale, and I often look for detail.

So, if he is going to print something like 4×6 then it should be ok, or no need to fix some small error. But if he wanna print large then it may not worth the trouble.

And if he really really wanna go for it then I would suggest to switch to 16-bit mode to reduce the artifact. Heck, I even see quite a bit of artifacts (digital blocks) on many areas even without zoom in any closer.
J
Joel
Nov 17, 2008
John McWilliams wrote:

John J wrote:
Dave wrote:

This opens a very important question.
If it was taken in RAW, could the blown out portions being recovered? I am working more and more in RAW and maybe this question should be addressed at Mike Russell, Roy G or Johan Elzenga or one of the other big guys but why not at you? I respect your views and advice since the year tut:-)

A blow-out is where the sensors are overwhelmed, signal is far out of range. It translates to no significant texture.

The approach shown to add texture and colorize is probably the best.

If there’s no data there, even a large RAW file won’t help. But it’d certainly make adjustments easier and better for those areas that are merely highly overexposed.

Me? the photo is already processed so I wouldn’t count on it. And I often don’t like to mess with the already processed file (no problem with camera processed but sometime people can destroy the color channel).
J
Joel
Nov 17, 2008
Just by following this thread I sense that many folks know quite afew commands, but the problem that very few has a real plan, can be able to smell the result just by looking at the problem.

And part of the problem that because of the "I know this" and "I know that" can cause a much bigger problem than what it really is, and it may slow down the learning .. or 10-20 years from now the person may not be able to get passed the basic learning process.

Example, for quite sometime and especially in this thread I many times mentioned Layer & Quick Mask command, and many folks including Tony still don’t get it. Tony several times tolk me that he knows and understand exactly what Layer & Mask etc. do, but he doesn’t seem to know how to use them the way they suppose to. Or just by reading the question alone I can tell that Tony (I am not trying to pick on you but because you are the original poster asking about the problem) still doesn’t fully understand how to use those commands correct. Or he knows what they are but don’t know how to take advantage of them (yet).

So how about just split the whole problem into much smaller pieces and trying to put them back together to solve the whole problem. And just forget the RAW wishful as it’s no match for Photoshop (if you have enough Photoshop skill).

– Level, there are several commands to adjust the brightness to bring back the overexposured pixels, but I just use LEVEL as it’s a very common tool. Newer Photoshop has Hi-Lite/Shadow, Explosure, Tone, and many many other commands would do the similar.

Yes, you can use Level to darken the overexposured pixel (as long as you didn’t destroy it). But as we all know that Level and other commands will darken the *whole* image, or when the overexposured looks normal then the normal area will become underexposured.

-That’s why I kept mentioning about Layer & Quick Mask as they will be the next tool to fix the newer error causes by LEVEL command.

– After Level, Layer & Quick Mask and you are still not very happy with the leaves, tree branches etc.. then *again* repeat the same step, and this time you work on the leaves and tree branches.

– Then Layer & Masking *again* for the leaves & tree branches.

– If Level won’t help with the leaves or some area’s, as I see some color bleeching (I forget what it’s called) which often causes by cheap lens and the light (sun), then you can use "Selective Color" to remove the color around the edge of the leaves, tree branches, walls etc..

– Then *again* using Layer * Masking to fix the problem.

What I am trying to say that almost *none* of single Photoshop’s command is the perfect command, but they work real well with the right combination. Same with the Brush Tool, it works well with the combination of brush type, size, and opacity.

– Then after you have the overexposured solved, and not happy with the rest of the photo, and or you a little brighter then again adjusting the left size to the brightness you wish. And as you know that the right side will once again be overexposured when you brighten the left side.

– Then *again* using Layer & Mask to fix the problem.

Those are the very basic commands that all Photoshop users should have them already mastered, now just learn to combine them to work together as a team. And if you know those very basic commands well, then you shouldn’t need to spend more than 2-3 minutes (or around 5-10 mins on a complex problem) to fix most problems.

And learn to adapt then exact commands to other problem, example you can use the very same trick to fix the "blow-out" to underexplosured, shadow, flare, color casting etc.. or you can use the same trick to replace the whole background. And again, you may need to master to Brush Stroke as it often be one of the most important commands of the whole process.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 17, 2008
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:22:57 -0600, Joel wrote:

Just by following this thread I sense that many folks know quite afew commands, but the problem that very few has a real plan, can be able to smell the result just by looking at the problem.

And part of the problem that because of the "I know this" and "I know that" can cause a much bigger problem than what it really is, and it may slow down the learning .. or 10-20 years from now the person may not be able to get passed the basic learning process.

Example, for quite sometime and especially in this thread I many times mentioned Layer & Quick Mask command, and many folks including Tony still don’t get it. Tony several times tolk me that he knows and understand exactly what Layer & Mask etc. do, but he doesn’t seem to know how to use them the way they suppose to. Or just by reading the question alone I can tell that Tony (I am not trying to pick on you but because you are the original poster asking about the problem) still doesn’t fully understand how to use those commands correct. Or he knows what they are but don’t know how to take advantage of them (yet).
I find it difficult to respond to this. Joel’s premise is so patently non-sensical that a sensible answer is beyond reach. The photo in question has a blow-out problem that resulted in missing detail. To repair the problem – really, to minimize the problem because real repair is impossible – requires steps not associated with a layer mask.

If a second photograph with sufficient detail was available (which there is not), that photograph could be brought in as a layer and revealed by use of a layer mask. The layer masking technique is *not* the solution to the problem, but it could be a way to merge in the solution.

There are steps that can be taken with the photograph available that can be done by altering the original in a layer and revealing those alterations in a layer placed above this altered layer, and this would employ layer masking. However, the problem here is what those alterations are…not how those alterations can be blended in.

Joel seems to be taking the position that the solution is in the use of a layer mask. That’s totally incorrect. The layer mask is a tool to reveal and blend in a solution, not a solution in itself.

It’s interesting to note that various people in this newsgroup, and in the newsgroup rec.photo.digital, have attempted repairs and shown their work. The results have been from not-so-great to KatWoman’s very good. Not one of the these people have mentioned the use of a layer mask as the solution.

Joel, on the other hand, has not submitted any attempt at correction. Rather, he’s continually harped on a part of the process that implements but does not correct. His only contribution has been "proof" that the image is distorted. In that, he mistakes perspective for distortion. He mistakes a bent lamp post (it’s clear in the image where the lamp post has been bent at a joint) for distorted lamp post.

Joel may have some Photoshop understanding and skills. He has not shown any in this thread, though, and has succeeded only in looking tenaciously foolish.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
K
KatWoman
Nov 17, 2008
"tony cooper" wrote in message
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:22:57 -0600, Joel wrote:

Just by following this thread I sense that many folks know quite afew commands, but the problem that very few has a real plan, can be able to smell the result just by looking at the problem.

And part of the problem that because of the "I know this" and "I know that" can cause a much bigger problem than what it really is, and it may slow down the learning .. or 10-20 years from now the person may not be able
to get passed the basic learning process.

Example, for quite sometime and especially in this thread I many times mentioned Layer & Quick Mask command, and many folks including Tony still don’t get it. Tony several times tolk me that he knows and understand exactly what Layer & Mask etc. do, but he doesn’t seem to know how to use them the way they suppose to. Or just by reading the question alone I can tell that Tony (I am not trying to pick on you but because you are the original poster asking about the problem) still doesn’t fully understand how
to use those commands correct. Or he knows what they are but don’t know how
to take advantage of them (yet).
I find it difficult to respond to this. Joel’s premise is so patently non-sensical that a sensible answer is beyond reach. The photo in question has a blow-out problem that resulted in missing detail. To repair the problem – really, to minimize the problem because real repair is impossible – requires steps not associated with a layer mask.

If a second photograph with sufficient detail was available (which there is not), that photograph could be brought in as a layer and revealed by use of a layer mask. The layer masking technique is *not* the solution to the problem, but it could be a way to merge in the solution.

There are steps that can be taken with the photograph available that can be done by altering the original in a layer and revealing those alterations in a layer placed above this altered layer, and this would employ layer masking. However, the problem here is what those alterations are…not how those alterations can be blended in.
Joel seems to be taking the position that the solution is in the use of a layer mask. That’s totally incorrect. The layer mask is a tool to reveal and blend in a solution, not a solution in itself.
It’s interesting to note that various people in this newsgroup, and in the newsgroup rec.photo.digital, have attempted repairs and shown their work. The results have been from not-so-great to KatWoman’s very good. Not one of the these people have mentioned the use of a layer mask as the solution.

Joel, on the other hand, has not submitted any attempt at correction. Rather, he’s continually harped on a part of the process that implements but does not correct. His only contribution has been "proof" that the image is distorted. In that, he mistakes perspective for distortion. He mistakes a bent lamp post (it’s clear in the image where the lamp post has been bent at a joint) for distorted lamp post.
Joel may have some Photoshop understanding and skills. He has not shown any in this thread, though, and has succeeded only in looking tenaciously foolish.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

Tony it’s like talking to a WALL
WHOOOSH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>over the head
he answers what was never asked
and yes layer masks were used in my corrections
and ALL OF US ALREADY KNEW HOW AND WHEN TO USE MASKS

Joel says
,……..So how about just split the whole problem into much smaller pieces and
trying to put them back together to solve the whole problem. And just forget the RAW wishful as it’s no match for Photoshop (if you have enough Photoshop skill).

which I proved wrong with my attempt
and guess what Joel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RAW is a BIG PART OF PS TOOLS
….you think other’s are fools to ignore parts of the program you find useful when you reject outright the BEST and first also easiest way to correct most images
with the most options with least destruction to the image

For everyone else if you still reading
I recommend beginning in RAW with any image
for some images that is all they need
for others you will be a long way towards fixed with just RAW adjusting

then PS to your heart’s desire
K
KatWoman
Nov 17, 2008
"tony cooper" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:30:31 -0500, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:29:50 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:39 -0600, John J wrote:

Yes you are right. Highlights are still highlights
but there’s always the possibility of more data in RAW

I don’t think that is true, but I am prepared to be enlightened. Can you
tell me more about that?

of what, the highlights being highlights
or the possibility of more data?
I think the 1st will be easier to prove
the last was just added to sound clever

thinking again, I should be able to convince a photographer with a view camera and a black cloth over his head, anything on digital:-)))

OK just for the curiosity factor I made the RAW experiment
it took me just so far

what I did
open image in RAW
ignored left side of image and concentrate on only blow out areas recovery 100%
exposure pull under a little
sliders for all the colors
added to blue and green channels, got little more details went to highlight & light sliders pushed up and added got little more
saved as copy of orig open both in PS
drag shift layer on top of each other
mask portion to show darkened blowout area

it was better but not perfect still had big white blowout on top porch added transparent gradient sky on darken to bring up bldg edge select color range on white blowout
control J
then added texture to white areas-blend by mode to layer below

add curve to inverse fix levels on right side gold building
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-screenshot723.jpg http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannahraw701.jpg
http://xs433.xs.to/xs433/08460/savannah-kats879.jpg
Quite an impressive job!

Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

thanks tony
I am new to using RAW
& I really love using it

wanted to see how much I could get back

most my blowout is on white color clothing in the full sun I find I am able to get quite a bitof detail back into it and tone down the glare
K
KatWoman
Nov 17, 2008
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in message
KatWoman wrote:
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in
message
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background. Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg

I thought of it
but as he said it was more a document of his trip I felt it was not the right choice
I like the white fence and porches -it is part of the city’s charm and overall look

PLUS that was not what he asked
and he is a good enough PS user to have thought of it himself my first rule is to respect the photographer’s orig vision do the least harm
and in this case answer the question how to fix it
but of course I would offer a client that solution

Agreed.
That’s why you’ll notice I didn’t suggest that until well afer I had already
offered up a proper suggestion for a fix.
The replacement background was more a trivial tongue-in-cheek suggestion.

it’s a good one
you always make good images & nice contributions

having fun with your new camera?
J
Joel
Nov 17, 2008
tony cooper wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:22:57 -0600, Joel wrote:

Just by following this thread I sense that many folks know quite afew commands, but the problem that very few has a real plan, can be able to smell the result just by looking at the problem.

And part of the problem that because of the "I know this" and "I know that" can cause a much bigger problem than what it really is, and it may slow down the learning .. or 10-20 years from now the person may not be able to get passed the basic learning process.

Example, for quite sometime and especially in this thread I many times mentioned Layer & Quick Mask command, and many folks including Tony still don’t get it. Tony several times tolk me that he knows and understand exactly what Layer & Mask etc. do, but he doesn’t seem to know how to use them the way they suppose to. Or just by reading the question alone I can tell that Tony (I am not trying to pick on you but because you are the original poster asking about the problem) still doesn’t fully understand how to use those commands correct. Or he knows what they are but don’t know how to take advantage of them (yet).
I find it difficult to respond to this. Joel’s premise is so patently non-sensical that a sensible answer is beyond reach. The photo in question has a blow-out problem that resulted in missing detail. To repair the problem – really, to minimize the problem because real repair is impossible – requires steps not associated with a layer mask.

The simple answer is YES or NO depending on how you describe possible or impossible, Possible if the data or channel is still there to be adjusted, or impossible if the data or channel isn’t there.

And in most cases there usually some data, and if it’s put in the wrong hand then the available data can easily be destroyed.

If a second photograph with sufficient detail was available (which there is not), that photograph could be brought in as a layer and revealed by use of a layer mask. The layer masking technique is *not* the solution to the problem, but it could be a way to merge in the solution.

The Layer & Mask isn’t the solution of any specific problem but the *combination* of the whole problem.

There are steps that can be taken with the photograph available that can be done by altering the original in a layer and revealing those alterations in a layer placed above this altered layer, and this would employ layer masking. However, the problem here is what those alterations are…not how those alterations can be blended in.

Now you are talking, but still not there yet.

Joel seems to be taking the position that the solution is in the use of a layer mask. That’s totally incorrect. The layer mask is a tool to reveal and blend in a solution, not a solution in itself.

It will be corrected when you understand the whole process which you are not there yet.

It’s interesting to note that various people in this newsgroup, and in the newsgroup rec.photo.digital, have attempted repairs and shown their work. The results have been from not-so-great to KatWoman’s very good. Not one of the these people have mentioned the use of a layer mask as the solution.

You forget to remember that it doesn’t matter what technique CatWoman or DodMan uses, if CatWoam or DogMan can recover the data from already processed (by Tony) which you saying it’s blow-out or no data, then it says that you are WRONG right there.

IOW, if CatWoman or DogMan can get a hold of the original with more data then CatWoman or DogMan may be able to recover even more. And it doesn’t matter if CatWoman or DogMan uses Layer & Mask or not, because it’s just a technique which you doesn’t seem to understand.

Joel, on the other hand, has not submitted any attempt at correction. Rather, he’s continually harped on a part of the process that implements but does not correct. His only contribution has been "proof" that the image is distorted. In that, he mistakes perspective for distortion. He mistakes a bent lamp post (it’s clear in the image where the lamp post has been bent at a joint) for distorted lamp post.

OK if you think it’s bent from left to right and right to left then I am sorry you are right and I am wrong (happy?)

Joel may have some Photoshop understanding and skills. He has not shown any in this thread, though, and has succeeded only in looking tenaciously foolish.
TC
tony cooper
Nov 17, 2008
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:37:39 -0600, Joel wrote:

Making an exception here and top posting. Please, Joel, don’t offer me any more help. You make my teeth ache.

I have the feeling that if you tried to explain how to fry a chicken, that you would start with specifying the temperature of the frying pan and forget to mention that first the chicken must be killed and plucked.

tony cooper wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:22:57 -0600, Joel wrote:

Just by following this thread I sense that many folks know quite afew commands, but the problem that very few has a real plan, can be able to smell the result just by looking at the problem.

And part of the problem that because of the "I know this" and "I know that" can cause a much bigger problem than what it really is, and it may slow down the learning .. or 10-20 years from now the person may not be able to get passed the basic learning process.

Example, for quite sometime and especially in this thread I many times mentioned Layer & Quick Mask command, and many folks including Tony still don’t get it. Tony several times tolk me that he knows and understand exactly what Layer & Mask etc. do, but he doesn’t seem to know how to use them the way they suppose to. Or just by reading the question alone I can tell that Tony (I am not trying to pick on you but because you are the original poster asking about the problem) still doesn’t fully understand how to use those commands correct. Or he knows what they are but don’t know how to take advantage of them (yet).
I find it difficult to respond to this. Joel’s premise is so patently non-sensical that a sensible answer is beyond reach. The photo in question has a blow-out problem that resulted in missing detail. To repair the problem – really, to minimize the problem because real repair is impossible – requires steps not associated with a layer mask.

The simple answer is YES or NO depending on how you describe possible or impossible, Possible if the data or channel is still there to be adjusted, or impossible if the data or channel isn’t there.

And in most cases there usually some data, and if it’s put in the wrong hand then the available data can easily be destroyed.

If a second photograph with sufficient detail was available (which there is not), that photograph could be brought in as a layer and revealed by use of a layer mask. The layer masking technique is *not* the solution to the problem, but it could be a way to merge in the solution.

The Layer & Mask isn’t the solution of any specific problem but the *combination* of the whole problem.

There are steps that can be taken with the photograph available that can be done by altering the original in a layer and revealing those alterations in a layer placed above this altered layer, and this would employ layer masking. However, the problem here is what those alterations are…not how those alterations can be blended in.

Now you are talking, but still not there yet.

Joel seems to be taking the position that the solution is in the use of a layer mask. That’s totally incorrect. The layer mask is a tool to reveal and blend in a solution, not a solution in itself.

It will be corrected when you understand the whole process which you are not there yet.

It’s interesting to note that various people in this newsgroup, and in the newsgroup rec.photo.digital, have attempted repairs and shown their work. The results have been from not-so-great to KatWoman’s very good. Not one of the these people have mentioned the use of a layer mask as the solution.

You forget to remember that it doesn’t matter what technique CatWoman or DodMan uses, if CatWoam or DogMan can recover the data from already processed (by Tony) which you saying it’s blow-out or no data, then it says that you are WRONG right there.

IOW, if CatWoman or DogMan can get a hold of the original with more data then CatWoman or DogMan may be able to recover even more. And it doesn’t matter if CatWoman or DogMan uses Layer & Mask or not, because it’s just a technique which you doesn’t seem to understand.

Joel, on the other hand, has not submitted any attempt at correction. Rather, he’s continually harped on a part of the process that implements but does not correct. His only contribution has been "proof" that the image is distorted. In that, he mistakes perspective for distortion. He mistakes a bent lamp post (it’s clear in the image where the lamp post has been bent at a joint) for distorted lamp post.

OK if you think it’s bent from left to right and right to left then I am sorry you are right and I am wrong (happy?)

Joel may have some Photoshop understanding and skills. He has not shown any in this thread, though, and has succeeded only in looking tenaciously foolish.


Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
S
samandjanet
Nov 18, 2008
KatWoman wrote:
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in
message
KatWoman wrote:
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in
message
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background. Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg

I thought of it
but as he said it was more a document of his trip I felt it was not the right choice
I like the white fence and porches -it is part of the city’s charm and overall look

PLUS that was not what he asked
and he is a good enough PS user to have thought of it himself my first rule is to respect the photographer’s orig vision do the least harm
and in this case answer the question how to fix it
but of course I would offer a client that solution

Agreed.
That’s why you’ll notice I didn’t suggest that until well afer I had already
offered up a proper suggestion for a fix.
The replacement background was more a trivial tongue-in-cheek suggestion.

it’s a good one
you always make good images & nice contributions

Thanks 🙂

having fun with your new camera?

Absolutely loving it thanks.
Since getting it and a Tamron 80-210 (which actually works out as a 135-315 equivalent as it’s an old full frame lens), I’ve managed to start getting work published in the newspapers. Woo-Hoo.
JM
John McWilliams
Nov 18, 2008
tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:37:39 -0600, Joel wrote:

Making an exception here and top posting. Please, Joel, don’t offer me any more help. You make my teeth ache.

Sincere trimming and bottom posting works well….
I have the feeling that if you tried to explain how to fry a chicken, that you would start with specifying the temperature of the frying pan and forget to mention that first the chicken must be killed and plucked.

It do??? <s>


john mcwilliams
K
KatWoman
Nov 18, 2008
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in message
KatWoman wrote:
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in
message
KatWoman wrote:
"(used to be) Fat Sam" wrote in
message
tony cooper wrote:
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story of the white building is bad, bad, bad.

Using Photoshop v. 7.0….
I’ve tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can’t do it without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just too fine to do a selection on.

I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe something else.

Any technique suggestions?

Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.

Another possible solution that I’m amazed hasn’t been suggested yet is to simply replace that whole area with a new background. Obviously you’d choose something more suitable than the rural one I used, but you get the general idea.
http://www.samknoxphotography.co.uk/misc/newbg.jpg

I thought of it
but as he said it was more a document of his trip I felt it was not the right choice
I like the white fence and porches -it is part of the city’s charm and overall look

PLUS that was not what he asked
and he is a good enough PS user to have thought of it himself my first rule is to respect the photographer’s orig vision do the least harm
and in this case answer the question how to fix it
but of course I would offer a client that solution

Agreed.
That’s why you’ll notice I didn’t suggest that until well afer I had already
offered up a proper suggestion for a fix.
The replacement background was more a trivial tongue-in-cheek suggestion.

it’s a good one
you always make good images & nice contributions

Thanks 🙂

having fun with your new camera?

Absolutely loving it thanks.
Since getting it and a Tamron 80-210 (which actually works out as a 135-315 equivalent as it’s an old full frame lens), I’ve managed to start getting work published in the newspapers. Woo-Hoo.

excellent
hope they are coming with $$$$$$ or the credits bring you some

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections