File Not Found
Sorry, but the page you requested cannot be found.
working now. both links. musta hit it at a funky time. π
thanks as always mat!
dave
Might have been at the exact moment I updated the article. Or maybe you just broke the interweb again. You’re welcome.
Updated to include a comparison to Adobe’s camera RAW Recovery tool.
Wow, Mat, very impressive! Can’t wait to try it on some of my own files, especially blown sunsets.
Thanks!
I learn from you, you learn from me. What a perfect symbiosis.
Especially nice that you included the action, for those of us that are forgetful and/or lazy!
Actions are so simple to create, so what the heck. All you need to remember is to first open the version exposed for the shadows as a Smart Object before invoking it. There are stops at each important step of the way for manual input.
Mathias,
in the first image there are larger areas with blown
highlights. From where do you get the information
for the (very impressive) recovery ?
Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann
Hi Gernot,
What is not immediately obvious from the pictures (only if you read the text) is that the starting point in each example has been developed for the shadows. That may mean positive exposure compensation in the RAW developer for the first picture, leading to further clipping of the highlights.
Normally, you can expect to recover 1.5-2 stops of highlight detail from the RAW files of modern DSLRs. However, if you do two versions of a nominal RAW file, one with positive and one with negative exposure compensation, you can recover detail both in the shadows and in the highlights as my examples show.
Mathias,
please, can you show the most generic sRGB version
of this RAW shot without level manipulations ?
If the RAW image has enough information, then it’s
your great achievement how to recover it.
But so far, the transition from image1 to image2
looks like a miracle.
Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann
I was going to post an example of I sunset I just ran this on, only to discover that Image Size is apparently broken in CS4 on my system! It won’t allow me to type in new pixel dimensions. Rats!
I sure can. It ain’t a miracle just some clever processing.
Below is how the image looks with ACR defaults. No exposure compensation or highlight recovery or anything like that. Shadow clipping at 5. As you can see, both the shadows and the highlights are clipped, and the general impression is that the image is underexposed (out of necessity to rescue the highlight data).
<
http://www.96ppi.net/temp/acr_defaults.jpg>
Using my technique, I’ve expanded both the shadow end and the highlight end of the histogram, creating a balanced exposure impossible within the RAW interface.
For real, Nick? You sure have had your share of CS4 problems. Image Size is pretty basic functionality I’d say!
Mathias,
thanks, this looks very reasonable. There are enough
details in the highlights and in the shadows.
Again: a great achievement, and thanks for publishing
the workflow.
Just one suggestion: please replace the first image
in the tutorial by the one above.
Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann
Thank you for your suggestion, Gernot. Instead I’ve expanded on the fact that I had developed it for shadow detail.
For real, Nick? You sure have had your share of CS4 problems. Image Size is pretty basic functionality I’d say!
Yup. I won’t post more here about it, as I don’t want to clutter up your thread.
Ok, but do you remember the action I once created for you for the interior photography dilemma you had? This is the same technique. I seem to remember that it did not work too well for you in that situation.
I’ll try the action on some interiors, but I’m afraid there’s just too much difference in the shadows and highlights (4 or 5 stops).
Nick: Did you try HDR techniques with bracketing on those interiors? I assume you still do that kind of work.
Nicely done, Mathias. Yours is a very classy site. Thanks for passing along your considerable expertise.
And thanks also to Gernot. Questioning how the apparently blown-out highlights were recovered brought to light that the first image shown was not the original but an edited version enhancing shadows while further blowing out highlights—thus revealing where the subsequent "recovered highlights came from. I,too, thought I had witnessed magic.
Nick: Did you try HDR techniques with bracketing on those interiors? I assume you still do that kind of work.
I do, but have never had success with HDR. I have since bought lights to try to overpower the sun. 8)
HDR is too much trouble and comes out looking like hell.
Mathias, thanks for the link! Another tool to add to the ol’ box. For intensive stuff and subjects (that sit still!) merge to HDR and/or PhotomatixPro work amazingly well depending on the situation. So, there are obvious advantages to using a single RAW file and I really appreciate your post. Thanks again, dude!
Mathias, in light of the posts here, and my first impression too, it might be useful to post the original image, next to the developped for highlight version, to see the "real" starting point(rollover?).
Also, showing the image with the recovery option, and loss of contrast might be useful for educational purposes (rollover?)
Excellent technique, well thought, clean and non destructive, as usual, and with the action as the icing of the cake.
I see that you do not use Blend If sliders, I’m sure you tried and compared. What is their disadvantage in this case? (I guess that it is because you’d like a "curve" version of the blend-ifs)
I see that this technique is for CS2, CS3, CS4. What about the non-destructive masking palette of CS4?
Thanks for sharing, and hope that you will recognise that the point of my post is not to question your workflow, but to have you share your own questioning of your worflow π
What about the non-destructive masking palette of CS4?
Or the localised Adjustment Brush in ACR 5.2? That seems to give the same result.
I see that you do not use Blend If sliders
Personally I avoid "blend if" like the plague, because it’s either/or. A given pixel is either in, or out. This can produce jagged artifacts instead of the smooth transitions you want.
So I’ll just join the chorus. This is great stuff.
For my tastes I prefer not blurring the layer mask – that’s similar to Clarity in ACR, which I never liked, and I prefer to compress the highlight layer slightly upwards to regain midtone contrast – but I’m not saying my way would necessarily be "better". Just taste.
Freeagent,
it seems you’ve overlooked the feature ‘Split each
slider into two’ (Alt+ClickLeft+Move). This delivers
the required transition range.
Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann
Gernot, indeed I have. I just backed out the door when I saw what I described. Thanks for setting me straight π I’ll take a new look at "blend if" with this obstacle out of the way.
Great read. Saved for future reference.
Yes, I meant split blend-ifs.
As usual, there are many ways to accomplish things in Photoshop. This technique I thought was worth sharing because it touches on Luminosity Masks, which I consider very important in many of the techniques I deploy.
Please note that I am very careful not calling this a highlight recovery tutorial (I know the action is called highlight recovery – that is an error on my part). Dynamic range expansion can mean extension of both sides of the histogram, and I do mention several times that the first picture is to be developed for the highlights.
Further, there’s really only one possible exposure for this picture in order to keep data in range, and that is the underexposed version you see above in this thread. I would always have to give it positive exposure compensation in post, leading to this problem. Thus I still think the first picture is a correct illustration.
Blend-if sliders are linear creatures, and they don’t create a mask for you to manipulate (ie: no blurring possible). But its certainly a good idea for anyone to play with these (right-click layer and select blend-if, alt-drag sliders to do semi-transparency).
I did not bother with the mask palette for this tutorial. Any idea how it could be of help that I’m not aware of?
Now wouldn’t it be great if you could accomplish the same task directly in the RAW developer?
That’s what I meant in post #27!
(The Adjustments Brush makes its own masks if you ask it!)
John, sure you can use the adjustment brush, but then again, you cant really manipulate the mask, you have to brush in your adjustment etc.
Mat, I posted a comment on your site, and I think it belongs here as well:
"One unfortunate problem (which is also true using Unsharp Mask as you indicate here.). If you have an image with a bright sky, say semi-overcast and have a very dark object such as a fir tree jutting into that space, you will generate a halo around the tree which gets progressively worse as you attempt to drop the sky values further, or use that unsharp mask. It seems to be function of the degree of Gaussian Blur applied. My image needed 250px of blur to restore values in the landscape itself."
I did not start with a RAW file, because I am running a stitched image already in tiff. In fact, the shadow values were pretty well set, so all I did was to run the darker Layer and proceed from there. That is, the first layer is untouched in RAW.
I’ll post a b4 and after in a bit.
Did you try comparing it to my method?
I didn’t find a link to the file you used in your example.
I’ll have to try your method on one of my files.
Lawrence,
I replied on my page.
John,
Please do!
Lawrence,
From my reply at imagingpro:
"Lawrence, for a situation such as the one you describe, I would use a very low Blur Radius. The sunset example above was accomplished with a blur value of 1 – just enough to mask the transition from one layer to the other. If that means you donΒt get enough contrast, you can add contrast afterwards like usual, say via a curves adjustment.
You could also use a very large radius, and then use CHOPS (short for CHannel OPerations – the art of masking), to create a better mask around problematic areas – this is the good thing about having the mask ready available."
Examples of some CHOPS you could do to kill halos would be:
Use Quick Mask with a soft brush to select the problematic area around the tree, then use a curves adjustment on the Layer Mask to darken the highlights (that would be the shadows on the mask).
Use Dodge and Burn tools on the mask (might not work to well with a feathered mask such as this).
Use the Burn tool set to highlights on a flattened layer around the tree (this is very efficient, but you have to do it on a flattened copy).
I’ve already tried 2 and three. You are right. It doesn’t work well with a feathered mask I’ll try the first one when I get home from work. I’ll also try the lighter touch on the Blur step and then kick up the Contrast, but that halo is actually there from the original. Another approach is to go back to Raw, do not use the Recovery, restitch and go from there.
Thanks, Mat!
