Fixing highlights

I used Burn Tool on your image and worked well.

Ohan Armoudian
Web Page Design and Creation
The HTML Writers Guild Member

http://www.ohan-creation.com
Member Of International Webmaster Association
General Manager of One Hour MotoPhoto & Portrait Studio

http://www.motophotowest.com

=====================================================
"Pjotr Wedersteers" wrote in message

Hello,

I have a photo here: http://eniac.xs4all.nl/images/blog/temp36.jpg The highlights are due to reflections no doubt. These type of unwanted highlights are quite common when shooting at transparent but also slightly reflective surfaces. Other than choosing a better angle to shoot this one, or using stuff to prevent the light from falling on it like it did here,

is

there a way to fix such a mishap in photoshop more or less invisibly ?
I tried making a selection around it, feather it in several degrees and using curves I tried to weaken the effect, but it looked kind of fake. Anyone who has a good tip on how to fix this type of error ? I also tried shadows/highlights by the way. That didn’t really clinch it either. For

the

record, I use CS on windows XP.

Thanks a bunch!
Pjotr

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Pjotr Wedersteers wrote:

Hello,

I have a photo here: http://eniac.xs4all.nl/images/blog/temp36.jpg The highlights are due to reflections no doubt. These type of unwanted highlights are quite common when shooting at transparent but also slightly reflective surfaces. Other than choosing a better angle to shoot this one, or using stuff to prevent the light from falling on it like it did here, is there a way to fix such a mishap in photoshop more or less invisibly ?

I tried making a selection around it, feather it in several degrees and using curves I tried to weaken the effect, but it looked kind of fake. Anyone who has a good tip on how to fix this type of error ? I also tried shadows/highlights by the way. That didn’t really clinch it either. For the record, I use CS on windows XP.

Thanks a bunch!
Pjotr

For this image I would create a curves adjustment layer, steepen the curve to darken the reflected area, and hand paint a mask to select only the reflection.
—

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

In article <40f949f7$0$78444$>, x33159
@westerterp.com says…

Hello,

I have a photo here: http://eniac.xs4all.nl/images/blog/temp36.jpg The highlights are due to reflections no doubt. These type of unwanted highlights are quite common when shooting at transparent but also slightly reflective surfaces. Other than choosing a better angle to shoot this one, or using stuff to prevent the light from falling on it like it did here, is there a way to fix such a mishap in photoshop more or less invisibly ?
I tried making a selection around it, feather it in several degrees and using curves I tried to weaken the effect, but it looked kind of fake. Anyone who has a good tip on how to fix this type of error ? I also tried shadows/highlights by the way. That didn’t really clinch it either. For the record, I use CS on windows XP.

Thanks a bunch!

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph, rather than try and create detail in the reflection area in PS. Just hang black, or dark gray, at an equal angle to the lens, over the reflection. The glass (in this case the clock lens will "see" the black, and the reflection will be eliminated. To get a little of the reflection, use a shade of gray.

You can spend all day trying to find the exact angle that you get no reflections from two curved lenses. Hanging dark material is far easier, once your angle and lighting have been achieved.

Hunt

"Hunt" wrote in message

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph

A simple polarizer would probably have fixed that particular reflection.

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph

A simple polarizer would probably have fixed that particular reflection.

Maybe, but maybe not, depending on the angle of the light and exactly what the glass was "seeing." With the Polarizer, the photographer would also loose about 2.5/f and then possibly have to correct for a cyan/green cast in the white numerals. Also, if the camera/lens arrangement isn’t such as to allow viewing of the effect of the filter directly, the orientation would have to be made first off-camera, then the filter transfered to the lens. In that case, the filter should be on the axis of the camera lens, for proper viewing of the elimination of the reflection, then the camera moved into place. With true SLR and a circular Polarizer, he/she could see what was being done far more easily, but a bit of black cloth would do the trick every time with no more than a moment to find the angle (and perhaps the size of the black cloth – minimum to remove the glare is best, so as to not affect the overall lighting ).

Hunt

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph

A simple polarizer would probably have fixed that particular reflection.

Maybe, but maybe not, depending on the angle of the light and exactly what

the

glass was "seeing." With the Polarizer, the photographer would also loose about 2.5/f and then possibly have to correct for a cyan/green cast in the white numerals. Also, if the camera/lens arrangement isn’t such as to

allow

viewing of the effect of the filter directly, the orientation would have

to be

made first off-camera, then the filter transfered to the lens. In that

case,

the filter should be on the axis of the camera lens, for proper viewing of

the

elimination of the reflection, then the camera moved into place. With true

SLR

and a circular Polarizer, he/she could see what was being done far more easily, but a bit of black cloth would do the trick every time with no

more

than a moment to find the angle (and perhaps the size of the black cloth – minimum to remove the glare is best, so as to not affect the overall

lighting

).

Hunt

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph

A simple polarizer would probably have fixed that particular reflection.

Maybe, but maybe not, depending […]

Blah blah blah. Elementary stuff.
Back to Photoshop

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph

A simple polarizer would probably have fixed that particular reflection.

Maybe, but maybe not, depending […]

Blah blah blah. Elementary stuff.
Back to Photoshop

Yes it is – for commercial photographers such as myself, but this person, and probably you, could benefit from some elementary pointers. Starting with a good image is far better than trying to fix something later, or do you choose to try and re-invent the wheel on each project?

Hunt

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph

A simple polarizer would probably have fixed that particular reflection.

Maybe, but maybe not, depending on the angle of the light and exactly what

the

glass was "seeing." With the Polarizer, the photographer would also loose about 2.5/f and then possibly have to correct for a cyan/green cast in the white numerals. Also, if the camera/lens arrangement isn’t such as to

allow

viewing of the effect of the filter directly, the orientation would have

to be

made first off-camera, then the filter transfered to the lens. In that

case,

the filter should be on the axis of the camera lens, for proper viewing of

the

elimination of the reflection, then the camera moved into place. With true

SLR

and a circular Polarizer, he/she could see what was being done far more easily, but a bit of black cloth would do the trick every time with no

more

than a moment to find the angle (and perhaps the size of the black cloth – minimum to remove the glare is best, so as to not affect the overall

lighting

).

Hunt

And, your point is?

Hunt

"Hunt" wrote in message

Yes it is – for commercial photographers such as myself,

If you are a commercial photographer then you must not be very busy if you can waste so much time here holding hands doing Photo 101 things.

but this person, and probably you, could benefit from some elementary

pointers.

I was probably published before you were born.

Starting with a
good image is far better than trying to fix something later, or do you

choose

to try and re-invent the wheel on each project?

Killfile.

In article , says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

Yes it is – for commercial photographers such as myself,

If you are a commercial photographer then you must not be very busy if you can waste so much time here holding hands doing Photo 101 things.

but this person, and probably you, could benefit from some elementary

pointers.

I was probably published before you were born.

Starting with a
good image is far better than trying to fix something later, or do you

choose

to try and re-invent the wheel on each project?

Killfile.

Oh I’m busy enough, and with projects that pay me well.

Having been in the business for many years, I often feel the urge to give-back to the community, whether it’s PS or photography. I still find time to do about 100 hours of pro-bono work for my advertising association and the art director’s club. I also learned that helping someone along will often pay dividends.

Years ago, I worked with a PS users group in ASMP and taught several blocks in the program. One competitor was just getting into PS and we worked quite a bit together, as he learned from the ground up. I’d been doing things with my older ver of PS, as I had deadlines, and didn’t have the time to learn the newest upgrade, which I had, but hadn’t used as the interface changes were just enough to slow me down. My competitor/student turned me on to Adjustment Layers, which had just been introduced. I was repaid 100x for my work with him just by that one tidbit. I would have found it soon enough (to use it later), but he saved me many hours and saves just because he’d already played with it and, definitely in this case, knew more than his teacher.

Giving back doesn’t take the time that some attribute to it. I maintain there are only three reasons to take work: it pays really, really well, it fattens your portfolio so you can get more work that pays really, really well, or because doing the work makes you "feel good." Sometimes a job has all three, but IMO it must have one. Giving back makes me feel good.

Hunt

Hunt wrote:

In article ,
says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

Yes it is – for commercial photographers such as myself,

If you are a commercial photographer then you must not be very busy if you can waste so much time here holding hands doing Photo 101 things.

but this person, and probably you, could benefit from some elementary pointers.

I was probably published before you were born.

Starting with a
good image is far better than trying to fix something later, or do you choose to try and re-invent the wheel on each project?

Killfile.

Oh I’m busy enough, and with projects that pay me well.

Having been in the business for many years, I often feel the urge to give-back to the community, whether it’s PS or photography. I still find time to do about 100 hours of pro-bono work for my advertising association and the art director’s club. I also learned that helping someone along will often pay dividends.

Years ago, I worked with a PS users group in ASMP and taught several blocks in the program. One competitor was just getting into PS and we worked quite a bit together, as he learned from the ground up. I’d been doing things with my older ver of PS, as I had deadlines, and didn’t have the time to learn the newest upgrade, which I had, but hadn’t used as the interface changes were just enough to slow me down. My competitor/student turned me on to Adjustment Layers, which had just been introduced. I was repaid 100x for my work with him just by that one tidbit. I would have found it soon enough (to use it later), but he saved me many hours and saves just because he’d already played with it and, definitely in this case, knew more than his teacher.

Giving back doesn’t take the time that some attribute to it. I maintain there are only three reasons to take work: it pays really, really well, it fattens your portfolio so you can get more work that pays really, really well, or because doing the work makes you "feel good." Sometimes a job has all three, but IMO it must have one. Giving back makes me feel good.

Hunt

And it’s much appreciated Hunt, I have taken notice of your tips, and will also try what my polarizer would help in this one. Nevertheless I like to be able to fix these flaws in PS as well, not in the least because half of what I do with PS is fixing photos other people bring to me asking for advice or help fixing their preciously captured moments. I have no pretences, I am not much of a pro in any field, but I like doing the work, and like you, all I need to get out of it is a happy feeling OR some money. I once fixed a very simple flaw in a childhood picture of a classmate of mine, she and her parents were the happiest bunch I’ve ever seen after I’d revamped the shot. Can’t put a price on that! It’s nice being able to help out.

So I’ll be attacking my shot with the techniques I have read here and hope to be able to fix it, just as a training. The pic in question never was meant as a "big one" just made a nice example of what I see more often. Another one I need to master is the horrible highlights in people’s spectacles in indoor flash-lit photos. I have a bunch waiting for cleanup. I keep learning!

Thanks again!
Pjotr

In article <40fcffa4$0$23867$
says…

Hunt wrote:

In article ,
says…

"Hunt" wrote in message

Yes it is – for commercial photographers such as myself,

If you are a commercial photographer then you must not be very busy if you can waste so much time here holding hands doing Photo 101 things.

but this person, and probably you, could benefit from some elementary pointers.

I was probably published before you were born.

Starting with a
good image is far better than trying to fix something later, or do you choose to try and re-invent the wheel on each project?

Killfile.

Oh I’m busy enough, and with projects that pay me well.

Having been in the business for many years, I often feel the urge to give-back to the community, whether it’s PS or photography. I still find time to do about 100 hours of pro-bono work for my advertising association and the art director’s club. I also learned that helping someone along will often pay dividends.

Years ago, I worked with a PS users group in ASMP and taught several blocks in the program. One competitor was just getting into PS and we worked quite a bit together, as he learned from the ground up. I’d been doing things with my older ver of PS, as I had deadlines, and didn’t have the time to learn the newest upgrade, which I had, but hadn’t used as the interface changes were just enough to slow me down. My competitor/student turned me on to Adjustment Layers, which had just been introduced. I was repaid 100x for my work with him just by that one tidbit. I would have found it soon enough (to use it later), but he saved me many hours and saves just because he’d already played with it and, definitely in this case, knew more than his teacher.

Giving back doesn’t take the time that some attribute to it. I maintain there are only three reasons to take work: it pays really, really well, it fattens your portfolio so you can get more work that pays really, really well, or because doing the work makes you "feel good." Sometimes a job has all three, but IMO it must have one. Giving back makes me feel good.

Hunt

And it’s much appreciated Hunt, I have taken notice of your tips, and will also try what my polarizer would help in this one. Nevertheless I like to be able to fix these flaws in PS as well, not in the least because half of what I do with PS is fixing photos other people bring to me asking for advice or help fixing their preciously captured moments. I have no pretences, I am not much of a pro in any field, but I like doing the work, and like you, all I need to get out of it is a happy feeling OR some money. I once fixed a very simple flaw in a childhood picture of a classmate of mine, she and her parents were the happiest bunch I’ve ever seen after I’d revamped the shot. Can’t put a price on that! It’s nice being able to help out.
So I’ll be attacking my shot with the techniques I have read here and hope to be able to fix it, just as a training. The pic in question never was meant as a "big one" just made a nice example of what I see more often. Another one I need to master is the horrible highlights in people’s spectacles in indoor flash-lit photos. I have a bunch waiting for cleanup. I keep learning!

Thanks again!
Pjotr

Yes, we are often called upon to work with existing photography and have no choice, but to do the best we can. Taking that into consideration, I’d use the Pen Tool to outline the hands, the numerals and the tick marks on the clock face. Save that Path, then make it a Selection, Invert it and make a Selection of the dial face (could most easily be done with the Pen Tool as above), so you will work with only the dial face, minus the numerals, etc. Using Eyedropper, select a color in the non-reflection area that you like, and with Paintbrush, Blending Mode set to Darken, paint in the clock face to match. You can then use your numerals Selection to lighten any numerals, clock hands, etc. that you might want to brighten with Curves, or Levels. I’d also do similar work on the reflection of the equipment face around the clock. You might want to use Healing Brush, or Clone Tool to eliminate the glacker near the 2:00 position. I might also add a bit of Noise and then Blur that for a uniform effect.

Hunt

(Hunt) wrote in message news:…

In article <40f949f7$0$78444$>, x33159
@westerterp.com says…

Hello,

I have a photo here: http://eniac.xs4all.nl/images/blog/temp36.jpg The highlights are due to reflections no doubt. These type of unwanted highlights are quite common when shooting at transparent but also slightly reflective surfaces. Other than choosing a better angle to shoot this one, or using stuff to prevent the light from falling on it like it did here, is there a way to fix such a mishap in photoshop more or less invisibly ?
I tried making a selection around it, feather it in several degrees and using curves I tried to weaken the effect, but it looked kind of fake. Anyone who has a good tip on how to fix this type of error ? I also tried shadows/highlights by the way. That didn’t really clinch it either. For the record, I use CS on windows XP.

Thanks a bunch!

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph, rather than try and create detail in the reflection area in PS.

The best solution is the one available to you. PS works fine in repairing this type of image, you just have to know how. BTW that’s what the OP is asking.

You can spend all day trying to find the exact angle that you get no reflections from two curved lenses. Hanging dark material is far easier, once your angle and lighting have been achieved.

Definitely the best choice, if it’s even your picture. If not, try using Luminance mask techniques(Google is full of them), since that’s where the glare can be isolated.
nikki

In article ,
says…

(Hunt) wrote in message news:…

In article <40f949f7$0$78444$>, x33159
@westerterp.com says…

Hello,

I have a photo here: http://eniac.xs4all.nl/images/blog/temp36.jpg The highlights are due to reflections no doubt. These type of unwanted highlights are quite common when shooting at transparent but also slightly reflective surfaces. Other than choosing a better angle to shoot this one, or using stuff to prevent the light from falling on it like it did here,

is

there a way to fix such a mishap in photoshop more or less invisibly ?
I tried making a selection around it, feather it in several degrees and using curves I tried to weaken the effect, but it looked kind of fake. Anyone who has a good tip on how to fix this type of error ? I also tried shadows/highlights by the way. That didn’t really clinch it either. For

the

record, I use CS on windows XP.

Thanks a bunch!

The best solution for this problem is to start with the photograph, rather than try and create detail in the reflection area in PS.

The best solution is the one available to you. PS works fine in repairing this type of image, you just have to know how. BTW that’s what the OP is asking.

You can spend all day trying to find the exact angle that you get no reflections from two curved lenses. Hanging dark material is far easier,

once

your angle and lighting have been achieved.

Definitely the best choice, if it’s even your picture. If not, try using Luminance mask techniques(Google is full of them), since that’s where the glare can be isolated.
nikki

I was attempting to help the OP with the quality of the original photography. I’d rather see someone use PS for artistic applications, rather than to save an image that could have been done better in the original. While that is not within the realm of PS NG’s, it should be applicable, wouldn’t you think?

I also took your advice, regarding the Luminance Mask techniques, and still feel that my answer (after the OP stated that the photography was provided, and re-shooting wasn’t really an option) as to the solution was the better route. It took me 17 minutes to make all the corrections to the clock face, and time would have been shorter if I’d worked on a hi-rez TIFF.

Hunt

Hunt wrote:

*In article ,
says…

(Hunt) wrote in messag

news:…
is[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]

Use PS for whatever you can use it for. I use it for artisti creation And repairing otherwise useless images.

The best solution is the one available to you. PS works fine in repairing this type of image, you just have to know how. BTW that’s what the OP is asking.

once[color=darkred]

Definitely the best choice, if it’s even your picture. If not, try using Luminance mask techniques(Google is full of them), sinc

that’s

where the glare can be isolated.
nikki

I was attempting to help the OP with the quality of the origina photography.
I’d rather see someone use PS for artistic applications, rather tha to save
an image that could have been done better in the original. While tha is not
within the realm of PS NG’s, it should be applicable, wouldn’t yo think?

I also took your advice, regarding the Luminance Mask techniques, an still
feel that my answer (after the OP stated that the photography wa provided,
and re-shooting wasn’t really an option) as to the solution was th better
route. It took me 17 minutes to make all the corrections to the cloc face,
and time would have been shorter if I’d worked on a hi-rez TIFF.
Hunt

–
nikki1
———————————————————— ———– Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
———————————————————— ———– View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message98356.htm