Dressage Rider - Seeking assistance / C&C welcomed as well

[John 2]

Kim, I find histograms useful when the is a fair light distribution across the spectrum. For me, they are of less use when you are faced with hot spots, particularly when the camera is moving from one part of the scene to another - as in following the horse. My approach would be to pre set the exposure compensation to produce some detail in the highlights and then rely on PP to adjust both highlights and shadows. You can never recover detail in blown highlights but it is quite difficult to block the shadows completely. You may suffer some noise in the shadows but provided you don't take it too far, a camera of the D810's generation shouldn't perform too badly. I used the approach for the church interiors I posted recently (see below).

1. Original


2. After PP.

[rpcrowe]

I copied your posted image and tried working on it using NIK Viveza. Contrast -14. Structure +25 Shadow +32. I suspect that the end result might be a bit better if starting from a full size RAW image...

[Mike Buckley]

You can never recover detail in blown highlights

That depends on the definition of "blown highlights." I don't know the official definition and it wouldn't matter if I did. That's because everyone uses that terminology so differently.

My point is that when converting a RAW file, blown highlights that are displayed at the captured exposure can indeed be recovered if the converter is used to reduce the exposure. There are limits as to what can be recovered by reducing the exposure, but some can be recovered.

I realize that you (John) know this but not everyone does. I'm not sure whether Kim knows it.

[Polar01]

Kim I have a friend that rides dressage and have shot here at a practice ring, the lighting conditions are the same as you have here that is the same as .... (what comes out the other end of the horse). It is almost impossible to get it in camera unless using flash but somehow them do not like you doing that. What I did you to open your image in ACR then into Photoshop as a smart object then copied it to a smart object by way of copy. now I have to smart objects that are not linked it I had created a straight copy, then what I did to one would also be done to the other. Now on the second layer I was now able to open it back into ACR, selected the WB tool selected a spot on the horse and change the WB to something more to my liking, then selected done which took me back into Photoshop. I then selected the horse and rider and copied them to a new layer with a layer mask to hide the rest of the image except the horse and rider. I then turned off the eyeball to the third and second layers, opened the first layer back into ACR tweeted to a little, selected Done which took me back into Photoshop. Now I have the ring looking more how I want it then turned the eyeball back on to the third layer which has the horse and rider looking how I want it, and that is what you see below. I know that, that sounds like a lot however I use smart objects like that all the time when the situation warrents it, so I am use to it almost like second nature. I hope that the image meets with your approval.

Cheers: ALlan

[John 2]

That depends on the definition of "blown highlights." I don't know the official definition and it wouldn't matter if I did. That's because everyone uses that terminology so differently.

My point is that when converting a RAW file, blown highlights that are displayed at the captured exposure can indeed be recovered if the converter is used to reduce the exposure. There are limits as to what can be recovered by reducing the exposure, but some can be recovered.

I realize that you (John) know this but not everyone does. I'm not sure whether Kim knows it.

I agree Mike. I should perhaps have said "totally blown" as in pure white. I guess the general point I was trying to make is that it is better to condition the RAW material (pun intended) in camera than have to rescue the hot spots after the event.

Kim, there are ways of doing this but it involves a lot of work. My preferred approach uses PS CS6 and is to clone an appropriate area of texture onto a second layer. The reason for using a second layer is that once you have cloned the necessary detail over the hot spot, you can adjust the cloned area independently of the main image to make it blend in. e.g. clean up the edges with the eraser tool, adjust contrast or colour balance etc. You can even improve alignment if needed.

1. Make a feathered (5-10 pix) selection of the area you want to address.
2. Copy it and immediately paste it back onto the image as a second layer.

Note: Only select and work on one area at a time to ensure that the pasted layer is in register with the original. Selecting more than one area caused the new layer to be centred on the page.

3. Select the clone tool and change the active area from "Current Layer" to "Current and Below" in the drop down box at the top of the screen. This allows you to use the main image as a source but clone onto the top layer.
4. Make sure that the top layer is selected in the layers dialogue box.
5. To demonstrate the method, the area between the horses legs has been used as a source for the hot spot in front of the horses shoulder and separately, the area behind the riders boot has been used to add some texture to the horses quarters (rump).
6. When you have cloned in the detail that you want to add, clean up the edges using the eraser and adjust opacity, contrast, exposure etc. to blend the two layers.
7. Flatten the image.

As I say though, it involves a lot of detailed work. Much better to get it close in camera to start with and then just tweak it in PP.

[Mike Buckley]

Most, perhaps all, of the work John did and explained got rid of glare on the wood. The glare is actually a direct reflection of the light source, which in this case is the sun. The glare disguised all color and texture of the wood, which he very expertly returned during post-processing. It also competed with the nice rays of sunlight on the dirt.

The glare probably could have been eliminated at the time of capture using a polarizer. However, these images were shot at ISO 3200 without a polarizer. If a polarizer had been used along with the same shutter and aperture settings, the ISO probably would have been in the range of about 9000 to 13,000. I would be willing to bet that Kim would have found such a high value to be prohibitive with regard to noise.

Though I personally do everything I can to avoid glare because it disguises the color, shape and texture of the material "behind" the glare, I should mention that it seems to be becoming more and more popular at least in certain kinds of photography that I notice (food and wine). I'm seeing more and more of it in expensive advertisements and in editorial features. Just as I should never become close-minded about my personal thinking of glare, we shouldn't allow it to enter our photos only because in certain circles it has become popular at least as a fad.

[KimC]

I thought I would have been able to recover as well Mike, but I wasn't able. I tried in 2 different software as well.

When viewing only a part of the image in your LCD (because you have zoomed in on the image), does your camera display the histogram only of the portion of the image being displayed? If so, zoom in on the highlights and my guess is that the histogram will more readily display when you've lost detail.

Even so, especially if you're shooting RAW files, I would expect you to be able to recover such small amounts of blown highlights.

No, it was a conscious decision Mike. I wanted to see the difference in results that I achieved between the two.

That being the case, why did you shoot in Aperture Priority? Perhaps you simply forgot the mode you were using (I'm especially good at doing that and worse).

[KimC]

I know they are tiny, but I wanted to explore, if I did something different, could I eliminate all of them. Truthfully, I have been a tad frustrated with my learning of late... so that's why I sought all of your help.

I just now downloaded the first image and checked for blown highlights. The blown areas are so tiny that I don't understand your concern. Even if you printed the image really large, they wouldn't adversely affect the image in my mind.

[KimC]

As I tend to be a visual learner John, your post is very helpful to me. I didn't see this image in your recent post, and I greatly appreciate you posting the SOOC.

Can you elaborate on how you ensure you have detail in the highlights? Is it via the histogram?

I do not to use the 810 when I know I will need a high ISO (as I did here) as I haven't been pleased with the results. If the 750 was out when I purchased the 810, I prob would have bought the 750 for it's ISO performance.

Kim, I find histograms useful when the is a fair light distribution across the spectrum. For me, they are of less use when you are faced with hot spots, particularly when the camera is moving from one part of the scene to another - as in following the horse. My approach would be to pre set the exposure compensation to produce some detail in the highlights and then rely on PP to adjust both highlights and shadows. You can never recover detail in blown highlights but it is quite difficult to block the shadows completely. You may suffer some noise in the shadows but provided you don't take it too far, a camera of the D810's generation shouldn't perform too badly. I used the approach for the church interiors I posted recently (see below).

[KimC]

Thanks for sharing Richard. I do see where the shadows were lifted.

I copied your posted image and tried working on it using NIK Viveza. Contrast -14. Structure +25 Shadow +32. I suspect that the end result might be a bit better if starting from a full size RAW image...

[KimC]

Regretfully, I have had lots of experience with blown highlights and have painfully learned there are some that you just can't do anything about :-(

That depends on the definition of "blown highlights." I don't know the official definition and it wouldn't matter if I did. That's because everyone uses that terminology so differently.

My point is that when converting a RAW file, blown highlights that are displayed at the captured exposure can indeed be recovered if the converter is used to reduce the exposure. There are limits as to what can be recovered by reducing the exposure, but some can be recovered.

I realize that you (John) know this but not everyone does. I'm not sure whether Kim knows it.

[KimC]

They don't like the use of a flash here either Allan.

Thank you for sharing your adjustments. I did explore the WB you are displaying, but it was too warm. I also wanted to do a softer, dreamy look, so this image has a bit too much saturation for what I wanted to personally achieve (artistic preference).

Kim I have a friend that rides dressage and have shot here at a practice ring, the lighting conditions are the same as you have here that is the same as .... (what comes out the other end of the horse). It is almost impossible to get it in camera unless using flash but somehow them do not like you doing that. What I did you to open your image in ACR then into Photoshop as a smart object then copied it to a smart object by way of copy. now I have to smart objects that are not linked it I had created a straight copy, then what I did to one would also be done to the other. Now on the second layer I was now able to open it back into ACR, selected the WB tool selected a spot on the horse and change the WB to something more to my liking, then selected done which took me back into Photoshop. I then selected the horse and rider and copied them to a new layer with a layer mask to hide the rest of the image except the horse and rider. I then turned off the eyeball to the third and second layers, opened the first layer back into ACR tweeted to a little, selected Done which took me back into Photoshop. Now I have the ring looking more how I want it then turned the eyeball back on to the third layer which has the horse and rider looking how I want it, and that is what you see below. I know that, that sounds like a lot however I use smart objects like that all the time when the situation warrents it, so I am use to it almost like second nature. I hope that the image meets with your approval.

Cheers: ALlan

[KimC]

Thanks John. I would prefer to get something like your SOOC rather than have to do a lot of PP. That was the reason for my primary question about how to expose for this versus doing PP. As mentioned in my earlier response to you, I would like to hear how you ensure you have detail in the highlights when you are shooting a scene like this - histogram?

I use Capture One 9 and Affinity. On another image with a larger hot spot, I did do some cloning using Affinity and it did improve it w/a lot of time.

Thank you for your response and your demonstration on the image.

I agree Mike. I should perhaps have said "totally blown" as in pure white. I guess the general point I was trying to make is that it is better to condition the RAW material (pun intended) in camera than have to rescue the hot spots after the event.

Kim, there are ways of doing this but it involves a lot of work. My preferred approach uses PS CS6 and is to clone an appropriate area of texture onto a second layer. The reason for using a second layer is that once you have cloned the necessary detail over the hot spot, you can adjust the cloned area independently of the main image to make it blend in. e.g. clean up the edges with the eraser tool, adjust contrast or colour balance etc. You can even improve alignment if needed.

1. Make a feathered (5-10 pix) selection of the area you want to address.
2. Copy it and immediately paste it back onto the image as a second layer.

Note: Only select and work on one area at a time to ensure that the pasted layer is in register with the original. Selecting more than one area caused the new layer to be centred on the page.

3. Select the clone tool and change the active area from "Current Layer" to "Current and Below" in the drop down box at the top of the screen. This allows you to use the main image as a source but clone onto the top layer.
4. Make sure that the top layer is selected in the layers dialogue box.
5. To demonstrate the method, the area between the horses legs has been used as a source for the hot spot in front of the horses shoulder and separately, the area behind the riders boot has been used to add some texture to the horses quarters (rump).
6. When you have cloned in the detail that you want to add, clean up the edges using the eraser and adjust opacity, contrast, exposure etc. to blend the two layers.
7. Flatten the image.

As I say though, it involves a lot of detailed work. Much better to get it close in camera to start with and then just tweak it in PP.

[KimC]

Concerning the highlights, I thought I would have been able to recover as well Mike, but I wasn't able. I tried in 2 different software as well.



Concerning the mode - No, it was a conscious decision Mike. I wanted to see the difference in results that I achieved between the two.


Yes, I have seen that as well Mike.

Though I personally do everything I can to avoid glare because it disguises the color, shape and texture of the material "behind" the glare, I should mention that it seems to be becoming more and more popular at least in certain kinds of photography that I notice (food and wine). I'm seeing more and more of it in expensive advertisements and in editorial features. Just as I should never become close-minded about my personal thinking of glare, we shouldn't allow it to enter our photos only because in certain circles it has become popular at least as a fad.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks John. I would prefer to get something like your SOOC rather than have to do a lot of PP.

Not possible when photographing this scene without using a polarizer.

[John 2]

As I tend to be a visual learner John, your post is very helpful to me. I didn't see this image in your recent post, and I greatly appreciate you posting the SOOC.

Can you elaborate on how you ensure you have detail in the highlights? Is it via the histogram?

I do not to use the 810 when I know I will need a high ISO (as I did here) as I haven't been pleased with the results. If the 750 was out when I purchased the 810, I prob would have bought the 750 for it's ISO performance.

It is relatively easy using my Fuji because it is mirrorless and consequently I read the scene in the EVF and then adjust the exposure compensation until I see the detail. The mid tones and the shadows of course go dark at that point. P.S. then has a very useful tool called the Shadows and Highlights tool. This allows adjustment of exposure for the shadows and highlights separately so I can lift the shadows and/or pull back the highlights even further if required but you can achieve the same thing using a Curves adjustment in the software you use. With an SLR, you could use Live View in the same way if the highlight areas are large enough to assess on the rear screen otherwise it's a question of trial and error in setting up the camera before your shoot by viewing the highlight areas in the VF after making trial shots. As Mike says, a polariser will help and you will never achieve a SSOC shot. What your doing is to bring the dynamic range of the image (rather than the camera) within workable PP limits.

[Mike Buckley]

Another approach, Kim: In the first scene, you could have used a polarizer and reduced the shutter speed 1 1/2 to 2 stops to prevent use of a higher ISO value. Doing so might have made for some attractive motion in the horse's lower legs and tail while stopping the action in the rider and horse's torso, perhaps also its head.

[Polar01]

Kim I was only showing what could be done to the horse and rider to remove that terrible blue cast, I have idea what you final vision for the image was, my only thoughts were to the horse and rider.

Cheers: Allan

[revi]

Another option might be using a luminosity mask to apply an "exposition" correction as a function of pixel luminance. That would allow you to avoid influencing the shadows. For a more thorough explanation than I can put here: http://goodlight.us/writing/luminosi...tymasks-1.html

[KimC]

Thanks Mike, I'm going to have to put a polarizer on my Christmas list.

Another approach, Kim: In the first scene, you could have used a polarizer and reduced the shutter speed 1 1/2 to 2 stops to prevent use of a higher ISO value. Doing so might have made for some attractive motion in the horse's lower legs and tail while stopping the action in the rider and horse's torso, perhaps also its head.