Whites

[Shadowman]

Image shows clipping on the shoe and the trailing runner's chest. Is it excessive, should I bother trying to reduce in-process? Some clipping in shadows.

Used capture sharpening during RAW conversion.

f/13, ISO 200, 1/200s, 210mm.

[blakemcguire]

If you haven't already done any exposure compensation, then I think it'll come back just fine. I think I can see where it clipped on the forward shoe, but I don't think it would be a big deal. You should be able to pull most of it back, then use the curves tool to make sure any transition to the clipped area (if any) is natural-looking.

[Shadowman]

If you haven't already done any exposure compensation, then I think it'll come back just fine. I think I can see where it clipped on the forward shoe, but I don't think it would be a big deal. You should be able to pull most of it back, then use the curves tool to make sure any transition to the clipped area (if any) is natural-looking.

Thanks for the response Blake. Normally I would shoot manual and control the highlights but would end up post processing a lot of shadow clipping. I decided to cede some control to the camera and use Aperture Priority and the camera adjusted to the right of the histogram.

[Manfred M]

This is a bit like the specular highlights one gets when shooting waves; the darn things clip and there really isn't much we can do about it, so I don't worry about it at all. The running shoes with their reflective safety strips are much the same; can't do anything about it, as they are working as designed.

I might be a bit more concerned if I were working on a fine art print, but on an image that is likely to be shared on the internet, no big deal.

[Shadowman]

This is a bit like the specular highlights one gets when shooting waves; the darn things clip and there really isn't much we can do about it, so I don't worry about it at all. The running shoes with their reflective safety strips are much the same; can't do anything about it, as they are working as designed.

I might be a bit more concerned if I were working on a fine art print, but on an image that is likely to be shared on the internet, no big deal.

Thanks Manfred.

[gaijin]

The main problem with the image as far as I'm concerned comes from the position of the bottom of the lamppost. Then there is the blurring of the girl's left foot. These are the things I remarked, rather than the clipping. The clipping you can do something about if you so wish, the lamppost you can perhaps get rid of, and the blurring is slight, so nothing to worry about!

[Glenn NK]

This is a bit like the specular highlights one gets when shooting waves; the darn things clip and there really isn't much we can do about it, so I don't worry about it at all. The running shoes with their reflective safety strips are much the same; can't do anything about it, as they are working as designed.

I might be a bit more concerned if I were working on a fine art print, but on an image that is likely to be shared on the internet, no big deal.

I totally agree.

We worry far too much about clipping tiny little (insignificant) areas of an image - and then forget that when we look at a reflection off a wave crest (for example), we can't see any detail at all (but are concerned about it).

Often when following a vehicle in the town/city I get a blinding reflection off the rear window - I can't see any detail there, so there's no reason to expect a camera to be able to see detail.

Glenn

[Shadowman]

The main problem with the image as far as I'm concerned comes from the position of the bottom of the lamppost. Then there is the blurring of the girl's left foot. These are the things I remarked, rather than the clipping. The clipping you can do something about if you so wish, the lamppost you can perhaps get rid of, and the blurring is slight, so nothing to worry about!

Thanks Allen.

[Shadowman]

I totally agree.

We worry far too much about clipping tiny little (insignificant) areas of an image - and then forget that when we look at a reflection off a wave crest (for example), we can't see any detail at all (but are concerned about it).

Often when following a vehicle in the town/city I get a blinding reflection off the rear window - I can't see any detail there, so there's no reason to expect a camera to be able to see detail.

Glenn

Glen,

Like I said, I usually shoot to the left of the histogram but end up doing more post processing of the shadows. The highlight indicators were visible (not excessively) during the shoot but I didn't want to adjust on the spot. In this case it's the red flag that gets waved in your face happens during post processing and you start second guessing yourself whether or not it affects the final output. The highlight and shadow clipping triangles are lit up but too much adjusting tends to wash out the overall color. So I am looking for third party confirmation so that I don't overdo the editing.

Thanks for commenting.

[Glenn NK]

Glen,

Like I said, I usually shoot to the left of the histogram but end up doing more post processing of the shadows. The highlight indicators were visible (not excessively) during the shoot but I didn't want to adjust on the spot. In this case it's the red flag that gets waved in your face happens during post processing and you start second guessing yourself whether or not it affects the final output. The highlight and shadow clipping triangles are lit up but too much adjusting tends to wash out the overall color. So I am looking for third party confirmation so that I don't overdo the editing.

Thanks for commenting.

Interesting - I shoot to the right of the histogram. Specular highlights cannot realistically be captured without a heavy ND filter. Have you never used ETTR?

I don't know what camera you use, but if it's a Canon, the common recommendation is to set the in camera Contrast to minus 2 or minus 3 when shooting RAW in order to get the histogram to more realistically reflect what is actually happening with the RAW file. I would suspect other bodies would be similar. If shooting JPEG, all bets are off.

There is a dramatic example of the value of shooting ETTR by a photographer in Spain by the net name of _GUI_. He has a RAW image that looks completely washed out when brought up in PS. Unfortunately I can't find the link right now, but I'll keep looking.

On the LCD, the image would have been thrown away by many when they looked at it. But it is not overexposed at all. When brought into PP, the image can be shown to have no clipping at all, and with proper processing, it is full of colour and detail. I have a hunch that many of us are influenced by the camera's LCD image when we judge exposure, and this is just plain wrong.

What I did find on POTN is this (post No.2). It's long but has some interesting information.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1063694

_GUI_ (Guillermo Luijk) has some interesting articles on line: (how's your Spanish?).

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/index_en.htm

Glenn

[Jable]

Hello from Spain ¡
Guillermo Luijk has the articles translated to english too
Pedro

[Jable]

Hi Again:
Look at this thread in nikonistas forum, where Guillermo writes some interesting posts:http://www.nikonistas.com/digital/fo...owtopic=262970

[Dave Humphries]

Guillermo is/was a member here at CiC too, if you can find his old posts ...

I recall being impressed by what he achieved.

Sorry don't have time to look now myself,

[Glenn NK]

I searched a bit:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...earchid=604533

Glenn

[Shadowman]

Interesting - I shoot to the right of the histogram. Specular highlights cannot realistically be captured without a heavy ND filter. Have you never used ETTR?

I don't know what camera you use, but if it's a Canon, the common recommendation is to set the in camera Contrast to minus 2 or minus 3 when shooting RAW in order to get the histogram to more realistically reflect what is actually happening with the RAW file. I would suspect other bodies would be similar. If shooting JPEG, all bets are off.

Glenn

I have used ETTR but was never really happy with the results. Less detail to me, but willing to try again.
I shoot with the Nikon D3200, RAW, usually manual settings but for the photo at the start of the thread I shot Aperture Priority because I was moving from direct sunlight to shadows within seconds.

[Glenn NK]

Sorry, that link didn't work.

I went to advanced search, used the name _GUI_, and for dates a year ago and older.

Glenn