Sandrine

[Chataignier]

[Manfred M]

The image looks quite underexposed (muddy) and even the whites of your model's eyes look like they are just above middle gray.

Your white point needs to be pulled to the left, but that means your will end up brightening up the hot spots on her face, that need to be toned down.

[xpatUSA]

The image looks quite underexposed (muddy) and even the whites of your model's eyes look like they are just above middle gray.

Tried some Wavelet Processing in RawTherapee to bring out the eyes and upped the L* Lightness and more.

Not a wonderful result and probably not the original intent ...

[Manfred M]

Ted - My usual approach in this situation is to lift the brightness and then burn down the hot spots. In this case, I cloned the skin over the "hot" areas and added a bit of noise to give the image a bit more natural looking texture in those areas.

Global adjustments are rarely enough, I find.

[Chataignier]

@ Manfred - thanks for the feedback, this is very helpful.
Out of the camera the photo was under exposed and in fact I had already done exactly as you described - raised the brightness, plus a bit extra on the right as the lighting ratio was a bit too pronounced (in LR), then toned down the hotspots in PS by cloning exactly as you described. However, it is clear that I did not go far enough. Your lighter version is much more appealing.
Did you judge the lightness "by eye" or did you aim for a particular white point ?

[Manfred M]

David - let me drill down a bit on some theory and practice to get a "well exposed and processed image". This being a B&W shot, makes the explanation a bit easier, but the same principles apply, although we do have to deal with the additional complexity of colour.

A general rule in photography is that in most cases, higher contrast images tend to look better than lower contrast ones. If your image looks a bit muddy, boosting global contrast (and sometimes mid-tone contrast as well) is warranted. The "rule" does not apply to scenes (or parts of scenes) that are taken in fog or mist.




When I import your image into Photoshop, one thing that strike me when I look at the histogram is that you have virtually no data in the highlights (the extreme right part of the histogram). The other place I look is at the white part of the eye. I put a sampler there (you can see it on the camera left eye), and it shows a value of 141; not all that far off middle gray (a value of 128). I don't sample the specular highlights on her skin as I can see that these are specular highlights that need to be calmed down in post.

This process is usually called "white point correction" or "white point pull-down" and the result gives us this:



The histogram now has a full tonal range from black to white. I would not push a colour image quite as hard, especially on the white side, especially if I were printing it, but it would still be close. Notice that the white part of the eye has a value of 202, well into the lighter tones. The sampler tool reads 141/202, which is a before / after value. I might push it a tiny bit more, but using a local, not global adjustment.

The only other thing I did was to darken the hot spots on the skin. Here I used a soft clone tool that was quite soft and had a low flow rate to build up a slightly darker tone. I added a bit of noise (B&W, Gaussian ~ 4%) to give the cleaned up area a bit more texture.

If I were doing this a a portrait or print, I would do some additional work, but as it is a small, digital image, the additional work would not give a lot of added value.

The histogram now goes from black to white and the global contrast has been maximized.

[Chataignier]

@ Manfred : Thank you !!! I've learned more in the last 2 weeks than in the previous 2 yrs !
I can think of one or two mre shots where this would apply, will let you know how I get on.

[DanK]

If I can throw in a postscript to Manfred's excellent explanation:

Different people have different workflows, but IMHO, the very first edit should generally be fixing the ends of the histogram. You may need to go back and re-fix them later based on other adjustments to tonality, but I always start with this. Then I move on to other global tonality adjustments.

The tonality tools in LR and PS are quite different. LR lacks a levels tool, which is a pity; that's a very simple way to set the black and white points and the midpoint. You can also set the white and black points with a curves tool, as Manfred did. In PS, that's fine--you can add as many curves as you want later in the process. LR, however, gives you only one, so compressing the curve to fix the white and black points makes other adjustments with the curve harder.

In contrast, the core of the LR approach is sliders that operate on regions of the histogram. While I find that handy for some things, e.g., as a first step in opening up shadows, I don't find it a complete substitute for a simple levels tool or multiple curves.

Still, my workflow is that I usually do all I can in LR before moving to PS, and sometimes never get there. So my starting point is to use the exposure slider, the region sliders in LR (whites, highlights, etc.), and the curve to get this as close as I can. Often it is enough for global adjustments, but not always.

Re Ted's point: frankly, I don't think it matters when one is editing. The key is how the image looks to you, assuming you have your editing monitor calibrated and set to a reasonable brightness.

[xpatUSA]

Re Ted's point: frankly, I don't think it matters when one is editing.

Point deleted so as to avoid any confusion.

[Chataignier]

@Dan : Yes, thanks for the postscript.
Like you I normally work in LR and when all the image needs is a bit of exposure and tweaking of the different luminosity regions I have been getting results that pleased me. However, as you say there is no levels tool in LR and I had not looked outside it for one - this is a revelation for me !

[rpcrowe]

As opposed to many other photographers, I never use Lightroom. I find that I can do everything that I want with a combination of Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop CC usually with some added help from NIK Software. I keep my image catalog in Adobe Bridge. Nothing wrong with Lightroom, of course, I just find it difficult to manage...

A point that I meant to make before I began the Lightroom rant was that a very valuable accessory for portraits can often be a box of facial tissue. Quite often, when shooting with strobe or even continuous light, the subject's skin may have a shine to it that appears as a stark highlight. These highlights are more pronounced on persons with darker complexions and are more bothersome in female portraits. Blotting or gently wiping the skin might remove some of the shine and decrease the amount of PP retouching needed...

Of course, this is not a substitute for proper makeup application but, these days, natural looks are in vogue and many women do not wear any makeup except for perhaps some lipstick or a little eye make up.

Another very picky comment is the positioning of her eyes. I usually feel more comfortable viewing a portrait when the subjects eyes are in line with the nose and when there is some white on either side of the pupils. Of course, rules like these are meant to be broken and there are no eyeball position police around...

[Manfred M]

@ Manfred : Thank you !!! I've learned more in the last 2 weeks than in the previous 2 yrs !
I can think of one or two mre shots where this would apply, will let you know how I get on.

David - I have been doing "serious" photography since I was in my mid-teens; many decades ago and have been fortunate enough to have been studied under and mentored by a number of nationally and internationally respected photographers. Photography has a technical aspect (often referred to as the "craft" aspect) and the creative / artistic side. These skills are required behind the camera and in front of the computer screen.

One has to master both to be an effective photographer.

[Manfred M]

Point deleted so as to avoid any confusion.

I read your point before you deleted it Ted and I do understand where you are coming from. The real question is "what is good enough", and that depends on the person. Does the technical definition of "middle gray" really matter?

It depends on who is asking. Much like should we be using 18% gray or 12% gray?

[xpatUSA]

I read your point before you deleted it Ted and I do understand where you are coming from. The real question is "what is good enough", and that depends on the person. Does the technical definition of "middle gray" really matter?

It depends on who is asking.

I stand suitably chastened. The correct value of mid-gray probably doesn't matter much in the hit-or-miss world of photography.

Perhaps instead of precisely stating "128" we should in future say "Somewhere near the middle" thereby including cameras that use the older ISO saturation-based speed or that use the newer REI where the ISO value is whatever Chuck Norris says it is ...

Much like should we be using 18% gray or 12% gray?

Or even 16% gray as Kodak mentions on their page 117 here.