Jon you have a good capture, techs look good and overall you are not too far off.
However looking at the image, with some simple tweaks in the RAW you can certainly improve things.
- Saturations look too heavy, just keep to ensuring the WB is right and then marginally increase anything
- The Shadows are blocked/chocked in the dark areas loosing detail
- Adjust the Exp (lighten about a third of a stop), open the shadows & blacks too, drop the highlights, but gently, both LR & PS will show you how far to go so you don't over cook things
- In this instance, in the HSL adj ALL the sliders except the Aqua, it's reducing the colours especially the Blue, Purple & Magenta
The FG is what it is and it is not covering anything vital so nothing you can do. Sorry to be brief, but I'm dashing out now, but the attached may help, literally less than 5 mins work, job done.
Jon you have a good capture, techs look good and overall you are not too far off.
However looking at the image, with some simple tweaks in the RAW you can certainly improve things.
- Saturations look too heavy, just keep to ensuring the WB is right and then marginally increase anything
- The Shadows are blocked/chocked in the dark areas loosing detail
- Adjust the Exp (lighten about a third of a stop), open the shadows & blacks too, drop the highlights, but gently, both LR & PS will show you how far to go so you don't over cook things
- In this instance, in the HSL adj ALL the sliders except the Aqua, it's reducing the colours especially the Blue, Purple & Magenta
The FG is what it is and it is not covering anything vital so nothing you can do. Sorry to be brief, but I'm dashing out now, but the attached may help, literally less than 5 mins work, job done.
As we say in the Wildlife Forum, 'Less is more'.
TFS
Steve
Thanks, most of what is wrong is my bad habit of punching the "auto" button in LR just to see what it does, and not readjusting the black slider back to zero. I was working on the whites before exporting to PS and forgot. I'll reprocess this evening if I can find time.
Jon, if you take the time to get the shot, why throw it away in the processing. A lot of people make processing so hard, and throw in so much software, it's quite simple, however you cannot work on just one element, i.e. the whites, everything has a role to play, you just need to take time, but your call.
I guess I should have been clearer. I punch the Auto button just to see what LR thinks I should do (I'll also typically punch up the saturation and vibrance, because it highlights distraction areas) normally I then reset it and go to work. I intend to reprocess for sure, it was just a question of whether I was going to find time this evening or not :) I played with it for a few minutes before leaving for work, but as a father of five, photography takes a back seat much of the time.
If I had not worked on the whites, I guarantee the first comment I would have gotten is that the whites look blown. It's a problem with GBH's in general for me. On import I checked and the whites weren't blown, but definitely looked that way. I'm still learning, so I was watching various Youtube videos on getting detail from white areas and trying to apply what I learned. I was in a hurry to get to work on the whites and didn't check other parameters before exporting to PS. The end result had the problems you indicated, which I'll go back and fix, but I really need to fix them on the RAW conversion, so I lose the PS efforts which is where I adjusted the whites.
If there is some way to save the PS processing as a recipe or something and then apply to the newly converted RAW file, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction.
Last edited by Jon Pugmire; 10-15-2014 at 11:43 AM.
Jon, from what you are describing then a lot if not the majority, can be addressed when taking the shot, it's back to 'basics' if I can put it that way. Don't use the PP software as a 'crutch' to retrieve or resolve issues like blown whites, over/under exposed images. Seriously if you get the image right in camera it really is a breeze to process and your images are then so much better.
I played with it for a few minutes before leaving for work, but as a father of five, photography takes a back seat much of the time.
You certainly have your work cut out , my advice would be process & stop. Revisit when you have time and look at it with a fresh pair of eyes, you can then refine things a lot more and then post, BPN will still be waiting for you.
I'm still learning, so I was watching various Youtube videos on getting detail from white areas and trying to apply what I learned.
Jon, I'm not going to give Chapter & Verse, however look at Arties articles about ETTR (Exposing to the right) you will find that things will become a lot easier, also check your Histogram, NOT the image on the back of your camera, that will only help in comp. So many issues stem from the original capture.
If there is some way to save the PS processing as a recipe or something and then apply to the newly converted RAW file, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction.
Yes you can, but images need to be treated as 'one off' so each image may need a different conversion, albeit a slight tweak. If you write or have a 'recipe' for processing then you would be doing an injustice both to the image, but more to yourself, but it depends on what you want, there the original capture and also can be avoided.
is no 'Silver' bullet IMHO.
Jon, from what you are describing then a lot if not the majority, can be addressed when taking the shot, it's back to 'basics' if I can put it that way. Don't use the PP software as a 'crutch' to retrieve or resolve issues like blown whites, over/under exposed images. Seriously if you get the image right in camera it really is a breeze to process and your images are then so much better.
Jon, I'm not going to give Chapter & Verse, however look at Arties articles about ETTR (Exposing to the right) you will find that things will become a lot easier, also check your Histogram, NOT the image on the back of your camera, that will only help in comp. So many issues stem from the original capture.
I still think I'm talking past you (apologies). The original image is properly exposed to the right without any clipping. With the 50D and a GBH, even after reducing the exposure in post (as expected after ETTR), the whites lacked detail. I cannot push to the right very far without getting blinkies on the lower part of the face. The rest of the image was mostly fine, just needed a few slight adjustments as you noted--the real issue was that I had set some of the sliders in the Basic tab in LR and did not pull them back before making the trip to CS.
I only had two goals with CS, see if I can bring out detail in the whites, and blur the background a bit more because the background grass was distracting. Both of these adjustments make the final image better. Prior to CS there was no visible texture and detail in the white areas of areas of the bird, I could not bring it out in LR.
When I reprocess, I'll show the image prior to CS and after.
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Yes you can, but images need to be treated as 'one off' so each image may need a different conversion, albeit a slight tweak. If you write or have a 'recipe' for processing then you would be doing an injustice both to the image, but more to yourself, but it depends on what you want, there the original capture and also can be avoided.
is no 'Silver' bullet IMHO.
A one-off was what I was wondering, if I could take an image from LR, export to PS, make adjustments, save the steps. Then take the exact same image, process slightly differently in LR, export to PS and apply the same processing. Compare the results. In this case it was some minor sharpening of the bird, blur tool on the background, and the aforementioned handling of the whites. Each on their own layer.
Jon, not sure why you would want to compare results between the two, albeit that the Modules work in the same way.
What you can do is process the image via LR, export to PS then import it back into LR for final output, you then have two images, the original CRS file processed & a Tiff file which you can keep exporting back & fourth to make changes, but you need to work it layers which increases file size. A simple file with changes can be anywhere between 250MB to 1.6+GB, max is around 2GB, just depends. You then need to think about storage and perhaps more importantly processing power and the time it takes to open, process & safe the file.
In this case it was some minor sharpening of the bird, blur tool on the background, and the aforementioned handling of the whites. Each on their own layer.
As I said, the majority can be done in LR including input sharpening, Bluring, Mid tone, Saturation, Curves etc can then be done in PS via layers & masks, then re imported back to LR and then cropped for final output, including the actual type of file Tiff, sRGB etc, with the final stage being Output sharpening.
Jon, not sure why you would want to compare results between the two, albeit that the Modules work in the same way.
If you get to the end of PS processing and realize there is something you don't like that is best handled in RAW conversion in LR, is there a way to save what you've done, reprocess in LR and then apply the exact same PS processing?
Sorry Jon, not trying to be pedantic, I hate typing, but just to be clear in what you are asking:
- You process the RAW in LR, yes?
- Then Export via LR into PS, yes?
- You then make changes in PS via layers etc making a PSD file, but at this stage you then feel you would like to make further refinements (to the RAW within LR) to the 'exported' file in PS?
Sorry Jon, not trying to be pedantic, I hate typing, but just to be clear in what you are asking:
- You process the RAW in LR, yes?
- Then Export via LR into PS, yes?
- You then make changes in PS via layers etc making a PSD file, but at this stage you then feel you would like to make further refinements (to the RAW within LR) to the 'exported' file in PS?
Is this what you mean?
Yes, exactly. Make changes to the RAW to TIFF conversion (since LR does not actually change the RAW). But then have the same changes applied in PS that you made to the original, so as to not have to start over.
OK, so you have your file in PS with all the changes as layers, but you must retain the file as Layers, if you merge or ultimately FLATTEN then you will not be able to see, retain the changes made, but in essence to your question yes.
I'm late here, but possibly what Jon is asking can be addressed by opening the raw file into PS as a Smart Object, which can then go back to ACR (same engine as LR, clumsier interface) for raw tweaks underneath the PS adjustment layers. (Not adjustED layers -- adjustMENT layers.) But you can't clone on the SO layer. Save that for the end, on a composite layer on top of everything.
Photo > Edit In > Open as Smart Object in PS
After some experience you'll find that, outside of cloning and masked adjustment layers, only minor tweaks are needed in PS after proper LR editing.
I assume Jon based on the above you were able to achieve now what you wanted with an updated Tiff? I still cannot see why you cannot address any White issues within LR, what exactly are you trying to achieve, reducing the highlights, dropping them, bringing detail back, sorry just not clear?
I assume Jon based on the above you were able to achieve now what you wanted with an updated Tiff? I still cannot see why you cannot address any White issues within LR, what exactly are you trying to achieve, reducing the highlights, dropping them, bringing detail back, sorry just not clear?
cheers
Steve
I tried in LR to bring detail into the white areas, especially just below the eye. Nothing that I tried in LR was successful in bringing detail back to that area. I've had this problem with GBH before, the top image the whites look blown. In the lower image, I've brought out some of the texture/detail there. Also note in the second image there is a subtle softening to the background.
If you know of a way to manage the same in LR with regard to the whites, I'm all ears.
Good work on the whites in the second image -- you brought in more detail. But could you explain what you did? And I'm not sure what Steve means in his last post....
I can usually do a lot in LR, but sometimes when the whites are not blown but without detail, a little more can be done in PS. I usually resort to Nik CEP Detail Extractor.
I did a post in the Educational Resources forum that is about all I know about bringing out detail in whites. Any additions / suggestions to it are always welcome.
Good work on the whites in the second image -- you brought in more detail. But could you explain what you did? And I'm not sure what Steve means in his last post....
I can usually do a lot in LR, but sometimes when the whites are not blown but without detail, a little more can be done in PS. I usually resort to Nik CEP Detail Extractor.
I did a post in the Educational Resources forum that is about all I know about bringing out detail in whites. Any additions / suggestions to it are always welcome.
Once you have the parts you want to adjust on their own layer (in this case just the whitish areas; many ways to accomplish this, the best of which I have no idea--I still do everything the hard way), then I selected that layer and did Image -> Adjustments -> Shadows/Highlights and used the highlight controls to bring back the detail. Make sure you select "Show More Options" check box on the bottom, then you have Amount, Tonal Width, and Radius available to fine tune it. Youtube is the best, though I didn't save the link, I'll see if I can find it again. I've seen the Nik in action on Youtube and if I had the money I would spring for it. I believe what's happening is selecting a certain tonal range, and then adding contrast to only that range, but with a finer level of control than is possible in LR.
Jon, there will be always, unless very lucky, some requirement for certain areas to be addressed more than others, however, as I have said before, the more you do 'in-camera' the less will be required in the PP stage and so the image will be far better.
Will come back to you about the image, but the RAW does look OK, no blown whites, it's probably down to the harsh light/time of day, as the image was shot around just after midday. Also remember you are also using a 2x so some IQ will be lost too. The 2x MKIII is great with the new lens & current bodies, but all it does is magnify and so...
Cameras don't always capture all the detail we want throughout the tonal range of an image, and often we can't control the lighting.
As powerful as LR is (or ACR -- same difference) you can often bring out more detail in a limited tonal range such as whites in PS, after you've done all you can in LR. It's not always necessary to do that work on a separate pixel layer; you can sometimes use a masked adjustment layer and Curves, for example. But Shadows-Highlights does need a separate layer as it doesn't work as an adjustment layer. You're quite correct that using the More Options is the way to go. I can't believe the simple version is the default.
There are newer third party filters such as Nik's Detail Extractor that can do similar things with a little more sophistication, but they do cost extra. Used with care, S-H isn't a bad option. Combining it with Curves can give some additional control.
GBH with Snake
Jon Pugmire thanked for this post
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
Jon you have a good capture, techs look good and overall you are not too far off., my advice would be process & stop. Revisit when you have time and look at it with a fresh pair of eyes, you can then refine things a lot more and then post, BPN will still be waiting for you.
Posting Permissions
