HELP!

[Harold Davis]

some snowy plovers a few days old with the mom.

here's my problem: out of the camera the whites on mom were about 228. after processing, the hottest whites on the breast are at 238, but totally lack detail. i worked on this for a few hours over a couple of days and have hesitated to post because i couldnt get it like i wanted it. now, i give up. and ask for help. what did i do wrong or what can i do to get some detail without it going murky?

D300, Bigma at 500mm, f/7.1, 1/1000s, 0EV, ISO 500.

thanks for looking. comments and critiques are appreciated.

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Harold, select the whites on Mom with quick mask and then change the blending mode to linear burn at about 26 percent. See if that brings some detail back in the white. Do you know how to do a QM??

[Harold Davis]

Do you know how to do a QM??

nope! probable half my problem. i will learn though. thanks!

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Harold you also go Select> colour range> highlights> then click OK. Then control J to copy this on to a new layer. Then for your blending mode select linear burn and reduce the opacity to about 26 percent. It will affect the whites/highlights in other parts of the image so erase those ones out. You can do this instead of QM.

[Desmond Chan]

I played with it in Camera Raw using recovery/exposure and, afterwards, applied linear burn on top of it to try to squeeze every bit out of it, got some more details but still the white feathers look very bright. As is, I can see some details but apparently not as much as you want.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Harold Try something for getting some detail in the whites In ACR or LR use the brightness slider and back down just a tad Seems to target the area and looks good !!

Excellent pose with the kids !! Sure are cute !!

[Nonda Surratt]

How did you manage to do that Mr H?:) Would think you would have some detail in the whites with the readings you got. Messed around a bit still not much in the way of detail

[Harold Davis]

How did you manage to do that Mr H?:) Would think you would have some detail in the whites with the readings you got.

EXACTLY!! and that's my question. what the heck happened?

[Harold Davis]

As is, I can see some details but apparently not as much as you want.

you are right. not nearly as much as i want. the whites look totally blown and not much detail in certain areas of the breast.

thanks for the reply guys. i'll go back to the drawing board and try again.

[Dave Phillips]

Harold, if you have the RAW I would be most happy to try a highlight recovery.
That is if you want to share the RAW....you can upload it here and post a link.
http://rapidshare.de/

[Harold Davis]

here ya go, dave. i feel so naked now!

http://rapidshare.de/files/46999564/..._Copy.nef.html

[Dave Phillips]

here ya go, dave. i feel so naked now!

http://rapidshare.de/files/46999564/..._Copy.nef.html

got it.....here are 2 variations Harold......second is a bit more local contrast.
Processed in Capture One......your exposure was quite good. Nothing was blown.
I took most of the "glow" color out, the chicks seemed to look more natural to me.

#1


#2

[Gus Cobos]

Doctor Davis, fancy hearing from you...you've been in hibernation like the bears...:D glad to have you back...:) I tried making the white adjustments in CS4 but not all of the details are coming out...I just PM ed you...it's a go...:cool:

[Harold Davis]

geez, dave. what the heck did you do? they both look awesome and have the detail i was looking for. thanks!

[Dave Phillips]

geez, dave. what the heck did you do? they both look awesome and have the detail i was looking for. thanks!

most welcome sir....the best approach is to get those highlight details
in RAW conversion(as Alfred noted above). You had a good exposure and Capture One
just got the details really nice......and the histogram is well within bounds

[Cheryl Flory]

can you recapture details in whites in RAW in Photoshop CS7, but not darken the rest of the image?

[Lance Peters]

love this MR H - sweet light - gorgeous subjects and the repost put's it over the top.
Gotta get the RAW conversion right first - seems there are a number of RAW converters that on certain images may do a better job than NX2.

Well done harold :)

[Harold Davis]

OK, thanks!! you learn something new everyday. ACR worked better than CNX2 at fixing the exposure and getting the detail back in the breast. i'm shocked, amazed and disappointed all at the same time! now if i can just figure out how you did all the rest, making the image presentable. sharpness, noise reduction, etc.

thanks dave and al. big time help!! btw, the histogram in CNX2 and ACR were totally different. CNX2 did not show anything blown and ACR did.

[Alfred Forns]

... Harold ... my want to look into LR :)

[denise ippolito]

Harold, Nice base image and great thread! Very informative-I love the re-posts.Really did have alot of detail there!!