Author Topic: Help Me Avoid Blown/Clipped Highlights (Read 2963 times)

bigfoot · « **on:** April 04, 2011, 08:00:28 AM »

Just returned from a quick trip to the coast and took along the E-P1 w/17mm lens. The weather changing constantly: overcast at times, then partly cloudy, then mostly sunny. Not real consistent lighting.

I tried to experiment with different metering modes on the E-P1; specifically matrix/evaluative and center-weighted. Unfortunately, I had a lot of blown highlights. I am pretty weak when it comes to metering knowledge; i.e., I know about each metering mode, but am not aware of which situation calls for what -- does anyone have any tips, settings, or ideas they can share? I am a JPG shooter and would like to avoid having to spend time sitting in front of the computer, goofing around with RAW images, if at all possible.

Here is an example -- two duplicate shots, one with matrix metering, one taken with center-weighted metering. The matrix metering photo (1st picture below) appears too dark to me in the foreground, but the sky is retaining detail. The center-weighted metering photo (2nd picture below) appears more realistic and looks more like the scene actually looked, but is starting to close in on blown highlights and losing sky detail. Both were shot with ISO 200 and AWB.

Matrix/Evaluative Metering:

Center-Weighted Metering:

adash · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2011, 09:07:17 AM »

Quote

I am a JPG shooter and would like to avoid having to spend time sitting in front of the computer, goofing around with RAW images, if at all possible.

Shoot RAW+JPEG. Thus you will both have a jpeg without moving your finger, and RAW if you wish to add a stop or more to the highlights. Be prepared to sacrifice the time it takes to save a single image and the total number of images you can store on each card.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2011, 09:18:28 AM »

With landscapes like you posted, you will have a long dynamic range to deal with. Your best bet is to shoot RAW... I know, I know... but, processing a raw file is the same as JPG, with the exception that you can recover shadow and high lights without artifacts. Think of it this way, A RAW file has the leeway of a color negative (1.5-2.5 stops variance), A JPG is like a Slide, it has about 3/4 stop variance. So the RAW file has more room to adjust shadow and high lights.

The exposure should be the maximum with out clipping highlights see diagram:

The line on the right is about were you want your highlights, you could go slightly under exposed, but not too much.
In post you can bring it up where it belongs, and if you have a check box to allow you to see the clipped highlights via a flashing color, check it, so you know the maximum you go in adj exposure in post without clipping.

The same goes with the shadows... remember, the low mid-tones to highlights are more important than deep shadow detail in may photos. So you may not be able to have both extremes with detail.

as far as which meter pattern to use, that is subject dependent. Use both, and pick which one is easier to edit later.

lisandra · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2011, 02:25:39 PM »

Do you mind terribly if I edit this photo??

bigfoot · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2011, 03:05:17 PM »

Thanks for asking -- and no, I don't mind at all. Feel free to edit away!

bigfoot · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2011, 03:19:15 PM »

The feedback I am getting on the Mu43 Forum is that the photos I posted lean towards being under-exposed and lacking some contrast. Both photos were taken in Program (P) mode with the "Vivid" color setting.

Is there anything else I can do in-camera to address this? Would dialing up some + exposure compensation help?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2011, 03:22:16 PM »

I tried the 1st one, I may have sharpened too much, even though it was just a touch

Edit: switched to lager image, but the same Edit settings where used.

Anyway

@lisandra, I figured it was OK, Can't wait to see your try..

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2011, 03:24:01 PM »

Quote from: bigfoot on April 04, 2011, 03:19:15 PM

The feedback I am getting on the Mu43 Forum is that the photos I posted lean towards being under-exposed and lacking some contrast. Both photos were taken in Program (P) mode with the "Vivid" color setting.

Is there anything else I can do in-camera to address this? Would dialing up some + exposure compensation help?

Look at your histogram, and adj the Exposure Compensation to +.3 or +.7, and see how that works.

The 1st one was about Minus (-) .6 exposure...
You can add contrast in editing... I think it is better that way to keep shadow detail cleaner.

bigfoot · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2011, 05:11:29 PM »

Here are a couple of larger versions... thanks for all the help so far!

lisandra · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2011, 08:37:12 PM »

I rather liked the edit you did on the trees so I only made big changes to the sky. The thing is bigfoot, an edit like this only takes a couple of minutes and the change is astounding. This is with a JPEG, imagine what we could have done with the RAW file!

adash · « **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2011, 10:30:14 PM »

Lisandra, this is an amazing result. It clearly shows how important PP is in the process of creating a photo!

bigfoot · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2011, 07:59:53 AM »

Wow! Those changes are pretty impressive, thanks! I am started to be swayed on RAW files. At the moment I have iPhoto '11 which I know can handle RAW images, but I am a little lost on the process. Is there a good tutorial anyone can point me to?

Greatly appreciate the feedback and help -- I think I will just have to accept the fact that more time in front of the computer will be needed.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2011, 08:35:23 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on April 04, 2011, 08:37:12 PM

I rather liked the edit you did on the trees so I only made big changes to the sky. The thing is bigfoot, an edit like this only takes a couple of minutes and the change is astounding. This is with a JPEG, imagine what we could have done with the RAW file!

Yeah I thought about darkening the clouds it did look good I just decided to make them what they may have looked like in real life.

This is definitely a dramatic scene.

lisandra · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2011, 11:27:39 AM »

again, once you get the hang of it it takes minutes to do something like this. in photoshop I basically reduced the exposure of the sky by about .70, upped the contrast and then dodged the shadows and burned the highlights a bit (the last step is not necessary, its a personal touch of mine). The rest is basically what m5 did, a boost in saturation, contrast and sharpening. Good sharpening alone (like the one here) will make it 1000% better, more crisp and film like. All in all 7-8 minutes

lisandra · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:18:25 AM »

and its fun as hell too...

dougright · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2011, 08:39:51 AM »

Hi bigfoot,

I realize I'm late to the party, but I'd like to give some advise on shooting. Matrix metering is designed to optimize parameters for your camera's dynamic range, and to do so, it has to make some decisions in a shot (for example, tolerance for clipping in a particular scene). You can add your preferences to the metering using your Exposure Compensation controls. This basically nudges the camera's metering towards over or under exposure. Best results are gotten though use of the histogram (to see what the camera is wants to do) and long experience with a particular camera (remember, metering changes with every model, so stick with one long enough to predict its handling).

A good short cut and learning guide is to set your camera to bracket exposures in scenes you know will be difficult. Later you can review the results and see which combo of exposure gave you the best results. Keep in mind, that in many difficult shots, the best results may be the one that gives you the most headroom to recover clipping via photoshop.

Have fun...

lisandra · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2011, 10:10:30 AM »

also keep in mind that 85% of shadows can be recovered in photoshop, and 92% of highlights cant be. Well, its not as black and white as that but, its way easier to blow a highlight than to clip a shadow so underexposing a bit can help.

voyager · « **Reply #17 on:** May 15, 2011, 04:37:22 PM »

The only problem is how apparent the noise artifacts become visible once trying any kind of dynamic range enhancement.

asterinex · « **Reply #18 on:** May 18, 2011, 04:46:28 AM »

I agree with voyager. The colours and contrast look good , but the noise and artifacts make the pictures unusable in my opinion.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** May 18, 2011, 10:26:00 AM »

What about using a noise reduction software to clean it up?

lisandra · « **Reply #20 on:** May 18, 2011, 05:30:13 PM »

Yeah that's what I do, noise reduction after edit. The example here looks wonderful though...no post noise red needed.

Luckypenguin · « **Reply #21 on:** May 18, 2011, 09:00:12 PM »

I think that you need to pick your battles when editing an image like this. The recovered version looks unnatural with the vibrant greens foliage and the dull grey sky. It's fine if you are going for a twisted reality kind of look, though. If I had to choose I would have gone in the other direction with image i.e. emphasised the dullness of the scene, but that's just a personal opinion only.

lisandra · « **Reply #22 on:** May 18, 2011, 10:20:20 PM »

more dull than the original? the foliage is almost grey!

asterinex · « **Reply #23 on:** May 19, 2011, 01:04:48 AM »

Quote from: Luckypenguin on May 18, 2011, 09:00:12 PM

I think that you need to pick your battles when editing an image like this. The recovered version looks unnatural with the vibrant greens foliage and the dull grey sky. It's fine if you are going for a twisted reality kind of look, though. If I had to choose I would have gone in the other direction with image i.e. emphasised the dullness of the scene, but that's just a personal opinion only.

I fully agree. The result does not look natural at all.
But, a nice try anyway.

bigfoot · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2011, 11:53:58 AM »

Sorry, been away from the 'net and the forums for a bit. Thanks for the additional help and tips! This is definitely an area where I can see I need more practice. The day was a mix of clouds, sun, and overcast. Unfortunately it looks as though the overcast and clouds took over the scene. It wasn't quite as drab as the original photos seem, but still, that Pacific NW weather can been unpredictable and hard to photograph in at times.

Author Topic: Help Me Avoid Blown/Clipped Highlights (Read 2963 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery