Removing brightness

[elboertie2]

I have talked to several Pro and they use the lowest contrast possible
Sincerely, Bernardp

This is very interesting advice; I did not think of this possibility. It makes sense though, although, as it reduces the dynamic range between light and dark.

My only concern with this is that it will put too much neutral, or grey tones, into the image. I will put your advice to the test and definitely remember it whilst outside on a sunny day.

Is this advice, however, still applicable on a cloudy day where the dynamic range is already reduced?

Jacques
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do with your camera' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[elboertie2]

I assume the original is a jpeg and not a RAW image? And that you
have a LOT more pixels to play with in the original?

Thanks for the advice Trevor; much appreciated.

I received lots of advice here, and I will now go an play a bit in PS CS and let you all know the result soon.

Here is a link to the original (JPEG) image, and the original image itself if dpreview and pbase work together:

http://upload.pbase.com/image/76970163



Thanks and regards
Jacques
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do with your camera' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Daviskw]

Butch

 

[elboertie2]

I am really impressed at how you removed the sunlight from the wife and the baby's faces. What technique did you use for this?

Jacques

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do with your camera' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[elboertie2]

Here is another attempt by making use of curves and levels:

Original large image here: http://www.pbase.com/image/77022005

dpreview resized one here:
http://www.pbase.com/image/77022005.jp

Jacques

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do with your camera' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[elboertie2]

And now without the typo:



--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do with your camera' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[freelancer54]

Sorry the hosting isn't up to your expectations.

 

[isohunter]

added contrast and some pwl



--
Will

 

[Peano]

Open a blank layer, fill with black, change blend mode to soft light, reduce opacity (keeping your eye on the brightest areas). For me, around 40-45% opacity looked about right. Then either erase or paint on a mask to brighten areas that were left too dark.

If you need to further darken some places, open a second blank layer, soft light mode, and paint with black, soft brush, 5-10% brush opacity.



--
~ Peano

 

[Lynn Towns]

There are areas with no detail, so there is only so much that can be done with this image. The sun presents a pretty high-contrast situation between highlight and shadow. Here is my best attempt at retouching:

Original:



My retouch:



I toned down and added contrast to the extreme highlights using a curves layer with a mask, added global saturation with a hue/saturation layer, and then added global contrast with another curves layer.

Bernard is correct about setting your camera's contrast to the lowest setting possible. It does increase dynamic range when shooting JPEG images. Of course, it makes no difference with RAW images.

In addition, I also set my camera's sharpening as low as possible. I prefer to do any sharpening in my computer where I have control instead of the camera's one-size-fits-all approach. I frequently sharpen selectively and to various degrees depending on the image. No camera can do that.

Lynn

 

[Steph69]

 

[Eclipse Optics]

For those of you like me who have DPReview set up as 'Threaded', I would encourage you to set it to 'Flat' just to look at all these different versions of the OP's photograph.

Some of the variances look remarkably simular. Some of them look false, over-processed, over-saturated, or otherwise not right. It makes me wonder if they have their monitors calibrated to see what I'm looking at. I bring this up, not because I think mine is the best; but because it isn't. And I found that out by putting it on 'Flat' and counting how many other ones were better.

I just found it interesting how some people may think that one style or another is better (overdone vs realistic for example) and thought that I would point out that many people may not have their monitors calibrated or might be trying to photo-host Adobe colorspace to the sRGB internet.

 

[elboertie2]

I noticed the same thing.

I do wonder, however, how my adjustments look, if they are over-saturated or unreal?

On my monitor at home, it looks pretty decent, except for not being completely possible to remove overblown highlights, and on my notebook too, so I guess my monitor is close enough to reality, or whatever substitute for reality.

Do they look realistic?

This brings up an interesting question: how does one know if one's monitor closely resembles a universal understanding of 'realistic' colour?

Jacques

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do with your camera' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Eclipse Optics]

One calibrates his monitor with a monitor-calibration devlce.

This is also useful because you can use that profile and add it to a profile of paper (Let's say Canon Glossy) and they tell the printer to make what it prints more like what you see on the computer monitor.

A little expensive, but that's how you get color accuracy.

Ever notice when you go into a building with your wife that she looks like your wife & not an orange or blue alien like how some camera shots come out? Well your eyes are really great and making what you do see into what you should see. So your computer monitor could be off by a lot or a little depending on how much you're fooling yourself when you look at it and what the lighting conditions are in the room where you look at it. In my case, it was more than I thought it would be but less than most people. It's the same for my TV which is also calibrated.

It's funny because my monitor seems a little dark to me, but the print output is the way it should be so maybe I was just accostomed to a bright monitor until I got the calibration device.

 

[scotgotchi]

I duped, multiplied and merged to produce a darkened layer, then used a grayscale copy of the original as the mask for the dark layer. Duped original layer again, set to multiply and adjusted opacity to suit. I used GIMP.