Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old

  
 
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Well... Our little one has finally come home with us as of last Friday.
She's starting to look like a real (dog) Westie now even though she's still tiny.

I've had to do a little more research because I'm having troubles processing my most recent shots.

I discovered that my work flow was a little messed up when it came to setting the white and black points and then Highlights and shadows.
What I have always done (in Lightroom) is work down from the top and if needed go back up and make further adjustments which is Highlights - Shadows - Whites - Blacks.
What I just learned is I should set my white point then adjust Highlights then set Black point then adjust shadows. I'm not sure if this will help me get back on the right track but I'm going to try this tonight on the below images.

Basically what I'm having troubles with is the white fur in the highlight areas. I was always thinking and trying to push details into these highlight areas even though they are not blown. I have a feeling this is flawed thinking and that with white fur it is completely acceptable to have areas with little or no detail so long as they are not blown.

I am 99.9% positive that these areas are not blown as I watch for this while shooting and set the camera to expose for the white fur. And when I bring the raw DNG file into lightroom it confirms that my highlights are not blown per the histogram and little triangle thingies.

So my main question is, do the highlighted areas of white fur have to have any detail in order to be correct?
Or are small highlight areas expected to have little or no detail.

In my processing of the below images I used a brush to drop these highlight areas down but what I ended up with is a "dirty" looking dog and it made the images look horrible. I backed off a little on these images and it seemed to help but they still aren't where I want them yet.

On a different note.
In image #2 I had a heck of a time trying to figure out the best crop and rotation because she was standing on this log and the log tilts down hill to the left. The trees in the BG are not all pointing straight up so I'm not sure if I got the rotation correct for the best viewing. Something still feels off or is it just in my head?

Dave

Edit: My wife made me leave the leaf in her mouth in #2 image because she thought it was cute.




#1






#2




Aug 17, 2015 at 11:10 AM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Dang, she is growing up already!

Looking like more of a pup than a puppy and is filling out that body since last we saw her.

Colors are looking fine on my work monitor, hopefully they are similar on the home one!

Very cute shots, the both of them. I'm not too concerned with the background trees, but I might consider tightening the crop.

Some of the whites are *close* to being blown (values in the mid 230s), so you can probably squeeze a bit more detail out of those areas. I would try burning every so lightly and applying some sharpening to the area.

Have you got any higher res shots to work with?

Looking forward to many a post of Fiona.

Cheers,

Jeff



Aug 17, 2015 at 11:45 AM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Thanks Jeff! And do let me know if you see any color issues once you get on your home monitor.

She's a bit more of a handful than my wife and I were hoping for. We're both 19 years older and fatter than the last time we had a puppy so keeping up with her isn't happening.

So it's not a good thing to have some areas with little or no detail even though it's not blown? I sometimes think I keep the white and black points too close to the edge for fear of blowing them out during further editing or downsizing. 230 is getting pretty close isn't it?

Higher res shots to work with? What do you mean? For posting here to give you something better to play with? I have some 1200 long images with me that I could post if that's what ya mean. Just let me know.

Thanks again Jeff!

Dave



Aug 17, 2015 at 12:08 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Well, even though they aren't technically blown they are pretty close since you're not really seeing any detail in those areas as-is. If they were blown out, then recovering any detail just would not be possible. You are close to being blown (~235 value with 255 being 100% white), so some detail can be recovered.

Yeah I just want to see what I can do with the highlights in term of recovery.



Aug 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Ok, here ya go man. Thanks for taking the time to play!

Ah, I get ya now. So by having them @230 tells you that I do have details there. I was having a brain fart there and I was thinking you were suggesting to push them up closer to 255. It sucks to be stupid I tell ya.

I wasn't going to post this new 3rd image because it's so horrible but I think it would be helpful to show you folks what I'm talking about. I haven't tried to correct this one yet so I apologize for the visual carnage.
You can see almost every brush stroke where I tried to drop the highlights down. Not sure how or what happened that caused me to push it this far. I never noticed it until I saved them as JPEGS and viewed them on my television screen.

Dave





#1







#2







#3 image illustrates Bad processing




Aug 17, 2015 at 12:30 PM
WalterF
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Wow I thought they looked pretty good, the whites didn't bother me, but I am interested to know how to bring back detail but not have it look muddy.

Nice dog, hope she brings y'all years of happiness.

Walt



Aug 17, 2015 at 01:22 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Hi Walt and thanks!

Yes! Muddy! That's the word for what I'm talking about. You can see some of it in my #3 image. When my wife first saw these, her very first words were "why does she look so dirty?". That's when I had to do a double take and then I said the same thing but with a few more colorful words tossed in for good measure.

We hope she gives us many happy years like our beloved Labrador did.
I know it's nice to see my wife smiling again.


Dave



Aug 17, 2015 at 02:04 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Ha! I didn't even read all of your post before I started playing around, so I used your third image.

Not sure it's all that good of a job, but it might give you a jumping off point.

The left is the slightly burned and sharpened one and the right is the posted version.

Jeff







Aug 17, 2015 at 02:29 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Thanks Jeff. I know your dealing with my nasty jpeg but to me your edit took it even further down the muddy trail. I understand and like your sharpening in the nose and eyes but she doesn't have dark strips of fur and is pure white. Well... close to pure white.

That's the problem I'm having with these shots. When I bring down the highlights it makes her look "dirty or muddy" with funky dark areas. Almost a grunge look. Surely you must see that in the left image right?

As I learned in my previous shots I took before we brought her home, I made sure to shoot these in early morning light and not direct harsh sun. I thought this would make my life easier but now I'm faced with this issue and I don't know the proper way to handle it.

Dave



Aug 17, 2015 at 02:47 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Just got home and am taking a look.

She doesn't have any grey or black streaks at all?

For what it's worth, I think my work monitor is running a little too bright (big surprise) and the highlights look better at home.



Aug 17, 2015 at 03:47 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Cool, let me know what you see.

And nope, she's pure white. Kinda a slight off white if you look at her next to a new white T-shirt.

I just googled "Westie photo's" and looked at any of the more professional images I could find and depending on where the dog was and type of lighting, it looks like small highlight areas do not have much detail.

I might be over thinking this I hope and that these small areas are fine with no detail?


Dave




Aug 17, 2015 at 03:59 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


These are fine to me. One tip to consider is selecting the dog and using a curves layer to manipulate the selection. It's easier to limit tweaks to the upper end of the whites, by pinning the rest of the curve and reshaping the upper bright portion of the curve. Also, sometimes lowering the gamma in a PS exposure layer is useful.

It's a good lesson for photographers, avoid picking black and white critters. Their fur is hard to light right and post process. Of course the last rabbit my dearly beloved brought home was all black. He's a real sweetie, but lighting him is not easy. Of course the greatest challenge is when you have a white critter and a black critter in the same portrait. Arrgh! And so it goes....



Aug 17, 2015 at 05:12 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


Thank you Karen!

I had to do some quick research on this "curves layer" stuff and finally found it in PSE and played around with it a little last night. As I was doing so I realized this looks like the same thing as the point curve under the Tone panel in LR6. I experimented around some with both and as far as I can tell they are doing the same thing but if I stay inside LR6 it's non destructive and I can do this on my raw file where as in PSE I have to convert my 16 bit image file into an 8 bit file.

Anyhow, I think it does help control just the highlights better than the "normal" highlights slider I usually use under the basic panel. In all fairness though, I'm not sure if I was using it properly in PSE due to my lack of understanding how to use layers and opacity settings and then how to blend or merge the layers.

I didn't get a chance to look for the gamma but will look for that and give it a try.

This white critter fur is a serious PITA to say the least. I honestly thought my troubles would be over by simply shooting her in nice soft morning or evening light but it feels like I'm having even more trouble than I did under full sun light.

You couldn't pay me enough to shoot a black critter next to a white one. Holy crap what a nightmare that would be.

Dave



Aug 18, 2015 at 09:02 AM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


I did read once about a photographer who brushed a little white powder of some sort into the coat of a black dog to help the lighting, but obviously that would be fiddly and you'd have to use something non-toxic like powdered sugar or flour and that would mean a bath afterwards... possibly for everyone.


Aug 18, 2015 at 04:45 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Fiona @ 8 weeks old


After this latest ordeal, I'm thinking about using a $3 can of brown spray paint on her.
It would make my life so much easier!

Although, I wouldn't be able to photograph her afterwards cause the wife would smash my camera into a billion little pieces.

Hmmm... I might have to rethink this a little.



Aug 19, 2015 at 03:10 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.