 Mary Gundrum |
HOw to fix a picture that was ruined
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Why don't you just use Helicon Filter? Don't go through the trouble of the complex Photoshop. Anyhow, it looks like they just need sharpening. But I hope you still have the original raws, because then you can properly process them.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mary Gundrum |
What is a Helicon Filter, forgive me for being so naive, I am very new to all of this! Thank you for your response! Mary
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Helicon Filter is a photo editing program. It is not Photoshop, but it is very good. Here are some of the differences between PS and Helicon: Helicon does not use layers, Helicon cannot make graphics, Helicon is very easy to use, Helicon doesn't cost nearly as much. Just see http://en.wikipedia.org/Helicon_Filter It also processes RAW, and it has all other editing like sharpening, brushes, exposure and color control, whatever.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Oops, here's the Wikipedia link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicon_Filter
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
The biggest problem I see is that the whites are blown out (overexposed). This is more apparent in the seated picture than the standing picture. This may have been caused by overexposing the image when it was originally taken, or by adding too much brightness to the entire image, instead of just to the areas that needed it. Look at the original image, without any adjustments. If you can see some detail in the bright white areas, then the picture can be re-edited and salvaged. If there is no detail in the bright white areas, then there is not much you can do about it. RAW images typically need some sharpening added to them. JPEG images are sharpened when they are created in the camera. This should be the final step of your editing. Don't overdo it. If you already have PhotoShop CS2 (a large investment) there is no reason to look at other editing programs. Just learn more about how to use what you have. Chris A. Vedros
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Chris, even if you have Photoshop, Filter would be a good investment for people who aren't huge Photoshop experts, because it lets them do what they want without having to read books and stuff. For example, you can just go to the brightness tab and lower the equalizer for the highlights, or just go to the sharpness tab and increase sharpness (and suppress halos too). This is very easy even for beginners in this program. Did I mention there is a free version (which can process raw during a trial period)? Hey, if Photoshop works for you, no reason to get another program, but it doesn't work for everyone.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mary Gundrum |
THank you so much for your input Ariel and Chris. I invested in PS Cs2 about two months ago and I absolutely love using it, although I have a whole lot more to learn. I feel as if the more I look at a picture I can't see it for what it is anymore. So many times I will post process a picture and think it looks great, then look at it a couple of days later and wonder what in the world I was thinking. I actually took this picture underexposed in RAW, so I guess I could go back and fix it, I did not even think of brightening just select parts, although in RAW you cannot select parts. I will try this, I appreciate the advice!! The Helicon Filter was great advice, I think I am very interested in making my program work though. I do however have some friends that do not like to post process at all, I will be telling them about this. Thank you, I know technically these pictures are "blah" but they have special meaning to me and I would like to have them on the wall without being completely embarrassed! I love this site, I am so in awe at the talent and knowledge, it is very intimidating and humbling to even ask questions! Mary
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Mary, I don't think these pictures are "blah" at all. The composition of the picnic scene would be a little better if the kids were a little more to the left of center, but I like it. You've set up a nice, natural scene that doesn't look "forced". The hug shot is just adorable. In both pictures, you made good use of shallow depth of field to separate your subjects from the background. Go back to the original files and don't over brighten the whites this time. Keep up the good work. Chris Vedros
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Mary, I have to agree with Chris: you may be able to use Photoshop to get a lot more from this image. The way I would do it would be to step back and open the *original file* again. When you initially open images, Photoshop's Camera RAW will jump in and make adjustments for you automatically based on the information it receives about the exposure...and while it is often a good guess, the settings it chooses may not be the best for your image. Here the white areas of the image may be over-exposed, but the result may also be attributable to the settings in RAW. You may already understand that shooting in RAW mode by-passes 'in camera processing', leaving more of the choices in your hands. Shooting in RAW also captures and retains more digital information, so it gives you the opportunity to salvage things like over or under-exposed images. The original capture in RAW will have as much as 16 times the information as a JPEG coming off the same camera! This gives you that much more leeway in exposure and correction. If you still have the original file (and I suggest always saving/archiving your originals), open it again in Photoshop and try reducing the settings for Contrast, Exposure and/or Brightness by locating those sliders on the right of the Camera RAW screen and moving the slider/indicator to the left while watching what happens on screen. If you can't seem to get a good balance, you can consider opening the image 2 times— once for 'narmal' exposure and once to retain the highlight details—and then you can sandwich the two results using layers and masking. This later technique is more advanced, and will produce what some call an HDR image (high dynamic range). The idea is that you use the exposure more than once to extend the range of what you would normally be able to capture in a single exposure. It is something you cannot do at all when shooting JPEGs on your camera--unless you shoot multiple shots just for this purpose. There is a lot more to this, and I go through a lot of it in my courses, but I think you will benefit significantly by fussing with this image a little more in RAW to bring back the details you shot. I hope that helps!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mary Gundrum |
Chris and Richard, Thank you so much!! I am going to work on these some more, I was ready to scrap them! HDR images, hmmm... I think I know what you are talking about and I really like these types of images, with real darks and bright whites. I will work on the layering and merging. I appreciate it so much!! Mary
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mary Gundrum |
Richard, I read some tutorials about HDR images and how to do it in CS2. I practiced bracketing and making one and I like it! My original with the children sitting down however, after making 3 different copies of the image with different exposures, it still said that there was not enough dynamic range to make a good picture. Is that because I did not bracket originally? I think I am going to go back and see if I can do it in RAW mode instead of in CS2. Thank you for the advice, I am on the road to learning something I have always wondered about!! Mary
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
You should expose one shot for the bright white, one for the mid tones, and one for the darker areas. That should work.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||