Fixing a basic back-lit photo

[zespri]

I was just typing out instructions to someone on fixing this kind of photo, and thought I'd share the work-flow with everyone. I know this photo isn't a work of art that should be saved, but it was the only one I could find which suited the purpose.



Instructions:
1. Duplicate Layer (Ctrl+J)
2. Change blending mode to 'screen'
3. Selected blown out bits only (Select | Color Range | Highlights)
4. Water not quite fully selected, so used magic wand to get the stray bits
5. Feather by 2 pixels to make the borders less obvious (Select | Modify | Feather)
6. Hit 'delete' on keyboard

Voila!

If the sky hadn't been so easy to select the way I did it in step 3 & 4, I would have just used the select tools or eraser, not every picture would be this un-complicated to bring out the original background.

Does anyone have any input on how they would do this differently, bearing in mind it wasn't shot in raw?

[candleman]

thats a pretty natural looking result. looks like you had a reflector in front of you.
good work.

i must try the feathering.. i negelect that sometimes.

i would probably have used the masking method.. and used a low opacity eraser to brushin the areas i wanted to tweak.

which version of photoshop are you using?

[zespri]

Thanks! :-D did that with CS3.

Originally Posted by candleman

thats a pretty natural looking result. looks like you had a reflector in front of you.
good work.

i must try the feathering.. i negelect that sometimes.

i would probably have used the masking method.. and used a low opacity eraser to brushin the areas i wanted to tweak.

which version of photoshop are you using?

[ttosifa]

Hi Zespri --

You certainly like to provide challenging images! Anyway, I had a go at your before picture using mostly LAB techniques just for my own educational purposes. Thought you might be interested in the result. I thought it was kinda cool. The only thing I selected was her teeth -- my moves made them terribly yellow, so I desaturated and brightened them. I know this is not the critique section, but I did want to mention that if you plan to do something with this image, the after is flat -- both in terms of tone and color -- and it could use some sharpening.

So, to answer your question about what I did differently: False profile to Adobe RGB with gamma set to 1.4, convert to LAB, duped background layer and set to Multiply mode, added a layer mask using the Blue channel of the sRGB original, set opacity, flattened, duped background again, Apply Image using Soft Light, replaced Lightness channel with background Lightness at 70% opacity, reduced overall opacity slightly. Then did a crude lasso of her teeth, whitened and brightened. Flattened, and did USM on the Lightness channel. Sounds complicated, but it really did take me longer to type this than to do it!

EDIT: Shoot -- forgot a couple of important steps -- Gaussian blurred the Blue channel mask (sorry, don't remember the amount because I was looking for the right light on her face), and did a slight Lightness curves adjustment after the Multiply blend.

[zespri]

Hi ttosifa

I may like to provide challenging images, but you do love a challenge!

While I certainly don't plan on doing anything more with this picture, (It's not a favourite, I just quickly scrolled through my library looking for one with back-lighting that would make a good demo), I see a learning in here for myself.

What does it mean when you say it's flat both in tone and colour? What does 'tone' mean in relation to photos?

You know how some people can listen to music and say "he's out of key" or "she's flat"? Well I can't hear those things in music. Maybe it's the same with pictures, maybe I'm tone blind!

Also, what factors go into your judgement that a photo needs sharpening or not? I see lots of people saying they sharpen all their photos, but I'm not really sure why, unless they've obviously blurry.

Originally Posted by ttosifa

I know this is not the critique section, but I did want to mention that if you plan to do something with this image, the after is flat -- both in terms of tone and color -- and it could use some sharpening.

[ttosifa]

Originally Posted by zespri

Hi ttosifa

What does it mean when you say it's flat both in tone and colour? What does 'tone' mean in relation to photos?

Also, what factors go into your judgement that a photo needs sharpening or not? I see lots of people saying they sharpen all their photos, but I'm not really sure why, unless they've obviously blurry.

This is sort of hard to answer. When I look at your corrected image, what I see is two things: (1) Things are sort of gray, and (2) Things are, for a lack of better way to express, sort of the same color (or lightness, whatever) of gray. To me, the first reflects a lack of color contrast -- yes, you have red, blues, and greens, but there is relatively little variation in the amount. To me, the second means that the IMPORTANT dark and light points are not dark and light enough. I am winging this here without checking numbers, but in your image the face and the clouds look about the same brightness, and the shirt and the trees look about the same darkness. In mine (not that it's perfect), the trees are noticeably darker than the shirt, and the face is noticeably darker than the sky.

As for sharpening, again this is difficult to describe. There is a difference between out-of-focus blurry, which sharpening doesn't help much, and in-focus blurry caused by digital capture. Sorry I can't describe it -- maybe it just comes from practice?

[zespri]

I understand your points about this photo, but I don't know how well I could apply them to other photos. Like you say, it might take practice. I'll just keep watching, and I imagine I'll pick up more tips on this topic over time.

Originally Posted by ttosifa

This is sort of hard to answer. When I look at your corrected image, what I see is two things: (1) Things are sort of gray, and (2) Things are, for a lack of better way to express, sort of the same color (or lightness, whatever) of gray. To me, the first reflects a lack of color contrast -- yes, you have red, blues, and greens, but there is relatively little variation in the amount. To me, the second means that the IMPORTANT dark and light points are not dark and light enough. I am winging this here without checking numbers, but in your image the face and the clouds look about the same brightness, and the shirt and the trees look about the same darkness. In mine (not that it's perfect), the trees are noticeably darker than the shirt, and the face is noticeably darker than the sky.

As for sharpening, again this is difficult to describe. There is a difference between out-of-focus blurry, which sharpening doesn't help much, and in-focus blurry caused by digital capture. Sorry I can't describe it -- maybe it just comes from practice?