From Overexposed “Trash” to Pop-Art
This is one in a series of articles on methods of salvaging what would otherwise be “ruined” photos.
In a previous article, we looked at one way of salvaging an underexposed photo. (We may look at more ways in future articles.) Today let’s look at a method for salvaging an overexposed shot. As already noted, these techniques will never turn a truly bad photo into something great but they can make the difference between something that gets deleted and something that has at least a bit of artistic merit.
It pays to bear in mind that everyone takes at least some bad photos. It is impossible that every click of the shutter is going to yield a masterpiece. There are too many variables: the wind, your subject blinking, someone walking across your scene. You name it and it can probably ruin your shot.
Overexposure is usually the result of photographer error. You forgot to change your settings back after the last place you used your camera. You accidentally cranked exposure compensation way up. You have the camera on manual and simply set the settings wrong. It doesn’t really matter. The point is, now you have an overexposed photo and what do you do with it?
To be clear, we’re not talking about slight overexposure; something that might be corrected with a few tweaks in Photoshop. We’re talking about overexposure with blown highlights that would make a barroom brawler cry. High key so high that it’s actually off-key.
Deleting the offending photo may be the simplest thing. But what are some alternatives? Let’s look at one. Here we have a pasty-white photo of a woman holding a glass of wine. To make matters worse, she has horrific red-eye.
In this case, I didn’t even try adjusting the exposure in Photoshop. Experience has taught me that this shot is too far gone. I could spend hours and still have no chance of producing a pleasing image. Time to go the artistic route. I started by creating a Posterization adjustment layer (Layer | New Adjustment Layer | Posterize…) in Photoshop. There’s no special reason behind my selection of a Posterization layer, that’s just what my creative muse whispered in my ear as I worked on this image.
There is no science to using posterization. I simply adjusted the slider by eye. What I was looking for was to keep a degree of detail so my subject remained recognizable but for the posterization effect to be quite evident.
Next I added four separate Photo Filter layers (Layer | New Adjustment Layer | Photo Filter…) I renamed each layer to reflect the filter color used. Once again, there was no real science to this. I went with more or less the standard of blue, green, yellow and red. (Because my subject already had so much red, I had to make some accommodations with the red filter. More on that in a second.) For the blue, green and yellow filter layers I set the opacity to 100% and unchecked the Preserve Luminosity checkbox. This gave me a richly colored palette with only the darkest portions of the original image showing through.
Also note that I did not keep these layers all visible at once. Clicking the little eyeball icon next to each layer on the layers palette will toggle that layer between visible and invisible. (You can see this on the right edge of the blue layer image shown above. Click on any image in this post to view a larger version.) I wanted to work with just one color at a time and not muddy them all up by mixing them together.
With the red layer, which I labeled as white, I kept the Preserve Luminosity checkbox checked. This is because the dark tones in my image were primarily red and they would not show through in a way that was visually satisfying. By preserving the luminosity, which was already pretty extreme given that I was working from an overexposed original, the effect was a white background with some punched-up reds in the few midtones and shadows I had. It also removed any non-red colors from the image.
Next I made each of the color layers visible one at a time, merged the visible layers (Layer | Merge Visible) and saved the resulting file with a new name. Then I used Photoshop’s history feature to back up to the image’s pre-merge state so I could repeat the process with the other color layers. In the end, I had four separate files.
Next I made a new image (File | New…) with a canvas size twice as high and twice as wide as my original image. I was then able to copy-paste each of the four colored images into my new image (Photoshop automatically places them on their own layers) and use transform (Select | Transform Selection) to grab the pasted image and drag it around within the frame.
So, with a little creative tinkering, I managed to salvage this original image
and turn it into this.
Great art? No. Pop art? Maybe. Imitation? Only if you’ve heard of Andy Warhol. At least it’s better than losing the image entirely. In future installments, we’ll look at more methods for salvaging bad shots.
Jeffrey Kontur is the author of two how-to books on photography, which he promotes via his web site www.MoreSatisfyingPhotos.com
Tags: overexposed, Photoshop, post-processing, salvage, technique







31 Responses to “From Overexposed “Trash” to Pop-Art” - Add Yours
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Um, no.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Um, no again. Deleting it really was the only option here :)
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Agreed with april.
Nobody should do this.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
i just don’t see the point now that we have the miracle of digital photography. if that’s your style though, then cool!
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Sometimes, maybe it’s better to let the photo “go”.. :)
I’m not speaking about this particular example, I just saying that not every photo needs to be saved.
No?
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Last sunday a took a very quick shot (meaning I was busy with other stuff) from a racing yacht. I had used the camera in full manual mode, the evening before, and didn’t notice I was overexposing (I think more than 4 stop!). After the disappointing discovery (everything was WHITE!), i managed to get the picture out of it, and the result is crazy! Strong colours get really saturated, and the overall effect is quite nice.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eugenios/3361327004/
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
WTF? This is probably the worst tutorial I’ve ever seen…
Your not saving a bad shot, your using a bad shot to create bad “art”, no actually scratch that, this isn’t art. I probably delete over 50% of the shots I take because they are sub par, but thats a good thing I look at the photos and learn from my mistakes before I get rid. You should do the same…
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I just don’t see the purpose in wanting to salvage a “bad shot”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
why not orientate to take better pictures with that time ?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Agree……..NO NO NO. That’s a horrible shot and an even more horrible attempt to make something of it. Find the delete key!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Terrible end result, so why would anyone follow the tutorial? Maybe if you had a good shot then this might be appropriate… but even then it is such a cliche! The fact that all traces of the nose are gone is very jarring.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
This is sad, this man has written two books? LOL
This is sad, this is not the way to go. This is a DELET photo, and making and adding filters that just a bunch of BLAH! I wonder what type of info you share in your books?! There is no way i would even spend time on such a photo, like the other guys said: FOCUS on taking a better shot instead!
Wast of time to read this, awful outcome, shame on DPS for posting such a article
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
To those who say to delete it, I’d like to remind you that there are occasionally photos that have sentimental value. Say your cousin from the other side of the globe stopped to visit for lunch on her way somewhere else, and your one chance to get a photo was ruined because you were so excited you forgot to check your camera settings. I’m not saying this should be an everyday thing, but I appreciate ideas for ways to save those “once in a lifetime” photos and try to make something of them.
Eugenio, I love what you did with that sailboat photo, and I’d be very interested to know how you managed it.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Are you kidding me?! Ugly as crap. There’s little help for that overexposed photo. It belongs in the trash bin.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:33 am
I think you guys are being a bit extreme. Maybe the example photo was a bad one, but here is an example of overexposed I did. Course I think I did it on purpose, but I always liked it. And kind of illustrates his point some maybe.
I’ll admit the andy warhol stuff is not tasteful by most peoples standards today, so maybe it’s hard to separate that with the premise that you can make something cool out of overexposed photos?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j2davis/3379700608/in/set-72157615807388030/
March 24th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Delete, and learn to check your histogram. That’s the real lesson here.
Next week on DPS: adding funny speech bubbles.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Hey, I think this is a great technique!! I did it with a photo that was quite overexposed and still got a fantastic outcome!! Thanks!!
http://images.megawinks.multiply.com/image/2/photos/151/1200×1200/3/Chris-and-Allyson-PopArt.jpg?et=1FF0mLahldEUkADDd1I9GQ&nmid=222437665
March 24th, 2009 at 4:29 am
wow thank god im not the only one who hates this.. last time i got a ton of shit for criticizing..
yeah um what they said. we dont need anyone else ripping andy warhol and we dont need to turn a shit image into a shitty rip off image
shit is shit and that’s why there’s a shitbasket.
any good photographer throws out 3/4 of their images anyways
grow up and throw it out dont become attached to it just because you fucking took it, it’s shit.
gododammit someone write a truly good article again… havent had one in weeks
just stop this series and shift+delete this fucker
-
March 24th, 2009 at 6:11 am
“I just don’t see the purpose in wanting to salvage a ‘bad shot’.”
Hear, hear. Pop Art is hardly art (but that’s an entirely different discussion), and with digital photography, the said “bad shots” are exactly that: bad shots. The sheer power of digital technology allows for the grossly horrific abuse of “photography”…and it makes me sad, because there *is* talent out there; it just gets lost in the morass of shitty photographed images.
My first thought upon seeing the first (source) image in this “article”: DELETE.
WTF.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
@jeremy that’s totally different from what this person is telling us to do
@megawinks no that’s shit as well
March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
The only valid reason to keep this photo would be if that woman got hit by a bus 5 minutes later and this picture was the last one taken of her alive. In any other case: DELETE
For some it might be hard to let go of pictures but they’re all going to a better place, they all go to live on a farm, let them go.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Warhol was cool 40 years ago… Maybe try a less cliché effect now?
March 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Hi Anne, thank you!
The shot was 3 to 5 full stop overexposed. Shot in raw, of course.
I imported it with Adobe Camera Raw, lowering the “Exposition” to (around) one fifth of the range, playing with shadows and light values, and pushing the saturation values up to the limit of “realistic” colours.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I always take badly exposed photos and use them to explore post production techniques that I normally wouldn’t use. I can’t say that i’m doing the same stuff as in this tutorial, but I think it was designed to get your own creative juices flowing. I do’nt have any great examples to show here, but i have done the same thing as Eugenio where i was distracted and didn’t adjust my exposure when i thought the camera was on Priority mode: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benreece/2788635121/in/set-72157606905168481/ The results aren’t fantastic, but it reminds me of the bright light and with a little cropping could be a nice photo.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to comment. I mean that quite sincerely. I can accept that the whole concept of trying to make something of ruined photos isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. It isn’t always mine either, though I believe it can be valuable to stretch your imagination once in a while.
Nonetheless, DPS tries to be loyal and responsive to its readers and to what they want. We tried to present something a little different. The fact that it didn’t resonate with readers is neither good nor bad. It’s simply useful feedback that will be taken and used to make DPS an even better place for serving the interests of the photographer community in the future.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:03 am
a poor imitation of something that was mediocre to begin with is not a valuable use of anyones time
March 25th, 2009 at 2:13 am
I think you have the right idea here. I think people are just looking at it wrong.
I have done some wonderful things with my crap photos. These can happen for many reasons. Right place right time wrong camera comes to mind often. I have taken some photos of BB King in a dark environment with my point and shoot and got some great composures but crappy exposures and some out of focus shots. I tweaked them the best I could using my photo software then brought them into painshop. I converted them to black and white and tweaked the white balance to make them look like some very old club photographs. I love them, some people do see them and think they are out of focus but others see the art for what they are art. I also took of of Lucile and tweaked it in color and used some “painting conversion” software and slightly converted it to look more like a piece of art. And it looks great even those that do not like the B&W BB shots because they feel they are a tad out of focus they love that shot. And the original is out of focus as well.
So you can turn crap into art.
Now my personal opinion of the image above is that it certainly is over exposed and I think that hurts it in this warholesk conversion. The bright areas in the color squares are equal in color to the background I think perhaps if this were adjusted and the original white background were changed to be slightly darker than the face area that this would take on a whole new look and would be much more appealing. The face area and the background area having the same balance hurts the image visually. Or maybe even if they were both balanced the same but started out darker in the first place; either way it would bring the final image to a whole new place. Yes it is white because of overexposure but perhaps just adjusting the color white some then make the other boxes. (I hope that makes sense?)
March 26th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
In some ways it comes back to – if you did it by accident is it still art? I mean some of the stuff you see in museums today could be created by a 2 year old. But I think it’s art because the artist did it on purpose. Or maybe the art world just has its head up its arse.
At any rate, I think a better candidate for rescuing a trash photo would have been a photo with too much grain and turning it b/w. That has saved some of my photos. Sometimes about grain in BW can be pleasing where it’s just annoying in colour.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:00 am
i think this article would be better titled “From Overexposed “Trash” to Pop-Art Trash”
April 10th, 2009 at 2:42 am
The Warhol effect has been done to death. Just take a look at Facebook. There are ways of salvaging crap photos but in this case the subject’s very pose doesn’t work…
May 7th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
This site is all about sharing ideas and learning from each other and this person was just trying to do their part. Show a little respect, guys.
While I do believe that some shots are worth saving if they captured a unique priceless moment, I agree that this method is probably not one I would use to correct my overexposed photos. One technique I have used in the past is to apply both a cutout effect and poster edges in order to give the image a cartoony look. One could argue that this is a fairly cliche effect as well but I guess it just depends on your audience.
Leave a Reply