Help! Over exposed images....

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by Keith Reeder

Is your current client going to pleased with these latest shots?

With the 1,100 that weren't overexposed yes, they will! I can convert the ones that were over (not terribly so I will add) can easily be adapted to be kick butt b&w or sepia.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by Harry

Don't be too hard here. There are a lot of super pros out there that shoot Jpeg only, simply because if you get your exposures and settings correct, Raw is simply a waste of time. A lot of us are using Raw like a crutch. I include myself in this category as well, because I am simply not sure enough of my capabilities, however, I am becomming more and more confident every day and will probably switch to shooting more in jpeg than Raw. You can stack this argument up along with the one about not needing a light meter because I have a histogram.

Thank you...I agree!

Originally Posted by lincolninked

Hey Rodney!

JPEG is becoming more and more accepted. RAW is something seen less and less used by the pros. I have a buddy that only shoots RAW, and I have several that shoot JPEG. Both camps do very well serving their customers.

Thank you very much. Very well said!

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by hotrod4x5

Getting back to the OP, what did you think of my attempt? I was actually surprised at how much detail I was able to recover. Probably would be even more with a full resolution image.

Looks better...thanks!

[Ellbee99]

Can we please get back to the topic of this thread? There are other threads dedicated to the raw VS jpeg debate...please take this there. Thanks!

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by RexChun

Duplicate a layer, change the blending mode to Multiply and this will double up the pixel.
This normally will be too dark, then play with master opacity. I leave both pictures around 75% (I know still too much, I just want to show how far can this go).
Attachment 36660Attachment 36661

Thank you for taking the time to help. I usually try the multiple method to darken images. I also use the screen method to lighten them Works pretty well.

[RexChun]

Originally Posted by Ellbee99

Thank you for taking the time to help. I usually try the multiple method to darken images. I also use the screen method to lighten them Works pretty well.

LOL, so you already know this trick. Yeah, I should have known that you must know all these tricks. After all, you are the one use the lucis beautifully and did a wonderful job on the window light portraits. I guess this one does not help then! How about create a new layer, fill with 80% gray then change the blend mode to overlay. This one works sometime.
If this still doesn't work then comes my last trick.
If you look at the individual channels you will see that the blue channel actually retained a lot of detail in the over-exposed area.
One way to fix the photo (I'm sure other more experienced members will have much better ideas), will be to copy the blue channel on top of the image as another layer and then work on it with color.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by RexChun

LOL, so you already know this trick. Yeah, I should have known that you must know all these tricks. After all, you are the one use the lucis beautifully and did a wonderful job on the window light portraits. I guess this one does not help then! How about create a new layer, fill with 80% gray then change the blend mode to overlay. This one works sometime.
If this still doesn't work then comes my last trick.
If you look at the individual channels you will see that the blue channel actually retained a lot of detail in the over-exposed area.
One way to fix the photo (I'm sure other more experienced members will have much better ideas), will be to copy the blue channel on top of the image as another layer and then work on it with color.

Thank you for the compliments...though I'm NOT sure I deserve them. I truly appreciate them.

I haven't tried to work with them myself yet. I have so much work to do I thought I'd get different opinions and then try them myself.

I haven't thought of trying the selecting the blue channel...I'll have to give it a try!
Thanks!

[hotrod4x5]

IMO the only effort that really brought back detail in the dress was mine, done with ACR in CS3. I don't say this because I did it, to me it is simply obvious.

I think for JPEGs the newest ACR is the best tool so far for adjusting them. I am not sure if you can download the newest ACR for CS, but you might consider upgrading. CS3 is world's above CS in features.

If you are stead fast in your decision to shoot in JPEG, then IMO CS3 with the newest ACR is the only logical choice. Be sure to set your preferences for JPEGs to open in ACR first.

[blumesan]

Regardless of where one stands in the RAW vs. JPG debate, in this particular instance having a raw file to work with would make correcting the exposure error much easier and produce a much better result.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by blumesan

Regardless of where one stands in the RAW vs. JPG debate, in this particular instance having a raw file to work with would make correcting the exposure error much easier and produce a much better result.

Thank you but, I didn't ask that. I asked how could this be fixed with what I had to work with.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Lori

[blumesan]

Lori,
Sorry, I was not responding to your original request which has already been covered. I was replying to the various posts debating the relative merits of Jpg and Raw.

Cheers/Mike

[pommie]

My attempt


I did the multiply blend,
flattened,
duplicated background,
cut out dress and shirt (I should of done these separate),
turned it to Grey scale 75%blue 15%green 10%red,
changed blend mode to Linear blend,
set Opacity to 33%.

It still needs the dress layer making a bit lighter at the top to eliminate the 'dirty' look, maybe a graduated white from the top of the dress to somewhere near the hips ??
I don't know if the dress was pure white or had a blue tint, but there is plenty of room for playing with the settings.

Cheers David

[hotrod4x5]

Originally Posted by pommie

My attempt

Cheers David

Your's is similar to mine, maybe a bit lighter. Nice job!

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by lincolninked

JPEG is becoming more and more accepted. RAW is something seen less and less used by the pros.

I've found that to be just the opposite.
I travel extensively, always visiting area studios during my stay.
With only a few exceptions the last few years, they almost all shoot RAW.

The advantages far exceed the disadvantages.

Lori,
I'm sure your corrupted card was a result of something other than shooting in Raw mode.
Several things can corrupt a card:
Turning off the camera before it's finished writing the file,
Opening the card door before the write is finished,
or fluctuating power flow to the camera from the battery can all corrupt the card.