Last edited by macvisual; 20-10-2015 at 04:26 AM.
I can see why you like it.
I have had a look at the image in Lightroom and from the histogram, the top left and the white of the daffodil petals are completely burnt out to the point there is no detail there and I can't separate the two areas. If ti can be done it would need some uber-skills
A raw file could help!
I doubt there's any info in a raw file. My guess is that it's about 2 stops over exposed. You might alter the base exposure locally, you could use recovery tools on areas close to burn out, or you could substitute a colour or neutral tone for the white. All these can be done subtly, but the bottom line is that you will simply be painting something like light grey into the white. I'm happy to sit and do some of those for you if you wanna look at the results, but I'm not optimistic!
Even the losers get lucky sometimes.
As has been said, there is no info for that area in the file. Best that could be done is as Rocky says, or you could clone in from the rest of the background to give it a more 'uniform' look.
- - - Updated - - -
[IMG] 7506_tulip1 by tkimages2011, on Flickr[/IMG]
This is the kind of thing that can be done with cloning and layers.
Don't know if it is what you you are looking for though, as the bright area has now completely gone.
(Apologies for editing your image without getting permission first.)
Marj, my wife and best friend, says my passions are obsessions.
i had a go at it, but the highlights are totally blown so irecoverable in it's current form i think.
However, can always be changed to a more graphic presentation, with colour and shape being the focus. i only have a mouse, no graphics pen and am sure others could do better, but something along these lines gives you an image....
7506_original.jpg by BobC44, on Flickr
just sample the near (but not quite) blown petal colour and overlay that colour in lighten mode and tweak the opacity, this will give you printable detail.
a bit of subtle brushwork on a layer mask and maybe a duplicate layer in 'multiply' mode would add more tonality to the petals.
that's how i would do it anyway.
i could do it for you but i charge by the hour :-)
Can also be done relatively easily by creating a layer mask from the blown out area and using that on an imported 'google image' of a similar subject, I just had a go with a white daffodil search and after a couple of minutes looked pretty good (given the small size of the image here I won't waste time uploading it, but it can be done...)
Peter aside from the overblown area there is flare in here - Resolving these and turning this into a winner is a big ask.
By far the easiest way is to go back again and take the picture and pay some extra attention to the background
As discussed above you should really think about using raw - there is extra latitude for creativity and adjustment
As it is i've gone for the abstract adjustment
tulip by adpully, on Flickr
Ipod Pure I-20; Jolida DAC, Transcendent SE OTL; Ultracurve digital cross over and disco amp for bass, Speakers DIY 2 way Open Baffle, Hawthorne 15"Augie and Alpair 12Ps and a DIY deck Trans-fi based
Last edited by macvisual; 20-10-2015 at 04:27 AM.
I guess this has been discussed before then! Having spent years shooting raw and meticulously going through the conversion process, I think the jpeg engines have improved massively. As has the price of storage.
There is an easy solution here. Most cameras can shoot jpeg+RAW for each shot, I use this ALL the time, work with jpegs mostly, until I get the odd one where I do need to pull back somethings that's blown or lift some shadows (or even more common when I need to really work on plain areas without banding the extra bit depth is essential...)
If all is ok when you get home, bin all the raws and just keep the jpegs!
Even the losers get lucky sometimes.
I shoot raw exclusively now, mainly as the Jpeg conversion in the Sigma cameras are dire.
Michell Gyrodec SE / SME M2-9 / AT33PTG / Trichord Dino - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Bryston B60 - Vandersteen 1C
Other Bits: Decware Zen, Keesonic Kolt, Keesonic 701a
I love your pictures, and your posts about music. I can only conculde that you're a 'good guy'.
However, you ask us to try and fix an image that could esily be fixed by shooting in RAW and then you rule out shooting in RAW.
It doesn't matter whether it's 'better' or not. Its main asset is exactly as illustrated here. If necessary, it allows you to make adjustments that can potentially recover an image that's otherwise buggered.
RAW is not complicated. If you prefer jpeg, there are many programs that will simply batch-convert as many RAWs as you like to straight jpegs without you needing to do anything. Absolutely nothing to lose, except a few minutes while the computer processes images. The BIG factor is the flexibility to go back and radically adjust on the few occasions it might be necessary.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but Iím not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.