Too washed out?

[GB1]

I took this a little while back and am wondering what can be done in PS or whatever to make it less washed out, especially in the pants area. It seems like the white pants and background just merge into each other.

Thanks for your suggestions and comments.
GB

[J-Dogg Productions]

its a little bright her white pants with the white in the background dosnt help but you can probally darken it in photoshop or something

[payn817]

You may be able to select from a path, and then adjust just the area you select using curves. Selective burning at the level needed here would just give a dull, murky gray in those areas.

[Alison]

A slight darken to the pants with the "Burn Tool" using a low opacity and a brush big enough to cover the width of each leg. This should help with an even coverage.
And then maybe a little saturation.

[Greg McCary]

Have you tried selective colors? Try naturals and whites..

[echoback]

speaking from my limited experience with PS, I would like to see the background shaded a bit more, maybe with the burn tool or just selective shading, but her pants left that lovely blazing white color. I think it's her pants that make the photo, IMHO.

[GB1]

Ummm.

Some good leads here. The bad part is that I never took the time to really understand digital editing.. I more "mess around" in those programs. Maybe this is a good time to sit down and figure it out.

Echo, I did a quick mask around her and tried darkening the bkgd. Maybe it looks better.. Definitely makes her stand out in the photo a little more. I think it also seems a little surreal though - gives me somethin to try to make better -GB

[Devin MacShawn]

I'm going to go with what payn says and say play with the curves. However the problem is not in her pants (no pun intended), but in the house. I can see detail in her pants, but in the lower part of the house it's bulletproof and I don't think to much can be done to fix that. I'm at work right now but in a few hours I'll be home. I'll play with the curves and post what I come up with with an explanation of what I did.

[SmartWombat]

I think that over-exposed is, well, over-exposed and can't be recovered in PS.
The house behind her legs and the section of hat in the sun are probably lost.

If you shot in RAW and didn't exceed the rull sensor range you have a hope.
But to me it looks over exposed with the shadows too light.

[GB1]

Devin - Thanks. Please take a shot, see what you come up with. However, like Paul says here, when something is that washed out pretty much all detail information is lost (never captured) and perhaps the only way to get detail there is to add it, meaning "draw it" or copy/paste from another location or another photograph

Paul - it was slide film, and overexposure is the worst for them. I guess this is what happens when one shoots in very bright sun with the background much brighter than the subject. Argg.

GB

[echoback]

GB-I like what you did with the second photo. i think it looks a lot better. although, there is a slight line along the inside of her left leg (our right) that looks like she's giving off a glow lol, but that's just nitpicky stuff. good attempt!

[Devin MacShawn]

Ok it wasn’t easy but I wanted to try it anyways. For as much as I worked on it I really don’t see that it made much difference. Here’s what I did.

I made 5 layers:
1. Background
2. Skin
3. House
4. Blown out grass
5. An inverse of the blown out grass
6. Background copy

I first did an AUTO CONTRAST on the background copy then made the rest of my layers from that. I brightened the skin layer with curves. Then I did some dodging on her face and neck with the tool set at 70% exposure.

I cloned from the section of road on the right side of the photo to fill in the section of road that is blown out on the left side of her leg and in between. I know it looks horrible but hey, I tried.

I used a brown that totaled R-180/G-122/B-84 and set the brush opacity to 8% and painted over the whole house. I’m not too thrilled with the way that came out either but as we already know, it was bulletproof. After painting I erased the area in the window to make it darker again.

I think that’s all I did. If you’d like more details on how I did something don’t hesitate to ask.

[payn817]

I tried, and couldn't figure a way to do much to this without it looking unnatural. In the two edited versions, you can clearly tell the area between her legs is burned in. While all the other sand is a light brown, this area is a murky grayish color (what I was talking about in my first post). Possibly trying a tighter crop to eliminate some of the problem areas may bring a bit of a surprise.

[GB1]

Ok it wasn’t easy but I wanted to try it anyways. For as much as I worked on it I really don’t see that it made much difference. Here’s what I did.

I made 5 layers:
1. Background
2. Skin
3. House
4. Blown out grass
5. An inverse of the blown out grass
6. Background copy

I first did an AUTO CONTRAST on the background copy then made the rest of my layers from that. I brightened the skin layer with curves. Then I did some dodging on her face and neck with the tool set at 70% exposure.

I cloned from the section of road on the right side of the photo to fill in the section of road that is blown out on the left side of her leg and in between. I know it looks horrible but hey, I tried.

I used a brown that totaled R-180/G-122/B-84 and set the brush opacity to 8% and painted over the whole house. I’m not too thrilled with the way that came out either but as we already know, it was bulletproof. After painting I erased the area in the window to make it darker again.

I think that’s all I did. If you’d like more details on how I did something don’t hesitate to ask.

Devin, heck of a lot of work there. Your's is richer in color than mine. I like the grass but like Payn so accurately pointed out, that area area between her legs doesnt appear natural in either edit.

The prop house was a great backdrop, they just painted it the wrong color :17:

I think the contrasts were just overwhelming: stark white pants, black top, and bright sunlit background. Too much for any film to handle. Maybe a fill flash could of helped, if I could have kept it natural looking....

Here's another shot of the model I posted awhile back. THis one doesnt suffer so bad from the contrast.

Gb

PS - Notice how she used my hat for a prop!

[drg]

Did you consider a B/W variant?

1. Levels
2. Selective contrast (layers and masking) Manual Contrast of +14%.
3. Cloning and texture work on sand/grass areas
4. Noise reduction (Gaussian Blurs on sky and a custom actions elsewhere)
5. Airbrushing with another customized Action based on healing brush.
6. Selective blur and dodging in facial area.
7. Red filter b/w conversion
8. Sharpening and repairs (still needs some)

Did a color one also, but you've got a pretty good example already posted.

Lovely looking model. Good pose and composition, just very difficult lighting conditions. Big reflectors help fill in nicely. Sometime a diffusion tent (can be gauze or thin white cloth) to break that harshness up will make all the difference. You can also strobe through (from behind in other words) a white umbrella or the big cloth/diffuser etc. All pretty inexpensive solutions.

[GB1]

Whoaaaa Drg .... this is eye catching! Great job !! Your list of things you did makes my head spin (but it is Friday...)

I do have some portable reflectors that could have helped, but the usual issue is that it's then a two-person (or more) job. But with this I bet it would have been pretty easy to recruit someone to help out. I just didn't anticipate well enuf.

I'd like to do another shoot of this model. Not sure if she's still around here anymore though. She was originally from Russia ... pretty slender girl for those cold Russian winters.

[Devin MacShawn]

Hey GB,

the exposure on your second post is a lot better. It's more even and there's more tonal harmony because you don't have the blue of the sky competing with everything else. I like the strong shadows you've gotten as well.

I've only shot with slide film once and after that I decided to never do it again since I came up with the same problem with the overexposing.

[HectorD]

Heres my try.
Contrasting colors is important.

[drg]

Hey GB,

I've only shot with slide film once and after that I decided to never do it again since I came up with the same problem with the overexposing.

Bracket, bracket, BRACKETing is the key to slide film under difficult situations. Metering is vital but in the great out-of-doors the light changes constantly and bracketing gives the best chance for success. Learning to scan slides (or negative) is a somewhat lengthy process depending upon the scanner. Most scanners do quite well on evenly exposed images, but need some adjustments for the less than optimal.

Don't give up on slides.

[GB1]

Drg - Yes, but increasing or decreasing the exposure wouldn't have helped here. If I reduced exp to get the background less bright than that would have made her face too dark. There's just too much contrast! (typical of slide film). But reducing contrast may also not have been optimal, since that can produce dull shots. Sooooooo..... I bet the only solution was to use some sort of fill flash or have her wear different colored clothes. You live and learn.

But don't worry: I dont plan on giving up on slide film. I love its sharpness and depth too much to do that.

Devin - as I yapped about above, slides may have been too contrasty for the situation. But other times, the contrast is exciting. Just not this time (oopps). I should have used negative film for this...

Hector - It has some nice qualities about it. You got her pants to be a shade darker than the background, and the colors might be more saturdated. A little pixelization at the top there, but otherwise very good. Thanks for taking a shot!

GB