# Is this photo fixable?



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

I've tried various things to fix this photo but have come to a dead end and would appreciate any suggestions.










I don't like how much the light has taken away from the leaning top punga but can't figure out what I need to do, or if it's even possible, to fix.


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

If the CCD receptors in that area are blown out (maxed with light) you cannot recapture the detail. I would have to play in Photoshop to see if there is any detail you can recover.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*Koru,*

*No help here. I have tried several things and cannot get any improvement that would better the image as it deserves...good subject matter.*


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Best I could do in ten minutes flat..... Bet you could do better with a little time Rich


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

richg99 said:


> Best I could do in ten minutes flat..... Bet you could do better with a little time Rich
> 
> ...


Rich I will be forever grateful if you could tell me what on earth you did, please. I really thought I tried everything (well, with as little as I know that is). I tried changing contrast and altering colours and all sorts. If you think I can do it then it must be something in the settings of either Picasa or Photoshop...

It's an important photo because it shows me something I'd never seen before - a bare punga tree... I am fascinated by the pattern.


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

You can see from the white blocks where the CCD sensors were maxed out by overexposure and there is no information to retrieve, at least on the image you posted. Of course, it can be cloned back in but that is not exactly the same.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

I've just realised what Rich did. lol The moss gave it away! 

Thank you for that info Charles... I guess my next question is 

How do I avoid overexposure? I certainly didn't expect to see that in my photos from the bush walk but there are a couple in the same sort of arena. Unfortunately.


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

When you have so much variation in the light (direct sunlight and deep shadow) it is difficult to get a balanced exposure. If your camera will let you adjust, you can bracket (shoot three of the same picture, with slightly different exposure settings) and then pick the one that is best. It is easier to pull some detail out that is slightly underexposed than to try to get detail that is lost to overexposure, but a balanced exposure is best. You might read your manual and see if the meter is center-weighted (bases the exposure primarily on the middle of the picture). If that is the case you can set the exposure on a middle-ground part of the image by focusing there (and with some cameras the setting may remain from a half-depressed shutter and let you reframe, at least for focus if not for exposure.).

With a DSLR I can change more of the elements to intentionally over or under expose or bracket the shot if I want. I am sure some of the point-and-shoots will too.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Charles Helm said:


> When you have so much variation in the light (direct sunlight and deep shadow) it is difficult to get a balanced exposure. If your camera will let you adjust, you can bracket (shoot three of the same picture, with slightly different exposure settings) and then pick the one that is best. It is easier to pull some detail out that is slightly underexposed than to try to get detail that is lost to overexposure, but a balanced exposure is best. You might read your manual and see if the meter is center-weighted (bases the exposure primarily on the middle of the picture). If that is the case you can set the exposure on a middle-ground part of the image by focusing there (and with some cameras the setting may remain from a half-depressed shutter and let you reframe, at least for focus if not for exposure.).
> 
> With a DSLR I can change more of the elements to intentionally over or under expose or bracket the shot if I want. I am sure some of the point-and-shoots will too.


ah I've just discovered I have in my menu an option called Exposure Bracketing. It seems to be automatically set at 'off' but has three options =/- 0.3, +/- 0.7, +/- 1.0.

So I could try one photo at each of those settings and see which one is best to use.

I also have an Exposure Compensation that goes from +2.0 to -2.0.

And my Exposure Metering is set at multi-pattern, but I also have a center-weight and center-spot option.

Thanks for your thoughts Charles. You've given me more to work on learning. rosesm


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Hey guys/gals...I mostly just used plain old MS Paint...which is free and on EVERY XP computer ( under Accessories). I am far more comfortable working with it... than my much better enabled PS Elements. 

I circled the only portion of the tree that still had some "life"...copied and pasted it over and over down the trunk of the tree. Then I circled a portion of the top-side of the tree ( more angle and less exposed area)..and copy and pasted it back down the tree. I then saved it and loaded it back into PS Elements, where I mostly used the "smudge " tool and a few "paint" tools to fill in the very white gaps between my copy and paste process. 

Heck, If I actually knew how to use my PS Elements, I could have done it all there. I could have used that "free transform" device ( I think) and actually shaped the copied sections to better fit their locations. 

I'd guess that, with an hour..someone who knew PS Elements or PS itself could make that tree look alive and well. 

I put myself on a time-table to see how quick I could produce something that had some possibility of growing into a nice looking tree. I did NOT think that the ten minute result was very good..but...it does show what a free little program that everyone already has... can do, with a little help from PS Elements.. 

have fun..Rich


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

K ....re the camera's exposure and bracketing ,....it sounds like..with Charles's help.... you are getting to know your camera better and better. Rich


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Well now. I didn't realise MS Paint could do such a thing. I thought you'd used Photoshop and the clone tool. Fancy that.

I'm a bit sad that this photo can't be saved from the original - another learning curve. I will have a look and see if I have another photo that's close (or at least better exposed), or I may even go up there again just to take several more photos in this spot.


----------



## galvetraz (Nov 29, 2005)

Some color correction.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

IF you have another photo that is better lighting wise, you could clone/copy a portion of the trunk and move it over to this photo. It ISN'T the REAL thing..but it depends on what your needs are. If you took that photo on a trip to Zanzibar, and you couldn't EVER go back, you'd be VERY happy to be able to clone/copy something that would still represent what your eyes saw..not what the camera took...Rich


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Very good, Galv. We ought to make something like this a "test" or a "challenge" to see what various people can do with it. Heck, I think we just DID! 

Thanks for your help and input. Rich


----------



## galvetraz (Nov 29, 2005)

richg99 said:


> Very good, Galv. We ought to make something like this a "test" or a "challenge" to see what various people can do with it. Heck, I think we just DID!
> 
> Thanks for your help and input. Rich


I think that'd be great.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Yea, you should...because so far, you are winning!! ha ha Rich


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

richg99 said:


> K ....re the camera's exposure and bracketing ,....it sounds like..with Charles's help.... you are getting to know your camera better and better. Rich


At first I found it very daunting - knowing the ins and outs of a camera is just mind boggling to me - I'm not a very technical minded person I think. But little by little from things mentioned on this forum and suggestions by Charles, and you and well, and everyone, I'm learning more and more.

I'm glad I didn't just chuck in the hat and give up, especially when I realised how limiting the camera I have, seemed to be. Now I'm of the opinion that this point and shoot type camera is a great tool with which to learn photography from the ground up. I'm just wondering if it will last as long as it's going to take me to learn all the rest of what I need to know. lol


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

It's always been my observation that artists (you are one ) are not great at detail or specifications or tech stuff. No "good" or "bad" there... its just how our minds work. 

It doesn't mean that you can't learn anything that you set your mind to...it just means that it isn't "natural" for you to jump all over a tech-manual when you buy something. 

Some people learn by words, others learn by pictures...some learn best by doing...Have fun..Rich


----------



## galbayfisher (May 28, 2004)

Koru,

Cameras with electronic metering try to adjust your shot to what Kodak called 18% gray. If the camera meters a spot that is lighter in tone than the 18 gray, it will reduce shutter or aperture to achieve the tone of that "18Gray"

If the spot you meter is darker in tone, then the camera will open aperture or increase shutter to lighten that spot to that 18 Gray.

As it relates to your picture, if your camera has center or spot metering, then your focus was on a darker area in your picture. If your camera takes an average exposure over the entire picture, there was more dark area in your compositon and so it increased the exposure time or opened up the aperture. In either case that's why the top of that palm tree was overexposed.

In photography there is a technique called the zone system, This is basically what we're talking about. this is one link. check the web, lots more. I shoot pictures using this method when shooting with an SLR. If you practice this technique, you can almost eliminate bracketing your shots. Of course with digital, it's really no big deal. you can erase the shots you don't want. In the old days, it saved on film.

http://www.srphotography.co.uk/srpzone.html


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Thought I would play a little with it also. Tuff one. Liked Rich's better I believe. But with a lot of time you may be able to save the picture. May be easier to re-take it if you could.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Galbayfisher...re the "Zone system"..it is a pretty interesting read. If it was good enough for Ansel Adams, it should be good enough for us. 

I'm not certain how I can apply all of that to my own photography..but I do have EV adjustments ( that I've never fully understood) so I'll start with that. 

Hundreds of years ago, when I was young, I had a darkroom. I remember mixing and stirring and dripping negatives. My work in the darkroom and using the photo-enlarger (that took some $$ out of my budget) leaves me SO impressed with what we can do today with PS, etc. Thanks very much for finding and sharing this writing. Rich


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

richg99 said:


> It's always been my observation that artists (you are one ) are not great at detail or specifications or tech stuff. No "good" or "bad" there... its just how our minds work.
> 
> It doesn't mean that you can't learn anything that you set your mind to...it just means that it isn't "natural" for you to jump all over a tech-manual when you buy something.
> 
> Some people learn by words, others learn by pictures...some learn best by doing...Have fun..Rich


Very true. I am totally not left-brained. lol Unlike my daughter who reads cell phone manuals from beginning to end and other oddball things like that. I just want to DO things. lol

galvetraz - I think you have done a great job. (I have just found another photo in my camera so I'll take a look and see if it's worth posting up.)

galbayfisher - thank you for speaking in plain basic english to me. I actually understood all you said and it makes sense! I'll check out that link today. Thank you! 

grayfish - as usual you did a great job, and it just goes to show me how very difficult it is to save a photo that's important if the original is not up to scratch.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Okay I found three (I must have been impressed to take 3 of the same thing lol ).

5.0MP
Natural Colour
f = 88mm (35mm)
ISO160
f4.2
1/10










5.0MP
Natural Colour
f = 34mm (85mm)
ISO 160
f 2.7
1/30










Being the first of the three shots, I vaguely recall the flash going off. I hate the flash and recall turning it off. I hate the flash because when I look at the photo through the camera screen it looks like I have lost everything in the background to the dark side and everything in the front is prominent which is not always what I intend.

5.0MP
Natural Colour
f = 34mm (85mm)
ISO 80
f2.7
1/60

(all I did with this photo was sharpened it once in Picasa and framed it in Photoshop)









Looks like I continue to learn the hard way.

Here's a somewhat blurry closeup cropped from the top photo... I really like the patterning on the punga.


----------



## galbayfisher (May 28, 2004)

Rich99,

when I first learned about the zone, I got very excited. I wanted my shots to be as close to what I actually saw. the trick was to pick out a spot within the shot which from a tonal perspective was as close to the 18% gray. there's a website (can't remember it now) but it had pictures that you could practice on and pick out areas that were equivalent to the gray standard. 

the trick, however, was to pick out the "tone" no matter what "color" you were looking at. What I did was actually take a card that was colored to match the 18% Gray. You can get them at photoshops. They are used by pros to help you set exposures. I just kept looking at it over time (days, weeks). Pretty soon I got a sense of the middle zone and would set my exposure by center metering on that spot. the rest of the picture was properly or close to being at the right exposure.

that's why people who take pictures in the snow or at some beaches(limestone, white) sometimes see their pictures coming out gray. Camera over compensates for the bright white of the picture and closes down the aperture and/or speeds up the shutter. Again, trying to match that 18% gray.


----------

