Highlight / Shadow Detail Recovery
Hi Everyone,
Very new to Capture One so please forgive my ignorance. I'm trying to transition off Camera Raw at the moment to Capture One but am having problems with the highlight recovery. I've got a file with the highlights overexposed. Note, the highlights are not, for the most part, clipped. There is still a ton of information in there.
When I take the file into ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) I get a really good result. I can recover a heap of information with the highlight slider. When I try and do a similar thing in Capture One I lose a ton of contrast and colour depth, the overall result being very muddy.
I've read a few posts that talk about shooting for the highlights and letting C1 recover the shadows, but I bracketed the shot and tried using this one and simply recovering the shadows. Same poor result I'm afraid.
I've also read a few blog posts that talk about using the levels tool to recover highlight or shadow information, but, dodgy result as well (i.e., very poor contrast)
I've tried using the local adjustment tool to select only the highlight areas and then apply the highlight recovery via masking but I can't seem to get the HDR tool to be available with the local adjustment tool.
I shoot heaps of architecture so get this problem a lot - either slightly overexposed skies or underexposed interiors and usually balance them in post (provided it's not too severe). So far the only problem I've had doing this in ACR is losing the will to live because I'm using an Adobe product. The end result is actually quite good.
No such luck with C1 though.
With respect, I'm not looking for advice on location lighting to balance in/exterior exposures
I'd really love to make C1 part of my main workflow. Any suggestions, ideas, comments? Any and all help gracefully accepted.
Or is it simply the case that, at the moment, the treatment of dynamic range in ACR is superior to C1's?
Files for your reference:
Unedited Raw File:
Capture One Result (using highlight recovery and contrast pumped back in):
ACR result (using highlight recovery and contrast pumped back in):
Very new to Capture One so please forgive my ignorance. I'm trying to transition off Camera Raw at the moment to Capture One but am having problems with the highlight recovery. I've got a file with the highlights overexposed. Note, the highlights are not, for the most part, clipped. There is still a ton of information in there.
When I take the file into ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) I get a really good result. I can recover a heap of information with the highlight slider. When I try and do a similar thing in Capture One I lose a ton of contrast and colour depth, the overall result being very muddy.
I've read a few posts that talk about shooting for the highlights and letting C1 recover the shadows, but I bracketed the shot and tried using this one and simply recovering the shadows. Same poor result I'm afraid.
I've also read a few blog posts that talk about using the levels tool to recover highlight or shadow information, but, dodgy result as well (i.e., very poor contrast)
I've tried using the local adjustment tool to select only the highlight areas and then apply the highlight recovery via masking but I can't seem to get the HDR tool to be available with the local adjustment tool.
I shoot heaps of architecture so get this problem a lot - either slightly overexposed skies or underexposed interiors and usually balance them in post (provided it's not too severe). So far the only problem I've had doing this in ACR is losing the will to live because I'm using an Adobe product. The end result is actually quite good.
No such luck with C1 though.
With respect, I'm not looking for advice on location lighting to balance in/exterior exposures
I'd really love to make C1 part of my main workflow. Any suggestions, ideas, comments? Any and all help gracefully accepted.
Or is it simply the case that, at the moment, the treatment of dynamic range in ACR is superior to C1's?
Files for your reference:
Unedited Raw File:
Capture One Result (using highlight recovery and contrast pumped back in):
ACR result (using highlight recovery and contrast pumped back in):
0
-
[quote="NN634819210243564732UL" wrote:
Hi Everyone,
.....
Or is it simply the case that, at the moment, the treatment of dynamic range in ACR is superior to C1's?
.......[/url]
Unfortunately, that is my belief. When I have a scene with a huge dynamic range, I tend to use the new Lightroom 4.2rc to process it.
I don't like it as well as CO, and it is slower, but it digs out the detail better and easier.0 -
http://shotybyasavage.smugmug.com/photos/i-xKMpffb/0/L/i-xKMpffb-L.jpg This is using only C1 - I would likely take this to PS at this point. I think this looks much more realistic than LR . If my image I might do more sharpening and a bit less saturation.... Who knows 😊 I do know that this result is better than anything I can do in LR. 0 -
Your ACR file looks like it has some additional processing applied? Lens correction perhaps?
I tried the NEF in another completely different convertor and that came up with something somewhere between your 2 examples in terms of colour balances and stuff. Are you using some fo the advanced in camera image tools? If so C1 may not be fully aware of them yet. (Comments available in a number of the recent posts.)
I have not yet tried you sample NEF in C1. My notebook is still on a slightly older version than current and does not seem to recognise the file. I'll try the desktop at some point.
Grant0 -
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your replies, much appreciated. I was hoping and praying it wasn't the case, Jim!
I'm sorry, I can't see your name or your username (it's a text string just like me!) but I'm really intrigued how you got that result in C1. Particularly the sky. I had all sorts of dramas around getting enough information in the sky without completely losing the shadows. Could you give me a quick heads up on your process, or pack an EIP for me?
In terms of taking the file into PS at that point: I have, so far, been able to deliver small jobs like this without even touching PS, which is my strong preference. I mean, it's an 'in progress' job for an interior designer & architect so I don't want to spend a few minutes per file to get the dynamic range & contrast right. Particularly when (in between stabbing my eyeballs out) I can achieve the entire result in ACR. Granted, I feel dirty. But hey, ends/means/all that jazz.
Grant - I'm not using any of the advanced in camera editing tools, but I would have applied lens correction through ACR as I've set it up as a default action upon opening. Apologies, I didn't think of that. I just tried it again in ACR without the lens correction and while the edges are a little darker the overall result is very similar (in terms of exposure and dynamic range).
Thanks so far for your help everyone, very much appreciated.
Jen0 -
JenD,
I mostly shoot event photography outdoors so getting every shot right in camera is a challenge. You have to shoot the action (in my case) and live with light changing shot to shot. So my workflow may be a little compromised by that but I do face the dynamic range challenge very fequently.
Now monitor type and colibration come into play here and I will confesss that my screen is very difficult to calibrate - it won't play ball at all in some settings - but it's good to work with and the printed output seems OK. I don't have a particualr requirement for 100% accurate colour matching - which is probably just as well!
So, all of that said by way of background, I find that I use the C1 High Dynamic Range tool sliders a lot to re-balance my outdoor light and it works well, IMO, for your sample shot. You can be quite aggressive with the settings. I'm looking at values of 67 for shadow and 88 for highlight on my version of your file. The highlight is probably a bit strong but pretty much deals with the sky without a local adjustment.
I also, these days, tend to reduce contrast values (a lot) and add a large amount of Clarity IF the image will take it. Many will, espcially if there is a lot of texture detail to play with. So -43 for Contrast and +77 for clarity in my version of your file. (any settings close to those could be a starting point but it really depends what you are looking for.)
Normally I find I need to increase Saturation after such a large contrast reduction but with your file it sems to me the bricks look too flase so I actually set -12 for saturation but then +19 for brightness. I think that may be the result of over compensating in some settings. I don't usually expect to do that. Maybe it's a difference between the way your Nikon perfoms compared to my Canon equipment. Not sure.
The original White Balance looked a bit odd on my screen so I set 5800k which seemed about righ all round. The concrete slab at the bottom has a very blue shadow area prior to adjustment. I would prefer to address that locally but the overall adjustment seems to be OK for now. You may see a different result anyway so I mention this jsut for completeness.
I also applied a very slight levels adjustment at the dark end just to lift things a little, a slight curves adjustment (gentle S curve on the RGB settings and a very small tweak for the blue sky on the blue channel to be picky.
A positive value vignette can be used to lighten the edges if required - works nicale for the bottom and sides but not so beneficial for the sky section detail without further local adjustment in that area.
On scree I tok the overall expisure down half a stop but I find that printing tends to put that bck so I think that may be a general monitor settings issue here rather than something the image needs to make it work. It is also a matter of opinion of course!
Now I would guess that you have a few shots from the site that are at least similar to that and could use the same settings well enough so having set up one typical sample image in a couple of minutes you can copy and apply the change values by copying it and pasting to the other similar images. The chances are that will be enough to make them appear as you want them to but in the worst case scenario some additional "per image" fine tuning would not take very long at all.
I hope that provides some useful ideas to play with.
Grant0 -
I thought I'll give it a try too:
CO Pro 6 with LCC tool for HDR (no use of HDR sliders)
http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h366/Paul_S57/_IAP7928.jpg
And add a adjustments layer for the sky
http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h366/Paul_S57/_IAP7928-layer.jpg0 -
Grant thank you so much for your comprehensive reply. I, like you, shoot lots of 'as you find it' stuff. And my work is very rarely printed, at least not in a colour critical environment.
I had a play with the image as you described your settings and got a result very close to yours, so thanks for laying that all out for me. In the past few days I've forced myself to deliver a few large jobs through C1 without escaping to ACR. The occasional tantrum aside, I've been getting mixed, but mostly good, results, particularly when diving a little deeper into the tools and workflow you laid out above, Grant.
I found reducing the exposure to get the highlights where I want them, then just painting the exposure back in for the shadows is what worked best for me in most situations. I was having trouble with this in the beginning but I think it was just a matter of getting used to the tool. I can't wait until all C1 tools can be applied through the local adjustment tool. Even if it was just the white balance tool, that'd be the most useful for me!
Paul - that's a pretty good result. I'm impressed that you got there without the HDR sliders! I'm definitely still getting my head around the LCC tool - I've gotten many hilarious and feral results using it so far. Time to google a few tutorials!
Thanks again everyone. What a helpful bunch you all are!
Jen0 -
[quote="JenD" wrote:
Grant thank you so much for your comprehensive reply. I, like you, shoot lots of 'as you find it' stuff. And my work is very rarely printed, at least not in a colour critical environment.
....
I can't wait until all C1 tools can be applied through the local adjustment tool. Even if it was just the white balance tool, that'd be the most useful for me!
Hi Jen,
Glad you found something useful in my suggestions. Sometimes one can get caught out with a strange result but mostly, especially for the sort for quick(ish) tweak you are looking for, the concept should work at least " well enough".
I agree with your comments about local adjustments. My other favourite RAW convertor/editor offered exactly that sort of facility and more, although in fairness to C1 the majority of what it does takes less effort and is quicker than the other tool.
As for results - I like them both. C1 is probably a little smoother operationally (but then there is a technology age gap to allow for). The other product proabably allows me to dig deeper in some things when required. The local area selection methods are different too - but my preference would be to have both methods plus a third option.
Moreover the other tool has unlimited local area changes available, although after 10 or so tools are stacked things do slow somewhat especially if using the more detail addressing tools.
The ideas live on but sadly the old product does not unless one has an existing licenced version.
Grant0 -
[quote="JenD" wrote:
...
I'm definitely still getting my head around the LCC tool - I've gotten many hilarious and feral results using it so far. Time to google a few tutorials!
Try the phase One blog at http://blog.phaseone.com/ and look for "The Secret HDR tool" in the top tips at the right.0 -
Hi Grant and Paul,
I'm really interested to see how and where C1 grows to, given where it's come from (studio pro's controlling every aspect of their contrast/DR with cameras whose DR could eat my little D4 for breakfast!)
I think it is definitely streets ahead in most aspects of all the other image editing software I've used, so here's to a long and happy relationship!
Great tip to search the blog, doing that right now. Thanks very much.
Jen0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
10件のコメント