Mixing
Are burned out highlights bad?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have read many answers and articles saying that I should avoid blown out highlights, but is it really a bad thing? Why should I avoid it?
exposure composition highlights highlight-recovery
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have read many answers and articles saying that I should avoid blown out highlights, but is it really a bad thing? Why should I avoid it?
exposure composition highlights highlight-recovery
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have read many answers and articles saying that I should avoid blown out highlights, but is it really a bad thing? Why should I avoid it?
exposure composition highlights highlight-recovery
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
I have read many answers and articles saying that I should avoid blown out highlights, but is it really a bad thing? Why should I avoid it?
exposure composition highlights highlight-recovery
exposure composition highlights highlight-recovery
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
edited 12 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
asked 1 hour ago
Orbit
360110
360110
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
It's only a bad thing if the detail in the blown areas is important to you.
Say you've taken a landscape shot with bright clouds, and shot in JPG, and much of the area of clouds are blown. Later you want to apply a graduated ND filter in Lightroom to darken the skies. As you darken the sky area the clouds will turn a uniform flat gray color rather than showing the details you might expect.
So in that example, I have a shot where the sky isn't my main subject, but I decide it's too bright, but my options are limited in trying to darken the sky as it will look terrible.
[Like flolilolilo I have a photo I'll dig up and show as an example!]
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, this is only true for digital photography, as film is much more forgiving with overexposure. (@Hueco tells me that color film is not forgiving, and that even with black-and-white films, you will only get goot results with C-41.)
Burned out highlights are far less recoverable (in my experience) than shady areas. Take, for example, an overexposed (by +2 EV) face - it would be hard to impossible even with RAW to recover the face, and so it will stay white and without any texture.
Take a -2 EV underexposed face: Sure, there will be some amplification noise, but usually, this will work out far better.
Sample images taken in an AEB-burst (± 2 EV) with an EOS M6. All pictures are RAWs, share the same focal length, ISO (800) and aperture (f/6.3). From left to right, shutter speeds are: 1/200s, 1/50s, 1/13s. Pictures were corrected +2 EV / 0 EV / -2 EV in Digital Photo Professional. Lower section shows the RGB parade waveform from After Effects.
In the sample above, you can clearly see that the left image (the underexposed one) can easily be transformed to become "properly exposed" (I know that the image is not properly exposed at all, but for the sake of the argument, bear with me ;-) ), while the overexposed one clearly loses details in the overexposed areas.
You can, of course, use overexposed images as you likeLink to random overexposed picture I found - there is no hard rule as to why not to do it (the only hard rule in photography is that there are no hard rules ;-) ). Overexposure simply is harder to fix (beyond a certain limit) and thus most people try to avoid it. (Do not be confused: Exposure To The Right has nothing to do with blowing out highlights - it simply means to overexpose everything without blowing out anything.)
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
It's only a bad thing if the detail in the blown areas is important to you.
Say you've taken a landscape shot with bright clouds, and shot in JPG, and much of the area of clouds are blown. Later you want to apply a graduated ND filter in Lightroom to darken the skies. As you darken the sky area the clouds will turn a uniform flat gray color rather than showing the details you might expect.
So in that example, I have a shot where the sky isn't my main subject, but I decide it's too bright, but my options are limited in trying to darken the sky as it will look terrible.
[Like flolilolilo I have a photo I'll dig up and show as an example!]
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It's only a bad thing if the detail in the blown areas is important to you.
Say you've taken a landscape shot with bright clouds, and shot in JPG, and much of the area of clouds are blown. Later you want to apply a graduated ND filter in Lightroom to darken the skies. As you darken the sky area the clouds will turn a uniform flat gray color rather than showing the details you might expect.
So in that example, I have a shot where the sky isn't my main subject, but I decide it's too bright, but my options are limited in trying to darken the sky as it will look terrible.
[Like flolilolilo I have a photo I'll dig up and show as an example!]
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It's only a bad thing if the detail in the blown areas is important to you.
Say you've taken a landscape shot with bright clouds, and shot in JPG, and much of the area of clouds are blown. Later you want to apply a graduated ND filter in Lightroom to darken the skies. As you darken the sky area the clouds will turn a uniform flat gray color rather than showing the details you might expect.
So in that example, I have a shot where the sky isn't my main subject, but I decide it's too bright, but my options are limited in trying to darken the sky as it will look terrible.
[Like flolilolilo I have a photo I'll dig up and show as an example!]
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
It's only a bad thing if the detail in the blown areas is important to you.
Say you've taken a landscape shot with bright clouds, and shot in JPG, and much of the area of clouds are blown. Later you want to apply a graduated ND filter in Lightroom to darken the skies. As you darken the sky area the clouds will turn a uniform flat gray color rather than showing the details you might expect.
So in that example, I have a shot where the sky isn't my main subject, but I decide it's too bright, but my options are limited in trying to darken the sky as it will look terrible.
[Like flolilolilo I have a photo I'll dig up and show as an example!]
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
answered 39 mins ago
MikeW♦
31.1k873108
31.1k873108
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, this is only true for digital photography, as film is much more forgiving with overexposure. (@Hueco tells me that color film is not forgiving, and that even with black-and-white films, you will only get goot results with C-41.)
Burned out highlights are far less recoverable (in my experience) than shady areas. Take, for example, an overexposed (by +2 EV) face - it would be hard to impossible even with RAW to recover the face, and so it will stay white and without any texture.
Take a -2 EV underexposed face: Sure, there will be some amplification noise, but usually, this will work out far better.
Sample images taken in an AEB-burst (± 2 EV) with an EOS M6. All pictures are RAWs, share the same focal length, ISO (800) and aperture (f/6.3). From left to right, shutter speeds are: 1/200s, 1/50s, 1/13s. Pictures were corrected +2 EV / 0 EV / -2 EV in Digital Photo Professional. Lower section shows the RGB parade waveform from After Effects.
In the sample above, you can clearly see that the left image (the underexposed one) can easily be transformed to become "properly exposed" (I know that the image is not properly exposed at all, but for the sake of the argument, bear with me ;-) ), while the overexposed one clearly loses details in the overexposed areas.
You can, of course, use overexposed images as you likeLink to random overexposed picture I found - there is no hard rule as to why not to do it (the only hard rule in photography is that there are no hard rules ;-) ). Overexposure simply is harder to fix (beyond a certain limit) and thus most people try to avoid it. (Do not be confused: Exposure To The Right has nothing to do with blowing out highlights - it simply means to overexpose everything without blowing out anything.)
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, this is only true for digital photography, as film is much more forgiving with overexposure. (@Hueco tells me that color film is not forgiving, and that even with black-and-white films, you will only get goot results with C-41.)
Burned out highlights are far less recoverable (in my experience) than shady areas. Take, for example, an overexposed (by +2 EV) face - it would be hard to impossible even with RAW to recover the face, and so it will stay white and without any texture.
Take a -2 EV underexposed face: Sure, there will be some amplification noise, but usually, this will work out far better.
Sample images taken in an AEB-burst (± 2 EV) with an EOS M6. All pictures are RAWs, share the same focal length, ISO (800) and aperture (f/6.3). From left to right, shutter speeds are: 1/200s, 1/50s, 1/13s. Pictures were corrected +2 EV / 0 EV / -2 EV in Digital Photo Professional. Lower section shows the RGB parade waveform from After Effects.
In the sample above, you can clearly see that the left image (the underexposed one) can easily be transformed to become "properly exposed" (I know that the image is not properly exposed at all, but for the sake of the argument, bear with me ;-) ), while the overexposed one clearly loses details in the overexposed areas.
You can, of course, use overexposed images as you likeLink to random overexposed picture I found - there is no hard rule as to why not to do it (the only hard rule in photography is that there are no hard rules ;-) ). Overexposure simply is harder to fix (beyond a certain limit) and thus most people try to avoid it. (Do not be confused: Exposure To The Right has nothing to do with blowing out highlights - it simply means to overexpose everything without blowing out anything.)
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, this is only true for digital photography, as film is much more forgiving with overexposure. (@Hueco tells me that color film is not forgiving, and that even with black-and-white films, you will only get goot results with C-41.)
Burned out highlights are far less recoverable (in my experience) than shady areas. Take, for example, an overexposed (by +2 EV) face - it would be hard to impossible even with RAW to recover the face, and so it will stay white and without any texture.
Take a -2 EV underexposed face: Sure, there will be some amplification noise, but usually, this will work out far better.
Sample images taken in an AEB-burst (± 2 EV) with an EOS M6. All pictures are RAWs, share the same focal length, ISO (800) and aperture (f/6.3). From left to right, shutter speeds are: 1/200s, 1/50s, 1/13s. Pictures were corrected +2 EV / 0 EV / -2 EV in Digital Photo Professional. Lower section shows the RGB parade waveform from After Effects.
In the sample above, you can clearly see that the left image (the underexposed one) can easily be transformed to become "properly exposed" (I know that the image is not properly exposed at all, but for the sake of the argument, bear with me ;-) ), while the overexposed one clearly loses details in the overexposed areas.
You can, of course, use overexposed images as you likeLink to random overexposed picture I found - there is no hard rule as to why not to do it (the only hard rule in photography is that there are no hard rules ;-) ). Overexposure simply is harder to fix (beyond a certain limit) and thus most people try to avoid it. (Do not be confused: Exposure To The Right has nothing to do with blowing out highlights - it simply means to overexpose everything without blowing out anything.)
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
As far as I know, this is only true for digital photography, as film is much more forgiving with overexposure. (@Hueco tells me that color film is not forgiving, and that even with black-and-white films, you will only get goot results with C-41.)
Burned out highlights are far less recoverable (in my experience) than shady areas. Take, for example, an overexposed (by +2 EV) face - it would be hard to impossible even with RAW to recover the face, and so it will stay white and without any texture.
Take a -2 EV underexposed face: Sure, there will be some amplification noise, but usually, this will work out far better.
Sample images taken in an AEB-burst (± 2 EV) with an EOS M6. All pictures are RAWs, share the same focal length, ISO (800) and aperture (f/6.3). From left to right, shutter speeds are: 1/200s, 1/50s, 1/13s. Pictures were corrected +2 EV / 0 EV / -2 EV in Digital Photo Professional. Lower section shows the RGB parade waveform from After Effects.
In the sample above, you can clearly see that the left image (the underexposed one) can easily be transformed to become "properly exposed" (I know that the image is not properly exposed at all, but for the sake of the argument, bear with me ;-) ), while the overexposed one clearly loses details in the overexposed areas.
You can, of course, use overexposed images as you likeLink to random overexposed picture I found - there is no hard rule as to why not to do it (the only hard rule in photography is that there are no hard rules ;-) ). Overexposure simply is harder to fix (beyond a certain limit) and thus most people try to avoid it. (Do not be confused: Exposure To The Right has nothing to do with blowing out highlights - it simply means to overexpose everything without blowing out anything.)
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
edited 11 mins ago
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
answered 58 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,85011232
3,85011232
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
@Hueco Included your comment in my answer. Thank you very much!
– flolilolilo
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101853%2fare-burned-out-highlights-bad%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password