Skip navigation

Please bring back the Fill Light slider!!!

Mar 8, 2012 8:18 AM

Tags: #fill #light #lr4
  Latest reply: Rob Cole, May 8, 2012 3:28 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 7:45 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Once you get used to the new LR4 controls it's quite easy to replicate the fill-light. I can see why Adobe did it as they did have various tools that were doing a different version of the same job.

     

    LR4 *is* a bit too slow though, I hope 4.1 will be much faster

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 1:03 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Can I uninstall Lightroom 4 and get a refund? I knew 30 seconds in that I was unhappy with the product.

     

    No, you didn't.  If you knew that 30 seconds it your judgement was not sound.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 5:51 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Christian,

     

    You have to climb the hill to get the view from the summit...

     

    Lr4 has been tricky to learn for me, and some other folk too. Like you, I/we did a lot of kicking and screaming during the transition period.

     

    But for the vast majority of photos now, the results are truly better than what I can do with Lr3 (fill & recovery and everything else), and achievable faster - without the tone curve in more cases. I confess I do use the new locals regularly since it's so much easier to target highlight or shadow tone now, and for spot "declarification", and color balancing gradients...

     

    I grant you that there are some photos and for some effects, PV2010 is still the prefered tool. For me, I just use PV2010 in those cases (actually, I usually don't - but I could, and on rare occasions I do...)

     

    If you don't want to spend the time to learn the new tools, then I respect that decision. But I can't help but feel it would be a shame...

     

    PS - I'm not a Lightroom/Adobe defender, but I am a lover of PV2012 .

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 8:15 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    I don't understand all these comments that refer to "learning the new tools" and how "tricky" they can be. There is nothing tricky or difficult about the new tools (of which there are few anyway), and I have zero issue with them. My issue, as I clearly stated, is the removal of two very important tools that I use constantly. The methods used to "replicate" Fill Light do not actually replicate Fill Light very well at all, and they are a poor substitute. Maybe the substitute methods work fine for you guys, but they don't work fine for me. They are a poor substitute. You can make glib, idiotic comments such as "no you don't" in response to my statement that I do need those tools, or that I have "poor judgment," but that doesn't actually make it true. I know what I need and why, you don't. I rarely take photos of still objects in broad daylight in perfect conditions. I take photos of moving objects in poor and unpredictable lighting conditions, apparently, something no one here has any experience with. The Recovery tool changes hue? Right. I need that most times, because most of my photos contain oversaturated hues, colours and mild-to-moderate blowouts from cheap pot lighting in small rock clubs. The Recovery tool is usually the first tool I go to, and now it's gone. Now all the different spots have to be fixed by hand, individually, increasing my editing time and producing somewhat different results. The Fill Light is crucial for when I get too much backlighting. I don't get to set the shots up, and I don't get to change the lighting. If that's the shot I get, that's the shot I get. There's a lot of improvement in Lightroom 4, but it comes at the cost of two irreplacable tools for me. I have been using it for the last month now, and I have yet to be able to properly replicate those two tools, and it isn't because I don't understand how to use them, it's because they simply do not work in the way I need them to.

     

    You can yapyapyapf.gif all you want about how you think I simply don't understand, or how you think I don't need them anyway, but that won't make it true.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 8:21 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    PV2010 was not removed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 8:47 PM   in reply to ssprengel

    you can actually have the best of both worlds because you can always start of processing using process 2010 then change to process 2012. If you try this you will see that the values you set in 2010 will be converted to values in the 2012 process. This can also be a good way to learn how the sliders in the 2010 process equate to those in 2012.

     

    Learning should always be a joyful activity!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 9:05 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    I have seen two kinds of cases:

     

    1. Those where people with only a month or two of experience with PV2012 were still having difficulties getting the results they wanted without PV2010 fill/recovery, and I was able to show them how in PV2012, and then they were surprised and pleased. It *can* be tricky - really: don't overestimate your mastery of PV2012 at this point.

    2. Those where it was truly "impossible" to get satisfactory results in Lr4 without the fill.

     

    For photos & desired results in category 2, your only recourse is to use PV2010 on those photos. If that's most or all of your photographts, then PV2012 was not for you - I get it.

     

    Note: This is a user to user forum. None of us has any control over Lightroom other than by expressing our opinions. All we can do is help you to use it as best you can...

     

    Fill light & recovery will not return to Lightroom 4 (other than by using PV2010 I mean), but Adobe has heard your cry...

     

    FWIW - Although the recovery technology in PV2012 is better, in general, in my opinion, there is no way to turn off the automatic highlight-recovery, which changes the gradient of highlights around bright light sources. Although there is some control by way of finessing whites, highlights, exposure, and tone curve - I sometimes prefer the unadulterated glowy progressive gradient of emanating light sources in PV2010.

     

    Not sure what else to say.

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 9:20 PM   in reply to tropicaldiva

    tropicaldiva wrote:

     

    Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

     

    WTF???  Just give me my trusted Fill slider back!! 

     

    I don't normally flame people on forums like this, and I may not have standing to even do it here, but this is quite simply one of the most stunningly ignorant things I have ever heard of.   There is a little drop down box in the camera calibration section of the Develop module.  With that drop down, you can choose to use PV2010, which will give you the exact same controls and features as LR3.  There is no need to walk across the street to your parents house.  There have been about 4 posts in this thread alone where people have posted this, but so many of you are too busy being outraged to stop and understand what the people that are trying to help you are saying.

     

    I am now convinced that there is a personality type that actually chooses to be outraged.  I think Adobe put the ultimate protection in for people that didn't want to change, they left the LR3 controls in place, they don't force you to upgrade your existing images and you are allowed to switch back and forth at will.  And they even took it a step further by recording the conversion as a history step, so if you switch and you don't linke it, reverting your image is as simple as Ctrl-Z or clicking the mouse once in the history panel.  You all really need to cut the drama and get over yourselves. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 9:05 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    I don't understand all these comments that refer to "learning the new tools" and how "tricky" they can be. There is nothing tricky or difficult about the new tools (of which there are few anyway), and I have zero issue with them.

     

    The comments are there because you may THINK you know how to use the new PV2012 image adaptive controls, but you really don't.

     

    You are bringing your experience with PV 2010 and trying to force fit that experience into PV 2012. That dog don't hunt...you need to really understand what the new controls can do and how to deploy them–which if you are complaining about the removal of Fill Light and Highlight Recovery, you don't.

     

    You say you are shooting poorly lit scenes with lots of backlighting...which is EACTLY what PV 2012 is designed to deal with–high contrast scenes. But I bet you don't really use Exposure and Contrast in PV 2012, right? Your knee-jerk reaction is to slam the Fill Light up then tamp down the stuff that blows out? That's the wrong way of using the controls...there's a reason why the controls are there in the order they are in. That's the optimal order to use them in.

     

    Seriously, if you can't get better results with PV 2012 than you could with PV 2010 then you really don't know how to use the PV 2012 controls...

     

    Which is all moot anyway...PV 2012 is here now...it won't go away and Fill Light will not be added back in. If you want to stick your head in the sand, simply select PV 2010 and set that as the LR4 Default so you never ever need to see the new controls again. Course, you'll be leaving a lot of image quality on the table, but that's ok...you obviously know best, right?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 8:44 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    The photos I started editing in 4 are looking better in 3 because I have Fill Light and Recovery in 3. It's as simple as that. I need Recovery and Fill Light. I use them all the time.

     

    Learn how to use the new tools, and it's unlikely that you'll be doing better in PV2010 than in PV2012.  This learning process takes time.  Also, realize that "3" is in "4" - just change the process version in 4 and you'll have Fill Light and Recovery back, with all the baggage they bring along.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 8:53 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    I did learn how to use the tools. You don't understand. The learning process did not take much time for me. I get it all, and the new tools work amazingly for what they do, but they do not properly replicate the tools that Adobe took away. I'm not sure what you don't get about that, why you don't believe me, or why you don't understand.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 9:19 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    Christian,

     

    There is no doubt, PV2012 can not replicate, exactly, the look of PV2010 fill / recovery. This has been proven in a number of threads starting with the beta.

     

    I know a guy whose business rotated around a certain look he'd gotten from them. A kindof "signature look" - reminds me of what another guy accomplished using Lucis Art (not the same look, but a "signature/characteristic" look). We worked together to try and replicate the look in PV2012, and got very close, in some ways better, and with the help of some locals, exceeded what he'd done using PV2010, but it was trickier, and took extra work, and in some ways, was still not liked as well as the PV2010 results.

     

    PV2012 can competently fill shadows, and recover highlights, but even with months of experience, the look will not always be the same as PV2010.

     

    If I were you, I'd just use PV2010 when you can't get the results you want from PV2012. I still think, the number of cases where you can't get the results you want in PV2012 will decline over time - certainly that's been true in my case.

     

    Good luck with it.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 9:27 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    That's pretty much my situation, Rob. Some results are better, however, some are not. Contrary to what some holier-than-thou, know-it-all types in this thread claim, it is not simply a question of "learning the new tools." There is nothing that properly replicates Recovery and Fill Light. There is only extra work in an attempt to come close, nothing else. Yes, I can revert to 2010, but why should I have to do that after spending $100 on an "upgrade"? I should have everything I had before plus new features, not new features at the expense of old ones.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 9:39 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    I should have everything I had before plus new features, not new features at the expense of old ones.

     

     

    Because the underlying processing algorithms of PV 2012 are fundamentally different than PV 2010, that's impossible. Pure and simple. There is no way to make Shadows behave like Fill Light. Fill Light actually had several undesirable side effects (haloing in particular) that was the reason behind the redesign of PV 2012 from the ground up.

     

    The engineers made the choice to start over with the new algorithms which was a line in the sand with the old ones. That's why they created a new process version. You can't mix and match. If you really need PV 2010, LR 4 still has those algorithms, but you will be giving up the rest of the PV 2012 processing. Bottom line, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's an either/or proposition...you choose.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 9:57 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Um, yeah, I get that, Mr. Jeff Expert. Riddle me this, smart guy: What makes you so sure there is no possible way to keep old features when creating new algorithms? That's like saying that the invention of air bags in cars necessitated the removal of radio.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 10:07 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    And PV2010 sucked, how? What were you using to edit your digital photos 15 years ago? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 10:16 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Riddle me this, smart guy: What makes you so sure there is no possible way to keep old features when creating new algorithms?

     

    Because of the math...if you want more info about what is happening under the hood, check out this article: Magic or Local Laplacian Filters? Just a warning if you read the linked paper that was presented at SIGGRAPH 2011, it's pretty deep...

     

    Look at it this way, PV 2012 is leading edge impage processing tech...PV 2010 is old stuff that barely worked, but when it worked, it was "ok". There is no way to stuff the old stuff in the new stuff. Line in the sand...

     

    BTW, I am pretty smart, but I just barely understood the basics of the linked article...but I've talked to the engineers enough to know that when you redesign a series of processing routines, trying to shove in old processing doesn't work.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 10:18 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    Christian,

     

    I feel your pain. And, I'm not an Adobe defender, but I do understand Lightroom design, to some extent. It's not like some programs where each tool acts independently of the rest. The Lr pipeline is optimized around the PV.

     

    I'm not saying it would have been impossible to have kept fill-light & recovery in PV2012, only that it's understandable why they were not included.

     

    Maybe one day, Adobe will redesign Lightroom, but until then - don't get too attached to the PV2012 sliders either - they may be gone in Lr5! .

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 10:20 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    And PV2010 sucked, how? What were you using to edit your digital photos 15 years ago? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

     

    Fill Light caused halos and artifacting...Highlight Recovery caused color casts and was unable to extract nearly as much image detail as PV 2012...BTW, ACR was released in Feb 2003 (hense the old PV 2003) so raw processing isn't even 10 years old. LR was only released in Feb 2007 so it's only 5 years old...and yes, I've gone back and reprocessed a ton of images in PV 2012 and gotten superior results. In the "old days" I had to end up fixing stuff in Photoshop...now? Not so much.

     

    Really, you might not like the taste of the medicine...but it does you good.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 10:56 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Interesting. I have no halos and artifacting in any of my edited photos, but you apparently seem to know so much more about my photos than I do, so I'm assuming this is the part where I'm supposed to bow down and grovel before your vast knowledge and intellect.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 11:48 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Interesting. I have no halos and artifacting in any of my edited photos, but you apparently seem to know so much more about my photos than I do, so I'm assuming this is the part where I'm supposed to bow down and grovel before your vast knowledge and intellect.

     

    Like it or not Adobe have done this because it gives better results, and it does.

     

    One can't help thinking those who constantly resort to the fill-light slider might be better off getting their exposures and fill lights right in-camera instead

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 12:08 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    ...but you apparently seem to know so much more about my photos than I do, so I'm assuming this is the part where I'm supposed to bow down and grovel before your vast knowledge and intellect.

     

    Yes...since I seem to know just a bit more than you do...just sayin'.

     

    Either adopt PV 2012 or punt and use PV 2010. YMMV (my image quality is much better with PV 2012). Don't know about your's...

     

    Either way you have a choice...either stick your head in the sand and stick with PV 2010 or use PV 2012...that's your choice. Sorry bud, but either adapt and adopt or piss$moan. PV 2012 ain't gonna change because of you. Deal with it...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 12:30 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    Lapsing into casual racism does rather show up the kind of person you obviously are Christian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 1:11 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Otay, mista Jeff, suh. You de man, suh.

     

    Guess you don't really "grok" this stuff huh?

     

    I've been the co-author of Real World Camera Raw since version CS3. I've been directly involved in the development of Lightroom as well as Camera Raw (don't work FOR Adobe but I sometimes work WITH Adobe). Particularly with the image sharpening of ACR 4.X and LR 3.X. The output sharpening in LR 3.x is based on the routines of PixelGenius PhotoKit Sharpener (which I am a founding member of).

     

    So, yes bud...what you think you know and what I actually know is a bit different...you want to measure creds? You lose...

     

    So get over yourself...PV 2012 is a MAJOR advance...what you THINK you've lost is minimal (at best) and what you've received in it's place is major...

     

    But, hey, YOU be the judge.,if you don't like PV 2012, just use PV 2010...and if you think you've been ripped off on the upgrade, Adobe has a 30 day return policy...get your *******' money back doode...

     

    Guess your life sucks huh?

     

    Move on...PV 2012 ain't gonna change because you are "displeased"...you can keep posting if ya want...ain't gonna change a thing (and I suspect you know that). You keep trying to one up me, ain't gonna happen....

     

    Move along...these aren't the droids you are looking for...

    (and if that don't work, you are, well, a dummy–sorry to be blunt, but, well, that's the truth bud).

     

    You won't win this battle so only an idiot would keep banging his head against a brick wall. Keep banging your head if ya want...no skin off my nose.

     

    PV 2012 is a vast improvement and it requires that you relearn what you think you know...(and no, there's no real indication you really know how to use PV 2012 even if you think you know–you don't dooode).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 2:26 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

     

    Guess you don't really "grok" this stuff huh?

     

     

    Thanks Jeff, it's Sunday and I just learned a new word!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 2:48 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    As if your ignorant beligerent arrogance wasn't enough Christian, we get your RACISM (which I have reported) now?

     

    Just learn to use the damn' tool, accept that you're bang out of order about all of this - you're just plain wrong - and shut up.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 6:26 AM   in reply to Joerollerblade

    A number of replies in this thread have been deleted because of abusive content. Unless this discussion returns to a polite and professional conversation about the software, it will be locked.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 9:31 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    I did learn how to use the tools. You don't understand. The learning process did not take much time for me. I get it all, and the new tools work amazingly for what they do, but they do not properly replicate the tools that Adobe took away. I'm not sure what you don't get about that, why you don't believe me, or why you don't understand.

     

    Perhaps because I've processed about 12,000 images with the new tools, and can consistently get better results with the new tools than the old ones.  And, yes, I regularly shoot in exceptionally difficult shooting conditions.

     

    I'd say figuring out how to get the best results from the new tools took processing perhaps 6,000-10,000 images, and I'm certainly still learning.  But that's not unexpected considering I had processed more than 100,000 images over many years with the old tools.

     

    If the learning process didn't take much time for you, I'd say you didn't learn it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 9:41 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    If the learning process didn't take much time for you, I'd say you didn't learn it.

     

     

     

    Really?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 9:47 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Hi Lee

     

    Please post some examples or refer to a web site where I can see comparasions of your improved results with PV2012. 

     

    I am reprocessing many photos, and I getting much better results, but I am not sure why.  Your examples will help me focus in on what is causing the improvement, and I hope to be able to use the new tools more efficiently.

     

    Thank you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 3:28 PM   in reply to EricBier

    My Lr3 photos: run a little dim. Why? because I tended to keep exposure/brightness/recovery low to protect the highlights, and because Lr3 fill light often can't be pushed too hard before it breaks down - masking artifacts and color aberration. Limit to how much contrast can be added via tone curve without flatening in other places.

     

    My Lr4 photos: fully brightened, detailed, with fully recovered highlights, and shadows lit as desired. They look like somebody washed the window I was looking at my Lr3 photos through. Most benefit comes from the new tone controls, but new clarity is also awesome, albeit may need some local tempering.

     

    I thought I had PV2012 mastered after several hundred photos - I was wrong. Mastery takes thousands.

     

    Note: Lr4 can be especially challenging for photos with lots of very dark tones, but some critical tones that are very bright too - like concert photos. Highlight slider affects a larger range of tones than seems like should be considered highlights, and shadows slider a narrower range than other photos. Thus the balance between exposure highlights and shadows is trickier than for photos with bell-shaped curves, or even 2-hump camel curves... Also, these photos often require an optimal blend of blacks & whites which adds to the complexity.

     

    Summary:

    ------------

    I never said PV2012 was always easy to obtain optimal results with, but if one can tame the beast, the results are awesome!!!

     

    PV2012 .

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 4:33 PM   in reply to EricBier

    See attached two images.  These represent about the best I could squeeze out of each.

     

    The differences are somewhat subtle, but the PV2012 image has a little more local and global contrast while at the same time having fewer blown pixels.  Put them on top of each other and flip back and forth and you'll see what I mean.

     

    PV2010:

    PV2010.jpg

    PV2012:

    PV2012.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 5:12 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee,

     

    Thank you, I definitely see what I consider to be an improvement in the contrast in PV2012.

     

    Rob,

     

    I have also been feeling like someone washed the windows.  PV2010 seemed so good, I could not imagine how it could be improved.  For me, PV2012 is a vast improvement, especially because I like clear, sharp images.  Again, it is hard to imagine that PV2012 can be improved, but I can't wait for PV2014!

     

    Michael Frye has an excellent tutorial that shows how he obtains amazing improvements in highlight contrast:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eqb7W0sus8&feature=player_embedded

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 6:21 PM   in reply to EricBier

    At the risk of sounding melodramatic, PV2012 often gives me goose bumps, shivers, and a stupid smile that explodes into a big grin, followed by a goofy laugh. (but I still have my challenges with it as well)

     

    Can't wait for PV2014

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 8:20 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I am asking this here because the discussion is on the missing fill slider.  I used this fairly often in LR 3 to add a fill flash in cases where there were shadows on the subject because of being forced to take photos where there was non optimum location due to sunlight.

     

    I did not have a flash unit with me to add fill flash so I have some poor results.  What can I do in LR 4 to replace the effects of the fill slider not present in LR 4?

     

    Henry 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 1:10 AM   in reply to grandpahenry

    +exposure +shadows.

    if that don't get it, +blacks

    also consider -contrast.

    adjust highlights/whites as desired.

    maybe finish with a touch of clarity.

    tone curve and/or locals to fine tune, if need be.

     

    Bonus exercise:

    - Increment exposure by .1, and do the rest all over again, and repeat: increment exposure by .1... (say 10 times)

    - Decrement exposure by .1, and do the rest all over again, and repeat: decrement exposure by .1... (another 10 times)

    Save as virtual copy in between each iteration, then compare all 21.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 7:02 AM   in reply to grandpahenry

    I would start by increasing the exposure to correct the exposure in the

    areas you want to brighten, and then fine tune by darkening the highlights

    and brightening the shadows.

     

    This is a private communication sent from my mobile device.  If you are not

    the intended recipient, please delete this message from both your email and

    your memory banks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 7:20 AM   in reply to gregkmeyer

    Actually the problem is shadows on the faces and arms of the subjects caused by a bad choice in location.  The subjects were pretty much facing the sun.  We did not have time to find a better location for these few shots.

     

     

     

    How can I deal with the shadows on the skin of the subject.

     

     

     

    Henry

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 9:24 AM   in reply to grandpahenry

    grandpahenry wrote:

     

    How can I deal with the shadows on the skin of the subject.

     

    If the shots are really important and worth taking time over I would do two RAW conversions for each, one with correct exposure and one lighter one with the shadows lifted and combine them in PS and then paint in the lighter areas.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 9:31 AM   in reply to dhphoto2012

    I just did the same thing on a series of photos for my daughter's family.  And I simply use the adjustment brush in Lightroom with increased exposure to brush over the faces that have heavy shadows.  In my opinion, it works very well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (2)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points