Saving A "Bad" Picture - A Quick, Step by Step Journey

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
OK, so I was taking a picture this morning, a picture I'd done before and one that I'd planned and set up for - a chess board taken from above and lit from the sides. The one thing I didn't do, even though I thought in advance that I should, was once again take into account that I needed the camera squarely over the board. I'd though about propping up once side of the board so I could be at a partial angle, but only after I'd gotten all set up and laziness dictated I just go ahead and try it. I'm a fairly big guy, standing on a stepstool, and every time I leaned over I came pretty close to toppling head first into furniture. So I said, "screw it", just help the camera over top and fired away, figuring I was bound to get something, because I knew I was OK with the lighting and the rest could be done in post. Hey, we all have our vices.

Here's the final shot, from my 365-ish thread...

20140506-D62_5615-Edit.jpg


...and here's how it looked when it came into Lightroom...

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.10.14 PM.jpg



Pretty horrifying, no?!

So, right off the bat, I apply lens correction and use the "Auto" button in the perspective correction and that gets me straight. I then decide to crop down to 4:5 ratio and frame it the way I want it. That's the easy stuff. Now I need to fix these lighting hot spots (never light something at 6:30AM when you have to be on a call by 8).

Given that I've got 2 flashes on either side, raised slightly, I'm not surprised to see hot spots on the edges. So, I use the Gradient Adjustment tool and apply two gradients, one right to left (1st photo) and one left to right (2nd photo) with the adjustments you see. The idea here was mainly to even the light on each 1/2 of the board. (Note: the next three adjustments are all applied together in LR and so you cannot see the impact of each, but I will display each one separately)

(R-to-L gradient)
Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.10.50 PM.jpg


(L-to-R gradient)
Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.11.01 PM.jpg



...and you should note that the temperature of the light from the flashes changes as the light dims, so I needed to apply a white balance adjustment via the gradient tool.


But I was still left with darkish corners and a hot center. Radial Adjustment tool to the rescue. What I love about this tool is that it starts from the center of the circle and works out, so I could easily pin-point it at the center of the board. The strange thing about this tool, for me anyway, is that it thinks it wants to be a vignette tool, so it affects everything outside the circle, feathering inward. Thankfully there's an Invert Mask box that swaps that function and once clicked I was able to balance the light across the entire board fairly well - knowing that I still wanted to show that it was lit from 2 sides.

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.10.32 PM.jpg




OK, so now I'm done with my LR adjustments and it's off to Photoshop to finish. This was shot at ISO 100, so there was no need to do an NR step, so the first step, as always, was to duplicate the original image in a work layer and do a Levels adjustment. My LR adjustments left me a little dark, so I pulled in the highlight marker and then adjusted the center until it looked OK.

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.13.42 PM.jpg



I created a new layer from that (Cmd-J) I wasn't sure if my eyes were seeing things clearly, but the board didn't seem to look square to me, so I checked it with the crop tool and sure enough, the top was a little smaller than the bottom. So, I used Free Transform to pull out the left and right top corners a bit (< 0.5 degrees each) and it looked better. I knew a couple of the center white squares had a strange blue-ish tint to them, so I used the Quick Select tool to grab the offending squares and create a layer mask, and then applied hue and lightness adjustments using an adjustment layer until I was happy. I then merged the adjustment down and applied the mask. I also used the burn and dodge tools to even out some of the lighting on the edges and between the pieces.

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.13.45 PM.jpg



Alas, it still didn't look square, and when I checked, sure enough, the bottom left had kicked out a bit. So again I used Free Transform against a copy layer to square it. Once that was done, I used the square selection tool to select the board, inversed the selection and isolated just the dark areas, which I wanted to make sure were completely black before sending it to Color Efex. I applied a chain of adjustment layers that sucked all the "brightness" out and was ready to move on.

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.13.48 PM.jpg



I had done another chess shot a couple months before, and fortunately saved the recipe, which was a combination of the Detail Extractor (~40% on Fine), Low Key and Brilliance and Warmth filters. I applied the recipe, tried tweaking it here and there without liking it, so I went back to the plain recipe and got back out to Photoshop.

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.13.51 PM.jpg



It's now pretty close to done, but I see some dark areas in the black pieces that could use lightening, so I use the Dodge tool on Shadow to lighten up a few areas.

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.14.05 PM.jpg




And that's it. I wanted to use some Smart Fill to remove the letters, which I later did, but in checking the rules I found that removing them was potentially crossing a line of sorts. So, I let her be.

I'm not sure if any of this will help anyone in any way, but I just wanted to show that what comes out of your camera doesn't necessarily have to be spot on if you know that the details you need are there. I don't like doing this level of editing, but to be honest, outside of the initial Lightroom work to straighten and balance the light (my work with artificial light is currently approaching amateur level, at best), the rest was pretty straight forward and expected.
 
Last edited:

grandpaw

Senior Member
I would have placed a cloth on the floor for a background, placed the chessboard on it and just stood over it to shoot. The shadows bother me the most.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I would have placed a cloth on the floor for a background, placed the chessboard on it and just stood over it to shoot. The shadows bother me the most.

Shadows were absolutely intentional, and are actually a little less long than originally intended. Cloth on the floor would work if I was doing all lighting from above, but when lighting directly from the side that becomes problematic as I don't have enough flash holders to hold them properly that close to the floor. Sure I could pull out slippers and socks and stuff them until they held, but then adjusting height becomes problematic.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Yeah, this isn't meant to be a "How To" as much as it is a rough idea of what can be done fairly easily with the Adobe tools to bring something back from the brink. Everything I did in Photoshop could be done in Elements, save for the content aware fill at the end which I did not show (and which would normally have been done in the beginning). If I didn't like the textures in this board so much I could have stopped before sending off to Color Efex Pro as well.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
What intrigues me the most about this photo is how the shadows are contained to each side. For example, the flash on the right side ONLY illuminates the chess pieces on the right. Same for the left side. Since the pieces on the right aren't all that far from the pieces on the left, how did the light NOT spill over to the opposite side? I'm not knowledgeable about flash, but how can you limit the distance of the light when working in such close quarters as each side is to one another? :confused:

Your flash ability is growing by leaps and bound, Jake. It wasn't that long ago when you said you were learning more about it. You are a fast learner! ;)
 

DraganDL

Senior Member
Good, though I like the way it looked when it "came" into Lightroom, too (I mean, the whole photo, the Lightroom's GUI included);).
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
Nice work @BackdoorHippie and a great explanation of the technique. The other day I had a similar experience where I took a picture with a purpose in mind (A competition themed "Red") and because I decided to do a longish exposure to create blur I completely overexposed it. It was actually about 2.5 stops over exposed. I almost deleted it as I was sorting the pictures but curiosity made me have a play to see what I could get back. This is not in the same league as the chess board and was done with a combination of Lightroom and Nik filters in Photoshop. It is probably a testament to the sensor on the camera more than my technique.

It actually got a runners up position in the competition, although my wife came first so I didn't make a big deal about it :D

slo mo-2.jpg


slo mo-1.jpg
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
What intrigues me the most about this photo is how the shadows are contained to each side. For example, the flash on the right side ONLY illuminates the chess pieces on the right. Same for the left side. Since the pieces on the right aren't all that far from the pieces on the left, how did the light NOT spill over to the opposite side? I'm not knowledgeable about flash, but how can you limit the distance of the light when working in such close quarters as each side is to one another? :confused:

Your flash ability is growing by leaps and bound, Jake. It wasn't that long ago when you said you were learning more about it. You are a fast learner! ;)

Actually, if you look closely, there are shadows on the right edge. I'm using a pair of mismatched, third party flashes, and getting them close to matched is an exercise in frustration. I know no magic on how to make it happen other than to try it, move them, try it again. I ran them both in manual mode and then once I got the light balanced, adjusted the camera to capture it. Absolutely backwards, and nothing I'm proud of. It's an art I need to spend time practicing, and reading and watching more about.

As for the shadows, this was an exercise in trying to show symmetry, and the intention was to not just show balanced sides but also balanced and consistent light, and the shadows are necessary for that. I can understand why they might not be particularly pleasing to everyone. The earlier shot I'd referenced had longer shadows that connected across the center, and I started with that today, but decided to see if I could get something different raising the flashes up a bit. Here's the original I'm talking about...

20140313-D62_4362-Edit.jpg

I like this better as a photograph, but I didn't want to simply reproduce it, and given that I had other shots I wanted to do something different.

Nice work @BackdoorHippie and a great explanation of the technique. The other day I had a similar experience where I took a picture with a purpose in mind (A competition themed "Red") and because I decided to do a longish exposure to create blur I completely overexposed it. It was actually about 2.5 stops over exposed. I almost deleted it as I was sorting the pictures but curiosity made me have a play to see what I could get back. This is not in the same league as the chess board and was done with a combination of Lightroom and Nik filters in Photoshop. It is probably a testament to the sensor on the camera more than my technique.
@Geoffc, there is no "league" for this shot, either before or after. It's like the old line come true, "That's a great picture - you must have a great camera!!" Sometimes, as much as we hate to admit it, the photo is as much about the camera as it is the person behind it. It might not make you a better photographer, but it will give you more to work with, all other things being equal. I'm not a careful photographer, and I all to often grab and go without taking the time to check everything - a bad habit for sure. So first firings of the day can often be disastrous and lead to missed shots, and I hate that. Thankfully, I've learned to save some important stuff that was missed.

Congrats on the runner up spot. I'd tell you to go out and beat your wife next time, but... ;)
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
As for the shadows, this was an exercise in trying to show symmetry, and the intention was to not just show balanced sides but also balanced and consistent light, and the shadows are necessary for that. I can understand why they might not be particularly pleasing to everyone. The earlier shot I'd referenced had longer shadows that connected across the center, and I started with that today, but decided to see if I could get something different raising the flashes up a bit.

Sorry if you misread my comment about the shadows to mean I didn't care for them as that's NOT what I intended, Jake! I thought they looked perfect, but I couldn't figure out how you were able to accomplish the shadowed areas without the light spilling over to the far side of the board. Thanks for your explanation! :)
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Sorry if you misread my comment about the shadows to mean I didn't care for them as that's NOT what I intended, Jake! I thought they looked perfect, but I couldn't figure out how you were able to accomplish the shadowed areas without the light spilling over to the far side of the board. Thanks for your explanation! :)

No, I knew it wasn't you. I should have quoted Blacktop after he agreed with grandpaw. No worries. I just wanted to explain why they were desired.

The key is to eliminating the shadows on the far end is simply to make sure that the light coming from that side overpowers them. It's a balancing act between that and not blowing things out on the edges. I could have gone back more and boosted the power, but then I'm risking losing definition in the shadows - and I don't have much room in my "home studio" (i.e. guest bedroom). LOL
 
Last edited:

FastGlass

Senior Member
What intrigues me the most about this photo is how the shadows are contained to each side. For example, the flash on the right side ONLY illuminates the chess pieces on the right. Same for the left side. Since the pieces on the right aren't all that far from the pieces on the left, how did the light NOT spill over to the opposite side? I'm not knowledgeable about flash, but how can you limit the distance of the light when working in such close quarters as each side is to one another? :confused:

Your flash ability is growing by leaps and bound, Jake. It wasn't that long ago when you said you were learning more about it. You are a fast learner! ;)
Inverse square law.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
Congrats on the runner up spot. I'd tell you to go out and beat your wife next time, but... ;)

Thanks Jake, I just showed her your post which made her LOL. It may also be the fact that she has just beat me on a DPChallenge comp which was announced last night :mad: In reality she came eighth and I came eleventh out of 68 entries so we are both pleased with the result. The good thing with that site is that over 100 people voted so you get a good feel for what people actually think and the large number of votes wipes out the spoilers who give silly scores.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Thanks Jake, I just showed her your post which made her LOL. It may also be the fact that she has just beat me on a DPChallenge comp which was announced last night :mad: In reality she came eighth and I came eleventh out of 68 entries so we are both pleased with the result. The good thing with that site is that over 100 people voted so you get a good feel for what people actually think and the large number of votes wipes out the spoilers who give silly scores.

Don't tell her, but she beat you in my vote as well. :devilish:

I love and hate these challenges. I love that they make me think, and I hate the process of choosing one, and then realizing I should have taken the time to do something else, and then seeing that idea poorly executed by someone else (which is both a plus and a minus). I'd love to do more, but then, I'd love to be independently wealthy and not stuck in an office most of the day - though I am absolutely fortunate that this office is in my home (though there are plenty of things I no longer drive past, and new places I no longer get to visit).
 
Top