Problem: Bad Case Of Lens Flare

[blue dog]

This photo has me stumped. As you can see the bottom and bottom-right have a pretty severe lens flare. I've tried my usual technique of using the illuminousity mask and layers to put the density and contrast back, but I can't get an acceptable result. I think the problem here is that the overall photo is very contrasty while the lens flare area is very flat.

Anyone have a technique for this?

[MisterJP]

Here's my 5 minute attempt. I used a gradient in Quick Mask to make a selection that favored the bottom of the image. After adding some contrast in Levels, I went into each channel individually and used the Burn tool (midtones) to darken just the areas that stood out as flare. Not perfect, but an improvement?

[Swampy]

This might give you some direction.

I desaturated the entire photo then used a Selective Color adjustment on the neutrals and added black until I brought the affected flare areas into proximity of the other tonal ranges.

Then paint black/white on the Adjustment's mask with a soft low opacity brush to apply or remove the adjustment from selected areas.

I also did some smart sharpen on the tomb marker inscription to make it a little more readable then re cropped.

[blue dog]

It is better.. My technique was not going anywhere. Your method is not in my book of techniques so I think I'll practice it. Thanks.

[blue dog]

Originally Posted by Swampy

This might give you some direction.

I desaturated the entire photo then used a Selective Color adjustment on the neutrals and added black until I brought the affected flare areas into proximity of the other tonal ranges.

Then paint black/white on the Adjustment's mask with a soft low opacity brush to apply or remove the adjustment from selected areas.

If I understand correctly, you essentially did a 'selective' 'darken' on the mid-range tones?

[ferdberfel]

Originally Posted by MisterJP

Here's my 5 minute attempt. I used a gradient in Quick Mask to make a selection that favored the bottom of the image. After adding some contrast in Levels, I went into each channel individually and used the Burn tool (midtones) to darken just the areas that stood out as flare. Not perfect, but an improvement?

Exactly what I would have done! Nice job! Looks good, just needs some slight tweaking!

[Swampy]

Originally Posted by blue dog

If I understand correctly, you essentially did a 'selective' 'darken' on the mid-range tones?

Yes,,, Since the flare occures in what appears to be the mid-tones (neutrals) you can selectivly work on those through the pop up color selector in the Select Color adjustment. You get a range of Whites/Nutrals/Blacks. Choosing the neutrals allows you to just add more black to those tones. Then you can paint in/or out through the mask to fine tune it. :-)

I started painting with a large soft brush at 10% opacity.

Having a duplicate copy of the original file helps show you the areas that need to be tweaked on the mask.

One thing about your photo, the flare was not in critical areas (a face for example) so this is a relativly easy adjustment.

[blue dog]

Right. I had only developed one (1 1/2) technique to deal with flare and it wasn't working. It builds detail and contrast using layers of Illumination which is the high end. What I really failed to do was identify the problem as being mid-range.

Thanks a bunch.

I'll put this up for critique when I get it restored.

[Klaatu Baradda]

This isn't really a "lens flare" but rather a chemical fading or a light leak in the camera. The "splotchiness" of it is the most difficult aspect to deal with as well as the clipped shadows and highlights. Can't really do anything with information that is essentially missing (except "make it up!").

Some basic things we did to this was to take it into LAB, copy the L channel and paste it into a new layer and set the blending mode to Luminosity. Then Copied, Multiplied it and then duplicated the Multiply layer until the bottom half was sufficiently darkened. We could have just used Curves or Levels on this, but Multiply does a nicer job of increasing the color dynamics.

Next we merged these Multiply layers and masked the resulting layer so we could selectively paint away the areas that were too dark.

Did some sharpening on the L channel and placed a Gradient Map adjustment layer on top to equalize the color. A little dodging and burning to try and "make up" some of the missing details.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7...hotolab0qe.jpg

[blue dog]

You are right. The same defect appears all four of the grave-side pictures that I have. A light leak is a better explaination. There are also chemical blue streaks from improper washing. (I have to keep reminding myself that in 1920-1940 things were soo different. This person started taking pictures during the depression because he was unemployed for most of it.) Uncoated lenses is a big problem. Generally cheap equipment, at least in this case. AND he used water out of a pump with no treatment or filtration! Poor storage conditions - no A/C, no refrigerator, at least for the chemicals. Finally, he didn't get to enlarge his mistakes, he only made contact prints.)

I haven't used Lab but I have heard enough that I intend to investigate it. However, your method and results look alot like mine, that I was not happy with. (Its hard to really say without a larger work than I can open side by side with mine in PS.)

The method I used was to use the luminescence mask and build multiple layers until you get it right. I've successfully done this using multiply or soft light. I've also done an inversion and used screen mode. On this pic I couldn't get a good result. The Blacks were too dense in relationship to the normal range of the picture.

Earlier someone showed a better result. She got that by building the mid-range. I haven't got back to the pic yet, but I am at least temporarily convinced that is the real problem and that when I saw "lens flare" I jumped too quick and missed the real problem.

Do you agree that hers is a better result? I realize that is a matter of taste and I may feel different when I actually get in PS and start experiementing with some of these suggestions.

Thanks for the advice.

[blue dog]

You are right. The same defect appears all four of the grave-side pictures that I have. A light leak is a better explaination. There are also chemical blue streaks from improper washing. (I have to keep reminding myself that in 1920-1940 things were soo different. This person started taking pictures during the depression because he was unemployed for most of it.) Uncoated lenses is a big problem. Generally cheap equipment, at least in this case. AND he used water out of a pump with no treatment or filtration! Poor storage conditions - no A/C, no refrigerator, at least for the chemicals. Finally, he didn't get to enlarge his mistakes, he only made contact prints.)

I haven't used Lab but I have heard enough that I intend to investigate it. However, your method and results look alot like mine, that I was not happy with. (Its hard to really say without a larger work than I can open side by side with mine in PS.)

The method I used was to use the luminescence mask and build multiple layers until you get it right. I've successfully done this using multiply or soft light. I've also done an inversion and used screen mode. On this pic I couldn't get a good result. The Blacks were too dense in relationship to the normal range of the picture.

Earlier someone showed a better result. She got that by building the mid-range. I haven't got back to the pic yet, but I am at least temporarily convinced that is the real problem and that when I saw "lens flare" I jumped too quick and missed the real problem.

Do you agree that hers is a better result? I realize that is a matter of taste and I may feel different when I actually get in PS and start experimenting with some of these suggestions.

Thanks for the advice.

[Daviskw]

Hi there

Here is a very simple way;

Open a blank layer set to colorburn and filled with the neutral color...white. Then with a large brush set to 3 percent opacity, slowly build up contrast where needed.

Butch

[Swampy]

Butch!!! Thank You, Thank You!!

A great simple solution and so easy.

Here's a color photo you all can practice this technique on. This drove me nuts until Butch proffered this elequent solution!

[Kraellin]

i had a go at this also. unless this is a historical image for a museum or something, i'd crop off that bottom part. nothing there worth saving. the rest was selections and treatments of different parts of the image with the 32 band gray plugin, contrast/lightness, dav's burn/white treatment mentioned above, some lighten/darken tool and a bit of colorizing.

craig

[blue dog]

Butch, Swampy, Craig - Thanks for the technique. That's a new one for me. I've got a couple new techniques to try out as soon as I get back to that picture. (I've been distracted by this website)

Craig's suggestion about cropping brings up something interesting that I recently observed that has 'expanded' my taste in cropping. In my personal work I've been experimenting with 'over cropped' pictures, like cropping down to 3/4 of a person's head. (I like it). Anyway, I guess I've been waiting to try out this observation someone that might care!

I started restoring my grandfather's photos from the 20-30-40's. He was an just amateur but I soon discovered that he had an excellent eye. He used two cameras: 120 (and half frames) and a 116 which is 2 3/4 x 4 5/8 - really long, and he framed his pictures differently than I ever had or knew. See the attached example. He liked to place the center of mass of the subject above the geometric center of the frame, often leaving considerable space below the subject. Of course, this results in a slightly unbalanced picture, that creates a little stress and hence a little more interest. It works double on the picture of him and my mother; her being held so high above the ground.

Do you see what I mean? Is this fundamentally unsound thinking? Of 50 or so 116 negatives that I have restored, I have only reframed about 1/3 of these down to a standard modern size, and its going to prove expensive when I start mounting and framing some of them! Interesting parallel to the move to HD TV.

[Swampy]

Blue Dog...

There is rhyme and reason why your granddad off set his photos. Designers called it the "Golden Rule of Thirds". There are other names, but the principal remains the same. Put the main element of your design at a juncture of the crosses on a tic-tac-toe grid. Do a google on "rule of thirds". Interesting reading all over the place.

Below is an example of a photo framed by the rule.

[blue dog]

Intuitively I know that, but I didn't get any formal training in art or photography and I think that gives me a lack of confidence in my 'instincts'. It was such a surprise 'working' in a strange format. It reminds me of shooting 4x5. Composing a picture when the image is upside-down, backward, and green like a night-scope was so unsettling that it made me rethink the whole 'automatic' 35mm process that was burned into my brain. Ultimately it made me a better photographer.

Funny, he started photography during the recession. Not only was it a recession where he and everyone else were despirately trying to keep their jobs, but on top of that he broke is collar bone playing basketball and got let go. The family can't figure out where he got the money to do any of this because everyone was so dirt poor before the recession!

[byRo]

I went to get a cup of coffee and swampy beat me to the post...

Originally Posted by blue dog

..... but I soon discovered that he had an excellent eye. ....... He liked to place the center of mass of the subject above the geometric center of the frame, often leaving considerable space below the subject.

When talking about composition in art, one has to start with a disclaimer - there are no rights and wrongs.
That said, the composition of this photo is beautifully done.
I use a composition guide based on the Golden Mean (and its "multiples"), and it's uncanny how this hits all the sweet spots.

Originally Posted by blue dog

Of course, this results in a slightly unbalanced picture, that creates a little stress and hence a little more interest. It works double on the picture of him and my mother; her being held so high above the ground.

(see disclaimer) I see it exactly the other way round. If you put the mass at the centre of the image it is then that we get uncomfortable as our eyes wander between one side and the other. Putting the mass off-centre, we know there's a big side and a small side and don't have to think about that any more, so the result is more "restful".
The best ratio big / small turns out to be the "Golden Ratio", which photographers have distorted to the "rule of thirds".

Rô

[blue dog]

I did a lot of reading recently when I got hooked on the Da Vinci Code. In one of the related books, might have been "The Knights Templar" , there was a long analysis showing the role of the Golden Ratio or Golden Proportion or Divine Ratio in the architecture of the Masons of ancient Egypt, the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, a French renaissance artist (Poisson?), Boticelli, Fibonnaci, Seurat, on and on. Oh what a wonderful, fertile ground for conspiracy theorists! (I am sure I mis-spelled at least half of those!)

I just wish that I had been able to study this stuff when I was young.

[blue dog]

There are some subjects that I am an expert or nearly so, depending on your own point of view. You said you were an "Englishman in Brasil". Are you an ex-patriot or was that a humorous reference to Sting's song.

Anyway, one of my great loves and a subject that I know far to much about is Jobim. Surely, you haven't lived there since the 60's? Ah. I keep forgetting that there aren't that many people who even remember the 60's. Well, I have always wanted to go to Brasil and even thought of learning Portuguese. Unfortunately, language is not something that I am any good at.

PS. My Avatar is Franklin, my best friend. He's a Portuguese Water Dog. The best dog I could ever imagine.

[byRo]

Originally Posted by blue dog

...You said you were an "Englishman in Brasil". Are you an ex-patriot or was that a humorous reference to Sting's song.

Ex-patriot, been here since 1979 (known to be humorous at times).

Originally Posted by blue dog

Anyway, one of my great loves and a subject that I know far to much about is Jobim.

He is still an icon here. Just this week they opened a centre in the botanical gardens (his favourite hide-out) with his name, dedicated to the musical arts.

Originally Posted by blue dog

Well, I have always wanted to go to Brasil and even thought of learning Portuguese. Unfortunately, language is not something that I am any good at.

Great, just remember there's a lot more to Brazil than Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.
People around here don't like it when I say it but, (ordinary) Portuguese is pretty easy. Regular constructions and simple read-it-say-it phonetics.

See you soon!

Rô

[blue dog]

I forgot Elis Regina. The first time I heard her sing she brought tears to my eyes. Still does. God bless her.

[dkcoats]

Interesting:

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~markov/GoldenRatio.pdf

dc

[byRo]

Yes, quite interesting.

I wholly agree with a lot of what is said there. People do strive to find a simple rule that will explain "Life, the Universe and Everything"*. Sites like this one demonstrate how things can go way too far.
But just like the modern "myth busters", our friend here seems to also "go too far" in his eagerness to bust the myth instead of stopping to think why the "golden mean" (or whatever you may call it) gets quoted so much.

Maybe the Greeks didn't go around measuring everything using bits of string wrapped around 1,2, sqrt(5) triangles (practical way to measure in those times). Maybe they just piled up the columns until the boss said "Stop, that looks pretty now".
Now we come around centuries later and shine our lasers and come up with ratios of 1.618. Does it make any difference how it got there or what it was called? It looked good then, and looks good now.

One thing to ponder a while though. Are our preferences changing?
You are (very probably) looking at a 4:3 screen.
If you have a sheet of paper in front of you it will (quite probably) be A-4, with proportions sqrt(2).
Are you fixing a photo, maybe its 4 x 6, or 8 x 10?
You (well, I do) spend your day surrounded by things with proportions 1.25, 1.3333, 1.414 or 1.5. Sometimes I try cropping a picture to the "golden" 1.618 - it always ends up looking too long.

The "shortening" process is already an issue for the cinema. Well, at least, an issue for me and you who try to watch a wide-screen movie on a PC Monitor!

blue dog, Elis was great, (and her daughter is fast becoming very popular) but my favourite from those days is Vinícius de Moraes.

Have fun,

Rô
* the answer is still 42.

[Swampy]

Oh, Ro...

You tax my feable brain at this hour of the evening waxing so philosophical.

I do set my Photoshop defaults up to give me guides at 33 and 66 percent on horizontal and vertical regardless of the size document I create. They are there unless I choose to turn them off, but often when I can't decide how to position something, I find those guides handy.

[byRo]

Swampy, it's been some time that I've been thinking about composition "rules" - in fact, I've been planning a tutorial in the subject.

Seems that I came over as being against the thirds rule. Not quite.
As a quick simplification it does help, but if you have time and the tools to compose an image then a little theory (with the usual disclaimers) would come in useful.

Take a look at the two bars in the first attachment. The first is divided at a third and the lower at the golden ratio.
Says "theory" that the top one makes us more umcomfortable because the larger side looks like it needs some balancing - as in the second attachment.
The lower bar, in the Golden ration however looks more "balanced".

I stole your photo and did two versions - one by thirds, one by Golden ratio.
For the thirds I put in a little bird (well, a check mark really) at the opposite third - called the "counterpoint". As you can see, that one little black spot balances all the rest - and pulls a lot of attention to itself.
For the other version, no need for extra balancing - everything is at peace.

Well, that's the theory - hope this helps.

Rô

[ifixpix]

This link is to Cardas Audio, one of the most respected makers of cable, who bases his designs around the golden mean.

Audiophiles are even more nutty about their gear tha photographers, and spend thousands of $$$ on cable!

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...n+Stereo+Magic

[ifixpix]

This link is to Cardas Audio, one of the most respected makers of cable, who bases his designs around the golden mean.

Audiophiles are even more nutty about their gear tha photographers, and spend thousands of $$$ on cable!

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...n+Stereo+Magic

[Kraellin]

interesting discussion.

i'm not normally a 'numbers' guy. maybe i shld be, but i'm really not. i look at something and if it looks 'right' then ok. so, i guess this is a discussion on what is 'right'. most of us who've been here for any length of time have probably also heard the discussions on skin tone and color numbers and more recently the light source thread; all worthy discussions with some interesting ideas.

and since i've heard some of this discussion before, golden mean, rule of thirds and so on, i looked it up on google. there are some good explanations of all this out there for anyone that wants to know. it would seem Aristotle was the first to 'do the math' on all this.

but i'm mostly just fascinated with Ro's use of and reference to 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe' and the Myth Busters

also, what the heck is 'sqrt(5)' and 'sqrt(2)', square root of 5 and of 2? is that what that means?

craig

[blue dog]

Ro,

Very effective demonstration. I am going to start giving the Divine a try and see where it leads.

If you should write a tutorial be sure to address the vertical and the combinations too. Oh, this may be more than you care to tackle, in one of those analysis of a classic painting I saw arguments about the 'golden' size relationship between near and far objects.