Photo Retouching - - Getting rid of Lens Flares

imann08 · #1 07-10-2006, 09:49 PM

I wanted to see what people thought of this because I didn't get it out of a book like normal. I actually came up with it myself which never happens. I don't know if 1.) this is a common way to do this 2.) it will work with any cases other than this particular picture or 3.) it looks good enough to consider it a way to do it.

Basically, I blended channels to start, used the channel mixer, and then took a few swipes with the dodge tool. I'm really just interested in what you think about the lens flare in the bottom center of the image. I finished it quickly but don't like it. I overdid the sky and made other moves I'm not longer happy with.

Let me know what you think, if you'd add something, change something, or do something differently. Also let me know if everyone already does it this way, or if this is a method that you haven't tried before. Thanks guys and gals as always.

DannyRaphael · #2 07-11-2006, 12:07 AM

Maybe it's just my eyes, but I'm not seeing any lens flare anywhere. In any event your improvements over the original are significant.

Daviskw · #3 07-11-2006, 12:48 AM

Hi Isaac

I just played with the flare a little and like you I did not spend a lot of time on the sky. But rather than mix with the channel mixer I just made a feathered selection of the flare in the red channel... then opened the blue channel copied and pasted back to the red channel. That got rid of most of the flare and a small adjustment with a hue/sat layer will fix things up. You did a good job of getting rid of the flare but I believe you threw the colors off with the mixer. When you copy between channels you limit the color shifts

Butch

imann08 · #4 07-11-2006, 01:37 AM

Well, basically we did the same things, just a little differently. Instead of making a soft selection, I simply used the Blend If Command instead. I think they work comparably in this case but could be mistaken.

The Channel mixer was to throw things back into a better transition which it did. This could be an area where I used the wrong command/tool. That's why it took the Dodge tool as well in LAB to fix it further

As far as the method goes, is this similar to how you get rid of lens flare? If not, do you like this method and think it has a future? Thanks for the response.

imann08 · #5 07-11-2006, 02:40 AM

BTW Danny, the lens flare that I am talking about is redish yellow and within the tree closest to the camera on the right side. The flare is bottom center of the image as a whole. It's pretty evident to me so I'm surprised you can't seen it.

Daviskw · #6 07-11-2006, 09:29 AM

Hi Isaac

Using channels is always my first step. But as you know it is not always enough . I often clone sections and all manner of adjustments. Because of your dark foreground and subject, a patch may have worked just as well. Each flare is different of course.

Butch

imann08 · #7 07-11-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daviskw

Hi Isaac

Using channels is always my first step. But as you know it is not always enough . I often clone sections and all manner of adjustments. Because of your dark foreground and subject, a patch may have worked just as well. Each flare is different of course.

Butch

I was just messing with this image as practice for myself so there was no subject of sorts. I was just trying to find a good way to get rid of lens flare. I have seen Katrin Eismann's explanation but it seems to ask you to make 10 selections and a bunch of other stuff that I though could be avoided. That's why I was trying this out in particular. I am unfairly biased to a lot of Margulis' methods and so I try to see if I can avoid things like the clone or healing brush tools first. I also try to avoid selection tools as well if at all possible. Of course, there are tons of cases where it isn't possible but I try the other options first.That's whay I was trying to accomplish here.

There are things in both yours and mine that I could point out but neither of us tried that hard on the entire image and didn't do any fine-tuning so they are worthless to point out.

Flora · #8 07-11-2006, 01:45 PM

Hi,

imann08,

Quote:

Basically, I blended channels to start, used the channel mixer, and then took a few swipes with the dodge tool. I'm really just interested in what you think about the lens flare in the bottom center of the image.
I don't know if 1.) this is a common way to do this

... Channels 'tweaking' one way or another, is quite a common procedure for correcting colour leaks, lens flare and other kind of problems ... Like Butch, for this kind of problems, I always check the individual channels first ...

Quote:

2.) it will work with any cases other than this particular picture

.. I don't see why not ... as I mentioned before, light or colour leakage can be corrected very well by working on the channels...

Quote:

or 3.) it looks good enough to consider it a way to do it.

..Yes..I think it did quite a good job on the lens flare!!

I also used the channels to remove the flare, but with Apply Image...

I then used the Levels to balance the highlights,

and followed Swampy's excellent Tutorial on fixing a blown out sky ...

imann08 · #9 07-11-2006, 05:39 PM

Hey Flora,

I used apply image as well. That's the first thing I went to. I just used channel mixer in addition to that. Instead of sticking in a sky as you did, I colored the blown out sky in LAB. The one thing I found is that my greens in the lens flare area got too green and that's why I dodged it in LAB at the end. The only thing with yours is that I think your background area behind the tree with the flare is a bit dark but that could just be a subjective thing. Thanks as always for your reply, I love to hear your opinion.

Flora · #10 07-15-2006, 03:24 AM

Hi Isaac,

thank you so much for your kind feedback!

Quote:

Originally Posted by imann08

...The only thing with yours is that I think your background area behind the tree with the flare is a bit dark but that could just be a subjective thing.

... Guilty as charged!!!

... After 'searching for details', balancing tone and exposure is my other 'obsession' and sometimes I overdo it ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by imann08

Instead of sticking in a sky as you did, I colored the blown out sky in LAB.

... Actually, I didn't stick in a new sky ... I also only coloured the original in RGB ... The clouds, (which I guess made you think I'd replaced the sky) were painted in following this step of the Tutorial I mentioned in my previous post ...

imann08 · #11 07-15-2006, 05:09 PM

Hey Flora,

That's a great tut by Swampy and some serious skies by you. If I confused them for a picture of the real thing then they are great. I'm impressed.

As far as overdoing things as you said, I am sooooo guilty of that in almost every area. That may be one of my biggest problems when it comes to this. I should just take my final, flatten every thing but the background, and cut the opacity in half. Either that or get better at it.

creeduk · #12 07-17-2006, 12:09 PM

I usually find a hue and saturation adjustment works well on these. I looked and is you select red and drag the hue slider to make it more green, then destaurate, also a small tweak to reduce the lightness setting and you get a nice result in getting rid of the flare, then as most of the others levels and burn to remove the rings of light created by the flare.

Nothing done to the sky in this one.