newbie: dealing with flash facial overexposure

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I wonder if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...

there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge of faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row.... or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the image I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

"Andrew" wrote in message

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I wonder if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...
there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge of faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row.... or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the

image

I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

I'm afraid there's not much you can do about the overexposion, but maybe the nice new feature in CS: Image>Adjustments>Shadow/Highlight can give you some better results for the total lightning. Make sure to check the 'Show more options'

Good luck

"Andrew" wrote in message

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I wonder if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...
there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge of faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row....
or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the image I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

Post it somewhere so we can see it and experiment with it. --
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke http://www.bobhatch.com

Andrew wrote:

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I wonder if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...
there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge of faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row....
or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the image I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

I generally don't like masks, but this time you need one.

Create an Hue/Sat adjustment layer. Ignore the rest of the image.and play with the sliders until the faces look better. You'll have to drop the Lightness slider a bit to get some traction for the hue.

Then use the Layer menu to create a "Hide All" layer mask, click on the mask, and paint the faces with a white brush to bring the color back to just the faces. If you stray outside the lines, click the x key to erase. --

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Sometimes, by using the Multiply Mode in Layers, you can improve overexposed pictures.
1. Select the part you want to improve.
2. Duplicate layer.
3. In this layer: Inverse Selection.
4. Clear selection (Delete)
5. Set Mode to Multiply
6. Adjust effect with slider.
7. Flatten Image
8. Remove selection

vdRee
"Andrew" wrote in message

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I wonder if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...
there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge of faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row.... or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the

image

I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

"V1nc3nt" wrote in message

"Andrew" wrote in message

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I

wonder

if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...
there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge

of

faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row.... or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the

image

I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

I'm afraid there's not much you can do about the overexposion, but maybe

the

nice new feature in CS: Image>Adjustments>Shadow/Highlight can give you

some

better results for the total lightning. Make sure to check the 'Show more options'

Good luck

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

and this wise-assed comment from a person who wrote the following: QUOTE
"This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are..."
END QUOTE.

Guess you decided to 'join the crowd', eh?

Indeed.

"Mark" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

and this wise-assed comment from a person who wrote the following: QUOTE
"This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are..."
END QUOTE.

Guess you decided to 'join the crowd', eh?

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

I also said, quote:

"HUMOUR IS GOOD - not answering is fine... but what possible satisfaction

do

these idiots get for saying; "read the manual" (and variations), or; "look it up in Google" (Duh!)".

My post was a gentle attempt at HUMOUR, no offence meant - if V1nc3nt was genuinely offended (and I don't believe for one moment that he was) I will apologise to him...

Well, if it would have been anybody but George W, I wouln't have been offended. You really hurt me with that low road.
So, please stay away from your humour attempts in the future. :)

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

I suspect (!) you are teasing and I really don't
believe you were offended!!!)...

I think I'll leave you hanging right there :)

I also said, quote:

"HUMOUR IS GOOD - not answering is fine... but what possible satisfaction do these idiots get for saying; "read the manual" (and variations), or; "look it up in Google" (Duh!)".

My post was a gentle attempt at HUMOUR, no offence meant - if V1nc3nt was genuinely offended (and I don't believe for one moment that he was) I will apologise to him...

OK?

(As usual, capitals for emphasis only - I don't shout)

K

"Mark" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

and this wise-assed comment from a person who wrote the following: QUOTE
"This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are..."
END QUOTE.

Guess you decided to 'join the crowd', eh?

:)

"V1nc3nt" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

I suspect (!) you are teasing and I really don't
believe you were offended!!!)...

I think I'll leave you hanging right there :)

Okay - as promised (but I suspect (!) you are teasing and I really don't believe you were offended!!!)...

SORRY!!! V1nc3

:o(

(Capitals used for... etc)

K

"V1nc3nt" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

I also said, quote:

"HUMOUR IS GOOD - not answering is fine... but what possible

satisfaction

do

these idiots get for saying; "read the manual" (and variations), or;

"look

it up in Google" (Duh!)".

My post was a gentle attempt at HUMOUR, no offence meant - if V1nc3nt

was

genuinely offended (and I don't believe for one moment that he was) I

will

apologise to him...

Well, if it would have been anybody but George W, I wouln't have been offended. You really hurt me with that low road.
So, please stay away from your humour attempts in the future. :)

Moderation is good for everyone but YOU, right?

hahahahaha.

in article 0qcIc.146$, Kilgore Trout at
wrote on 07/11/2004 7:47 AM:

I also said, quote:

"HUMOUR IS GOOD - not answering is fine... but what possible satisfaction do these idiots get for saying; "read the manual" (and variations), or; "look it up in Google" (Duh!)".

My post was a gentle attempt at HUMOUR, no offence meant - if V1nc3nt was genuinely offended (and I don't believe for one moment that he was) I will apologise to him...

OK?

(As usual, capitals for emphasis only - I don't shout)

K

"Mark" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

and this wise-assed comment from a person who wrote the following: QUOTE
"This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are..."
END QUOTE.

Guess you decided to 'join the crowd', eh?

why do you keep talking bollocks?

hahahahahahahahahahah

dribble...

hahahahahahah

K

"Canopus" wrote in message

Moderation is good for everyone but YOU, right?

hahahahaha.

in article 0qcIc.146$, Kilgore Trout at
wrote on 07/11/2004 7:47 AM:

I also said, quote:

"HUMOUR IS GOOD - not answering is fine... but what possible

satisfaction do

these idiots get for saying; "read the manual" (and variations), or;

"look

it up in Google" (Duh!)".

My post was a gentle attempt at HUMOUR, no offence meant - if V1nc3nt

was

genuinely offended (and I don't believe for one moment that he was) I

will

apologise to him...

OK?

(As usual, capitals for emphasis only - I don't shout)

K

"Mark" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in message

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

and this wise-assed comment from a person who wrote the following: QUOTE
"This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi

literate

cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass)

replies

to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are..."
END QUOTE.

Guess you decided to 'join the crowd', eh?

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 23:28:01 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew" wrote:

Hi ... I'm new to digital photopgraphy and photoshop (v8)... Disappointingly - I took an indoor photo of our local swimming team, and with the auto flash, the face of those @ the front have been well overexposed
(white wash out) compared with those on the back row...
now I know its impossible to put back whats not captured ... but I wonder if there are any techniques to make the best of a bad job...
there is still a little detail (around nose & eyes) and shadow at edge of faces...
I wondered if there was some way to colorise the face rather than just have them white ... using the color from the faces on the back row.... or any useful plugin (camera doesn't support raw ... I've only got the image I've got)?

Any constructive advice gratefully received
thanks andrew

K, first things first, worry about the back row. Get it like you like it, totally disregard the washed out front row. Got it done? Cool.

Now the easiest way (several ways to do this, but this is really flexible, non-destructive, and pretty easy) way is to make a new layer, but not a normal new layer. Alt+Click the new layer button, and instead of normal, set mode to overlay, and check the box for 'fill with neutral color'. Now you've got this seperate layer that does not show up due to the way overlay (or softlight, etc..) see's gray tones. Select the paintbrush, set your color to black, and drop your opacity and flow way down (25% or so, whatever you like), and now you have a really cool way to burn back in that detail. Just use the paint brush tool to burn back in the detail. If you get something you dont like, switch to white color and brush back in. Works great for washed out areas like that of which you speak. Hope this helps.

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in news:dg%Hc.612
$:

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are...

in article fogIc.932$, Kilgore Trout at
wrote on 07/11/2004 12:18 PM:

dribble...

Do you need a cup for that?

in article , Eric Gill at
wrote on 07/11/2004 4:59 PM:

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in news:dg%Hc.612
$:

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are...

Blah Blah Blah

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in
news:WvAIc.267$:

Sigh - it was light hearted - V1nc3nt wasn't offended - I apologised anyway...

And yet you like to rail at other people for the same thing. Tsk.

Please pay attention!

It's a bitch when you can't live by your own rules, isn't it?

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in
news:dg%Hc.612 $:

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are...

Sigh - it was light hearted - V1nc3nt wasn't offended - I apologised anyway...

Please pay attention!

K

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in news:dg%Hc.612
$:

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are...

I NEVER 'rail' at people for making gentle jokes at typos - check out the 'Crap squares' thread! Then re-read my previous post! Oh don't bother, you still won't understand it...

K

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in
news:WvAIc.267$:

Sigh - it was light hearted - V1nc3nt wasn't offended - I apologised anyway...

And yet you like to rail at other people for the same thing. Tsk.

Please pay attention!

It's a bitch when you can't live by your own rules, isn't it?

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Kilgore Trout" wrote in
news:dg%Hc.612 $:

overexposion?

you related to george bush?

K

This newsgroup has really gone downhill - it's half full of semi literate cretins who get their kicks out of smart ass (or is that dumb ass) replies to requests for help - superiority complexes abound...

I could name names - but you know who you are...

in article aNAIc.279$, Kilgore Trout at
wrote on 07/12/2004 11:30 AM:

you
still won't understand

You poor thing. You are still looking to be understood.

hahahaha.