Discussion on blown highlights

[Higgmeister]

I'm bringing this up because there seem to be lots of opinions on this subject. I figure techniques is the right location, but feel free to move it to wherever it needs to be.

First, I'm no expert here so this is for the discussion as to why and why not of blown highlights. Also, if you can explain as the why and why not would be helpful to others.

I used to avoid the dreaded 255,255,255 like the plague. Looking at a histogram, I would adjust the levels so there were no spikes at the end. Sounds good, but after doing a little reading, I had an epiphany.

My definition of blown highlights are areas where the detail has been completely washed out. It doesn't even have to be 255 for RGB, but a lack of detail up towards the light side. Well, what about specular highlights. Do these ever have detail...no they shouldn't. These areas should be white or nearly white because there isn't any detail to be seen in them.

Highkey shots and high contrast shots are good examples where there is going to be lots of white or nearly white areas. Are these considered blown highlights...no.

How about a portrait where the light reflecting off the hair washes out some of the details. Here, it could be considered blow highlights because there usually should be detail throughout the hair (generalization for example). I've shot seagulls where the detail is lost in the feathers and it didn't look nearly as good as the shots where I could make out the detail.

Do blown highlights ruin a shot...that depends. Highlights and shadows are all part of the composition so do the blown highlights detract greatly from the shot? This is going to be subjecting depending on the individual.

My conclusion is that blown highlights are part of the composition and should be analyzed as such. Do they add or detract to a shot; do they help tell the story of what you captured? Do they take your attention away from your subject?

All comments and suggestions are welcome here. Let's get a good discussion going and all learn something in the process:D.

Thanks for your participation,
Chris

[pathfinder]

:agree

I frequently comment on blown highlights if they should be filled with image data. I am also concerned about pixels that should be black, but are 125, 120, 130 or so - this is grey. Or white and 210, 212, 195 - this is light grey not white.

But you are absolutely correct that specular highlights, by definition, do not contain image detail - just reflected light. Think of the reflection off of a chrome bumber or a lake surface. So the question becomes whether or not it fits the image and the composition.

Indeed, when color correcting by the numbers, as taught by Dan Margulis, you are instructed NOT to use a specular reflection for the white point, but another pixel that should be white. :thumb

[tmlphoto]

If you look around in fashon magazines, magazine ads etc. there are plenty of blown highlights. I think there is plenty of room to use blown areas on purpose for "artistic" purposes. Sometime I think we can let the technical parameters limit our artistic vision. I guess it comes down to knowing what they are and doing it on purpose vs. accidentally blowing the highlights (which is easy to do).

Here are a few of my favorite blown highlight shots: Lots of 255's.
http://tmlphoto.smugmug.com/photos/22375549-M.jpg

http://tmlphoto.smugmug.com/photos/5907514-M.jpg

http://tmlphoto.smugmug.com/photos/10196840-M.jpg

[XO-Studios]

I guess it comes down to knowing what they are and doing it on purpose vs. accidentally blowing the highlights (which is easy to do).
:agree


In addition to that, sometimes, catch lights are so 'hot' that they cause what I call CCD blooming; i.e. the pixels get so 'excited' that they spill their energy into neighboring pixels, which causes catchlights to have a fuzzy edge rather than a relative 'crisp' edge.

XO,

[rutt]

Shadows and highlights are a fundemental part of the photographer's tool kit. Deciding which details to emphasize, which to deemphasize, and which to blow (or whatever the shadow equivalent is called) are choices we all make with every image we shoot and present. Even if we spend no time doing this, that in itself is a decision.

It's when the photographer doesn't see the impact these decisions have on his/her work or when we strongly disagree or agree with these decisions that they deserve comment. There are just as many shots posted here that are not as good as they could be because they are missing true deep shadows or bright highlights as shots that can be enriched with better details in the shadows and highlights.

It wouldn't be as fun or as challenging if there were a simple recipe that every could use for every image.

[wxwax]

Good thread.

[sjcphoto]

I don't care to retain detail in some areas of a pic, somtimes. Depends on the type of shot. I often CHOOSE to blow out highlights, to eliminate detail, specifically.

I, too, used to think that blown highlights were a no-no, but these days eschew technique (well, not totally) for 'emotion' and can judge pretty-well whether the pic is over-exposed or not on first viewing, not having to look at the histogram.

http://sjcphoto.smugmug.com/photos/20036485-M.jpg