With side lit images I always aspire to get the highlights as bright as possible, but in most cases I then find myself in conflict with darktable’s OE warning. Over the years I have tried to satisfy these warnings through various methods…
I have tried increasing filmic’s white relative exposure, and used lower contrast settings
I have used additional incidences of exposure with a ‘highlights only’ parametric mask
I used tone equaliser to rein in the extreme highlights
I have dialled down the highlights with color balance’s basic and 4-way highlight tools
All of these methods will satisfy the OE warning to some degree, but to my mind they nearly always diminish the look that I want to achieve.
I recently discovered when using sigmoid RGB, that dialling down the target white control to circa 95% allows me to produce the look that I am after, whilst keeping the OE warning at bay. I accept this is fudge, but it nevertheless works better than the systems described above.
If I do darktable → darkroom → ‘toggle indication of raw overexposure’ I get raw clipping warnings in highlights of portrait. Also without any indication there are signs of burned image in same areas. High key areas are part of aesthetical choices though, but I try not to clip color channels, as a first step to handle exposure (and related warnings).
Besides that I also use filmic and exposure to control highlight warnings.
Filmic has been my default tone mapper since its conception, I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours trying to make it do what I want, and yet I had no absolutely idea that its target white slider even existed.
I suspect this dates back to somehow being led to understand in the early days that I would never need to go near the display tab.
I have always struggled to trust my eyes, and have overly adhered to the rules.
Looking back, I recently began to realise that vast numbers of my historic images have been compromised through trying to make them adhere to that damned OE warning.
Yes, you are correct, there is raw clipping on that file.
TBF, that is very rarely an issue for me, so it never occurred to me to check. and it does not really affect the point that I was trying to make.
I chose that image because it is an extreme example (and the monochrome version is a gem). You will however see that if you crank down the exposure to kill the warning, or crank up filmic’s WRE, it completely loses its impact.
Edit: I should add that my final version also utilises tone equaliser to pull down the extreme highlights.
And with inpaint opposed we get artefacts (which disappear later, as highlights are desaturated, but they are there - disabled filmic, dropped exposure to properly display the skin):
Segmentation based, on the other hand, handles those with ease. Enable the candidating mask (in most of the blown area, only green is clipped, but there’s also a bit of blue, so the mask will also have those colours), and raise the level until burnt areas get candidates – that happens at around 65% for most of the face:
Thank you for that fascinating and informative insight to dealing with raw overexposure.
I stopped using my flash meter after discovering that minimal blinkies (a.k.a over exposure warnings) on highlighted skin typically equates to perfect ETR exposure, so I have never delved into highlight reconstruction.
My example picture uses a rectangular softbox, which I never usually do, so, coupled with my unkempt granddaughter, I’m guessing that I was experimenting off piste when I took that particular photo.
I am still repeatedly kicking myself as I reflect upon how many hours I have lost through adhering to the OE warning and not discovering filmic’s target white slider
I tried to process with Sigmoid and Filmic and I am getting quite different outputs. I personally prefer Sigmoid for this image. Also, just using selective exposure masking seems to nicely take care of the overexposure. Would it be better to first tweak with the Highlight Reconstruction module?
My preference is for your Filmic version, primarily because I feel that the colours look more natural.
I so regret choosing that particular image to support of my query. I have my studio light permanently setup in a spare room and I look after 4 young grandchildren most days. This leads to lots of photographs being taken, and that shot is probably the only overexposed raw file that I have taken in the last 12 months.
But yes, I agree that selective exposure masking can be worth doing. Reining in highlights can however be a mixed blessing, because it also flattens the 3D impact. Moreover, in my case it was nearly always driven by a desire to appease the OE warning.