can this photo be 'fixed'

[RootSkier]

Overexposed, blown highlights, and me a photo JONG. Is there any help for it?

[AsheanMT]

You should show it. (this thread is worthless without pics)

[PhyllisV]

let us see the pic, first...

Coffee Machines
Coffee Machine

[RootSkier]

there you go, there was a major glitch in the matrix

[grapedrink]

if you shot raw? maybe. jpg? no.

[RootSkier]

That's a scan from a print and the negative is probably gone forever.

[smalls]

nope. blowing out the highlights destroyed any detail in the water. if you had underexposed, then there could be some saving.

nice shot though.

[RootSkier]

oh well. Thanks for looking.

[dipstik]

Root, thats not a bad photo.

Assuming the quality of the print is better than what the scanned-in-and-compressed-for-web image looks like, its not a bad shot considering the circumstances. If you had brought down the exposure a stop or two, the water would have more detail, but the background and kayaker would end up being underexposed and difficult to see. The whole photo would look muddy.

In these sorts of situations (one bright subject and one dark - think skiing), you have to compromise and expose for one or the other. You can't expose the photo and have the water, kayaker, and woods all look perfectly exposed. In this case, the other elements of the photo are strong (good composition, excellent timing, interesting subject matter) and make up for the blown out details of the water.

[Tippster]

nope. blowing out the highlights destroyed any detail in the water. if you had underexposed, then there could be some saving.

nice shot though.

That would be true for a digital image, but since it was shot on film that's not the case as slightly overexposing is better than underexposing in that medium. However, since the negative is gone there's not much to do. If he had the negative he could burn in the detail in the blown out parts, but that would take a darkroom and time... or a really good (read: expensive) Post Processing house.

[Hugh Conway]

That would be true for a digital image, but since it was shot on film that's not the case as slightly overexposing is better than underexposing in that medium. However, since the negative is gone there's not much to do. If he had the negative he could burn in the detail in the blown out parts, but that would take a darkroom and time... or a really good (read: expensive) Post Processing house.

If it was a negative/positive (slide) he could also work on getting a better scan.

[RootSkier]

Yeah, the scan sure isn't the best, but neither is the print.

That was shot on a point and shoot, too.

[bklyn]

How about enjoying it for what it is - a well timed shot. It's really nice even though it's not technically perfect.

[Benny Profane]

I pulled it into photoshop and tried a few tricks - nope, blown out.