I am interested in any help/advice that one might give for highlight recovery using Lightroom. I am familiar with a highlight recovery game useing CR and PS2 wherein one uses two copies of the same file. These two copies being processed in CR with different exposures then superimposed in PS2. I don't really see how to employ a similar technique using Lightroom.

Can anyone give me any advice in this regard. Thanks for your time.

You can still make multiple copies (TIFF) and blend in Photoshop.

Of course you can blend a hightlights and a darklights copies in photoshop but I think that LR has the tools for not to doing this and save time (sometimes blending is always the unique option).
Adjust your histogram to its limits and then play with the brightness, contrast sliders and the tonal curve.
Really I think this is a better option than the recovery slider wich I don't like.

I am assuming you have already considered the Recovery slider?

The method I use for initial adjustments is to adjust Exposure, then Recovery and Blacks, keeping an eye on the Histogram along the way. My understanding is that if there is anything to recover, LR will do it with the Recovery slider.

Mule

Why not?

Jeremy

Well, LR will attempt to do it.

But improper use of that slider will result in severe damage not only to the extreme highlights, but also regular highlights, so even if there's something to recover, it might not be worth doing.

To add to the above, personally I don't find the recovery in LR as good as the shadow/highlight in PS. One tip for the future is to shoot 1/3 - 2/3 stop under exposed in camera this helps preserve the highlights a bit

expose to the right...
expose to the left...

I hear a country and western song emerging

Isn't that supposed to be sung in the key of iView Media Pro^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HExpression Media?

hey I want a cut of the royalties mate! Wayne

If you want to preserve your highlights, you only need to expose for your highlights.

That is not called underexposing, even if the camera's light meter might think it is.

If you set your cameras meter to - 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop then you are underexposing the whole photography by that amount, you may in theory be exposing correctly for the highlights, but not for the rest of the image, that is under exposed, but not enough to be a problem usually. Wayne

Are you serious, or are you pulling my leg?

Obviously the solution is to use a Fuji S5 Pro which dedicates half its pixels to extended dynamic range.

Which bit don't you understand Jani? if you set the exposure compensation on the meter - 1/3 your UNDER EXPOSING the image Wayne

What does "under exposing" the image really mean? Yes, you are reducing the overall exposure. But given the dynamic range could well be larger than that of the sensor, you have to make choices. Calling it "under exposing" because you elect to not blow out your highlights is not accurate.

When dynamic range exceeds what the camera can handle, there are a number of options:

1) Use an ND grad filter (wow, this worked before digital!)
2) Manually throw some fill light on the foreground (works in a few cases)
3) Double expose and merge in photoshop
4) Expose for highlights and run through ACR or LR a couple times and merge in Photoshop
5) Multiple exposure and do HDR in Photoshop (or, better, Photomatix)
6) Expose for highlights and use "Fill Light" in LR or Shadows/Highlights in Aperture or Photoshop
... and probably others... we're not going to go into darkroom techniques like dodge/burn/building density in paper

But your comment about "under exposing the image" doesn't really make sense. What is "the image?" If you care most about the foreground, maybe a blown sky doesn't matter and you can expose properly for the foreground. If you care about the whole picture, you MUST retain enough detail in the sky... so use one of the above techniques. It's rare that you can take a landscape shot with *none* of these techniques and have every single piece of the frame exposed "exactly right." I mean, otherwise, Ansel Adams would have just made straight prints his entire life

The original question was about recovering the highlightd, my comments about under exposing the whole image (any image) tends to help avoid "blowing out) the highlights.

Yes you can use fill flash if the subject is close enough or the flash powerfull enough, yes you could use a grad filter (try getting one shaped like a brides dress) Yes you could make multiple versions (if you shot on RAW not everybody does) Multple exposures not always practable in the real world espesically if theres moving objects in the image.

I shoot lot of weddings (around 4 a week this time of year) what I find which works in the real world on bright days is - 2/3 of a stop exposure compensation this leaves me with .jpeg (the company I work for only use them!) that are easily edited in L/R and print nicely.

I am setting the exposure UNDER what the meter says is correct (and I'm not getting into that aspect of it) if you don't like me calling it under exposure, TOUGH thats what it is!

Wayne

Incidently Adams developed each sheet to a different gamma to ajust his images

Well, Ansel would never have called it "under exposure" if you "place" a light value on a chosen zone and let other values "fall" on the zones that necessarily follow. "Place" and "fall" are his terms. He often made the point that it was misleading to call varying exposure to achieve a desired effect either under- or over-exposure.

What you're doing is called "exposure compensation", and you're doing it with a negative EV. Perhaps you've accidentally confused the terms and what Ansel Adams really said (q.v. Eric's post)?

And if you don't think you've confused the terms, what would you call it if you didn't rely on the camera's automatic modes, but instead used the manual controls?

The meter doesn't tell you anything about "correct" exposure. It compares what you're metering to 18% grey. If you spot meter, you're metering what you point it at. If you matrix meter, it does some fancy-schmancy stuff with averaging (and the camera vendors say "scene recognition," but I don't really care) to come up with a relation to 18% grey.

But the meter cannot reliably give you correct exposure. If you're shooting something that is predominately snow, and you expose it at +0 per the meter... you get grey snow. If you shoot a very dark scene, and expose it at +0 per the meter... you get something that is over-exposed, per your eye.

So this all depends explicitly on HOW you are metering, as well as WHAT you are metering. As Joni noted this is called "Exposure compensation" and not "under exposing." Under exposing connotes that you are getting something wrong, where as "dialing in exposure compensation" involves adjusting the exposure given the reality of the scene and given what YOU as a photographer are trying to do with the photo.