Shawn Wright Photo wrote:
Is there anything that I can do to remedy this?

It depends on the shot. Sometimes it is possible to edit shadow edges and make things look softer but if there are highly reflective objects (glasses etc) or strong skin shine it is quite possible the result to look faked. Without RAW example it is difficult to give "yes" or "no" answer.

Don Garrett wrote:
I ALWAYS convert the RAW file three times, one with the exposure slider all the way to the left, (underexposed), one with the exposure slider all the way to the right, (overexposed), and one with the exposure slider left alone - this one should be properly exposed to begin with. This way, you get as much information as possible from a single exposure. How to combine them is another story, and a long explanation, but you can take down highlights, and increase detail and "body" in the high-lit areas, up detail in the shadowed areas, and distribute the tones anyway you like. (I have never lost an important image because of lack of value range).
-Don

You can not get more information from the RAW file by developing it N times. If it is separate RAW files shot in the camera at different exposure - this is a completely different thing. But moving a fixed amount of bits up or down does not give you more information. In a 16 bit workflow it is pretty useless. You need good 1 exposure with proper WB and without histogram clipping. That's all that should be done at development stage if you are going to retouch the image further.

anchev wrote:
It depends on the shot. Sometimes it is possible to edit shadow edges and make things look softer but if there are highly reflective objects (glasses etc) or strong skin shine it is quite possible the result to look faked. Without RAW example it is difficult to give "yes" or "no" answer.

No glasses or shiny skin. I believe that her concern is with the harshness of the shadows that were caused by the speedlight, and after another look I agree with her.

Shawn Wright Photo wrote:

No glasses or shiny skin. I believe that her concern is with the shadows on her skin, which, after another look, really aren't especially flattering.

You can PM me the images if you don't want to share them publicly and I will tell you what can be done.

anchev wrote:
You can not get more information from the RAW file by developing it N times. If it is separate RAW files shot in the camera at different exposure - this is a completely different thing. But moving a fixed amount of bits up or down does not give you more information. In a 16 bit workflow it is pretty useless. You need good 1 exposure with proper WB and without histogram clipping. That's all that should be done at development stage if you are going to retouch the image further.

If there is ANY space on either side of the histogram, (which there usually is), you can increase, (or decrease, if you want), the range, and number of tones in that image, (or any image, for that matter). Clipping, in any image, usually, (but not always), relegates it to the trash can. But you have to understand the tonal range that is available after the RAW conversion(s), and the tools that manipulate it/them. You have to understand the histogram, how it relates to the image, and how to maximize it. (Not well known information).
-Don

Shawn Wright Photo wrote:
Sorry for taking so long to respond to everyone here. While I'd like some further assistance on this, it's going to have to be without the photos, as my friend requested that I not show them to anyone else, and I'm going to honor her request.

It's nice you are so considerate but ow exactly do you see retouching assistance without images? Every answer will be theoretical. 50 people will say "yes it is possible", another 50 will say "no, it is not possible", maybe someone will show something on a completely different and unrelated image, hence not helpful. It can easily become a lottery as we have seen in other threads.

anchev wrote:

It's nice you are so considerate but ow exactly do you see retouching assistance without images? Every answer will be theoretical. 50 people will say "yes it is possible", another 50 will say "no, it is not possible", maybe someone will show something on a completely different and unrelated image, hence not helpful. It can easily become a lottery as we have seen in other threads.

+1