Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: jools230575 on June 17, 2011, 06:05:38 am
-
Afternoon all
A couple of years ago, I found the technique on Luminous Landscape for exposure blending in Photoshop using layers and gaussian blur.
Just lately, I've been getting into cathedrals and trying to capture them without that overprocessed HDR look.
Here is Nevers cathedral in Burgundy. It is two images blended together. The majority of it is one image and one exposure. The windows are from another exposure.
So, as I say in the title. Thanks to the LL site for publishing the technique. It beats HDR hands down ;D
Jools
-
Well, it's a very nice piece of exposure blending - but why didn't you sort out the perspective?
John
-
Well, it's a very nice piece of exposure blending - but why didn't you sort out the perspective?
John
I've got the very same question. Except for this issue, the image is really pleasing and the blending is very well managed to give a natural look.
-
A couple of years ago, I found the technique on Luminous Landscape for exposure blending in Photoshop using layers and gaussian blur.
Jools
Could you please provide the link to that article?
-
It's an impressive image, but it still has that HDR look to me. In what way do you find this technique superior?
-
Could you please provide the link to that article?
It could be this one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml
-
Thanks - looks like it may well be the one.
-
I used a similar technique on this 360 pano at the Cathedral of St John the Divine in NY, except that I manually blended the windows in. I find that manual painting of the mask is always superior to an 'automatic' hdr blend or to a generated mask using fabricated layer masks.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/5760258794/in/set-72157626791790898
-
Why didn't I sort out the verticals? I kinda like it how it is. Sometimes I do correct them but sometimes I prefer when left alone.
The article provided by François is the exact one that I used. Why do I prefer this method? Because it is more natural than that Mickey Mouse look that HDR software gives you. The one difference between the original article and the method I used was to paint onto the layer mask to reveal the original image behind. Otherwise, I find it a useful technique when graduated filters are not of use.
And just so you can see what I started with, here is the main part of the image. I don't think that the final looks too HDR at all. What may be providing that thought is the amount of colour in it. That's provided by the windows.
-
The article provided by François is the exact one that I used. Why do I prefer this method? Because it is more natural than that Mickey Mouse look that HDR software gives you.
Well, as one who doesn't use HDR software either, I will admit it's me and not the "Mickey Mouse" software most of the time - I'm the Mickey Mouse in the scenario. I've seen many terrific applications of HDR software that are fantastic ... I haven't mastered the technique yet, but I certainly don't believe the software is to blame.
-
I've also used that technique for years, and it's superior to all other alternatives for my needs. I occasionally us a Tufused layer for really tough transition areas as an additional layer.
Well, as one who doesn't use HDR software either, I will admit it's me and not the "Mickey Mouse" software most of the time - I'm the Mickey Mouse in the scenario. I've seen many terrific applications of HDR software that are fantastic ... I haven't mastered the technique yet, but I certainly don't believe the software is to blame.
Yep, this is the conclusion I'm leaning towards as well. But I'm very computer literate and very familiar with LR/PS, so I can hardly blame myself for my inability to get realistic and pleasing results from the numerous HDR software I've tried. I believe it's mainly because the presets are geared towards the in-your-face oversaturated halo-laden HDR everybody hates (http://ihateyourhdr.tumblr.com/), and the controls are poorly documented or are a black box.
-
Well, as one who doesn't use HDR software either, I will admit it's me and not the "Mickey Mouse" software most of the time - I'm the Mickey Mouse in the scenario. I've seen many terrific applications of HDR software that are fantastic ... I haven't mastered the technique yet, but I certainly don't believe the software is to blame.
I'm in the same position and I agree. So much depends on the skill and taste of user, in this as in many other software scenarios.
-
I'm in the same position and I agree. So much depends on the skill and taste of user, in this as in many other software scenarios.
Yeah, but feppe - logically - if some people can produce very pleasing results from the same software that other people use to produce crummy results, what conclusion do you draw?
-
Yeah, but feppe - logically - if some people can produce very pleasing results from the same software that other people use to produce crummy results, what conclusion do you draw?
I'M NOT LISTENING LAA LAA LAA
-
I did put this through Photomatix but to be honest it looked sh!te.
The blending method was much better and I have now worked out how I'll be doing my cathedral interiors from now on.
Lastly, thank you for all the positive comments. They are appreciated.
-
The Enfuse plugin for Lightroom works quite well for these situations and doesn't give you the extreme HDR look.
-
Thanks for that Alan - went to the site - looks interesting.
Mark
-
I'm not bothered too much by the perspective issues, although they do detract from the picture. What I initially found odd was the vivid colouration on the walls of the nave. I went and had a look at some similar shots of the interior by other photographers and it does seem that this can be a characteristic of this particular building.
In general I'm not sure I really like too much tonal compression on church interiors, it rather looses the dynamics of light and shade in ecclesiastical architecture.
I'll add another vote for enfuse in Lightroom for blending multiple exposures without the 'HDR look'.
-
The Enfuse plugin for Lightroom works quite well for these situations and doesn't give you the extreme HDR look.
Exactly, I use it often for a simple couple of stop dynamic range boost on interiors (9 times out of ten just with the default settings). FWIW i don't find the above example very convincing. It has brought down the window light too much and doesn't look at all natural to me. But what the heck do I know, I've only been shooting interiors for 33 years. :)
-
I have to say that what you are seeing is what I saw with my eyes.
Personally, I hate those overdone HDR images and I tried to make this one as close as I saw it with my eyes. Guess that we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
I have to say that what you are seeing is what I saw with my eyes.
Actually its not. As you look from the bright to the dark areas your eye dilates or vice versa, but a photograph can't do that and when we try and achieve that effect in one image it looks unnatural. Though some "unnatural" looking interior have become accepted in the genre over the years like shooting at twilight with the intense saturated blue of twilight outside the windows. IME on any large interior like that above the only real natural look in a photograph is to have the windows bright but detailed.
-
Kirk. I accept that you are a specialist of architecture etc and the work that you do. But for me, the image presented is the closest I can get to how it was. I'm not trying to present a false reality or a cartoon recreation of a real thing. That's not my style at all.
As I said. I think it's a case of one person has one opinion and one has another.
-
Well, we all have our own preferences in these things. I don't aim to shoot church interiors as a kind of architectural record, so if it is the windows which are the main subject, my inclination is to expose for them and keep the interior dark and moody, like the example posted below. No HDR or exposure blend here, just the one shot.
John
-
There are a number of things going on here:
If the purpose is to render it how you saw it, Jools did it.
If your purpose is to produce a fair rendition of an interior in which you see both highlight and shadow detail, Kirk has his finger on the right buttons.
If your purpose is to do a great shot of a church window framed in a relevant but non-distracting context, John did it.
So there's really no argument here. It all comes back to achieving your objectives; they can all differ so if you are in control of what you are doing, the results will all differ. It's only when we start contending that one objective is more valid than the other that the arguments can break out.
-
Exactly. I'm not here to argue only to post up an image I thought that people might enjoy.
In this world we are each individual people. As such, we see the world in our own individual way and it is highly likely that one individual will disagree with how another sees the world around them.
To give you a little more info on the image.
Looking down the nave is to look directly east.
The image was taken roughly at midday. That means that the light would have been its strongest on the right hand side of the image. Thus, you see highlights on the left of it.
As I said. I'm just trying to say thanks for to the site for providing a good technique for blending and two show the results of it in what I feel is a pleasing way.
-
Well Jools, not to put too fine a point on it: but just because you aren't here to argue, doesn't mean there won't be arguments - I mean, would there be so much fun and challenge in a Forum otherwise? - As long as we all stay respectful with each other :-)
-
This is true but I just don't like things getting into tit for tat. I find it tiresome. Maybe I've listened to too much Grateful Dead which has mellowed my argumentative side.
-
I have to say that what you are seeing is what I saw with my eyes.
Actually its not.
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?
-
Actually its not.
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?
I nearly came back with the same but my Englishness told me not to. I didn't want to start an all out war!
-
Actually its not.
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?
I think Kirk explains himself pretty well in his post. It isn't what the photographer's eye saw because our eyes cannot simultaneously behold the extremes of light and dark the way they are presented in the picture. That is why the photograph looks somewhat artificial IMO, and that is the essence of all that is wrong with high dynamic range photography, regardless of how it is achieved.
-
I think Kirk explains himself pretty well in his post. It isn't what the photographer's eye saw because our eyes cannot simultaneously behold the extremes of light and dark the way they are presented in the picture. That is why the photograph looks somewhat artificial IMO, and that is the essence of all that is wrong with high dynamic range photography, regardless of how it is achieved.
When you enter a scene like that and scan it, your eyes adjust quickly, so when you are looking at the very dark areas of the scene you see the detail and when you look at the very bright areas, after a moment of adjustment you see the details. Human visual response to changes in luminosity is very rapid. This is what HDR photography attempts to replicate, but it is a snapshot not sequential. As with so much else, its success depends on it not being overdone.
-
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?
................No, but I have photographed numerous cathedrals from the same period and architecturally similar all over England, plus on an NEA grant I photographed 400 historic churches in New Mexico, plus I have spent half my time over the last 32 years photographing interiors, plus I have taught architectural/interior photography at the university level for 20+ years, plus I wrote the photography manual for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.................
-
................No, but I have photographed numerous cathedrals from the same period and architecturally similar all over England, plus on an NEA grant I photographed 400 historic churches in New Mexico, plus I have spent half my time over the last 32 years photographing interiors, plus I have taught architectural/interior photography at the university level for 20+ years, plus I wrote the photography manual for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.................
Owned.
-
If you go back to my picture of Fowey Church, that is how it looks when you first walk into the building from a hot summer afternoon outside, before your eyes adjust. And it is just one of many possible interpretations of the scene. The way Jools has it is more like a painter would see it, with their easel set up in the nave, and after several hours of working up the image. There is no "right" or "wrong" way, surely.
However, my own preference is for photography as literally "drawing with light", rather than painting. And I think that HDR or exposure blending mitigates against that. I don't want to lose the impact of highlights against deep shade by reducing the contrast between them. To my mind one of the strengths of photography (perhaps its greatest strength) is that it does not see as the human eye does.
John
-
An interesting discussion. Lots of valid points have been made. For myself, I find I agree at least partially with almost all of the posts.
I'd like to add a small point that hasn't been made yet. I've become convinced there exists an effect I call "LDR burn-in" for want of a better name. We have all (both photographers and non-photographers) become used to the fact that prints have a lower dynamic range than our (even unadjusted) eyes, i.e. we have become accustomed to the way prints normally look. At least a part of some folks dislike of HDR is due to this effect.
--Milt--
-
There is no "right" or "wrong" way, surely.
I don't agree. It seems that this is a popular perception these days. And the result IMO is the widespread acceptance of poorly seen and technically incompetent images (I'm making a general point here-not making this point about this image). With this attitude how would one teach architectural photography?
-
When you enter a scene like that and scan it, your eyes adjust quickly, so when you are looking at the very dark areas of the scene you see the detail and when you look at the very bright areas, after a moment of adjustment you see the details. Human visual response to changes in luminosity is very rapid. This is what HDR photography attempts to replicate, but it is a snapshot not sequential. As with so much else, its success depends on it not being overdone.
I agree. Here is an old example from my blog (http://kirkgittingsphotography.blogspot.com/2010/09/decent-hdr-program-finally.html) of the balance I am talking about.
-
Good example - very natural-looking.
-
I don't agree. It seems that this is a popular perception these days. And the result IMO is the widespread acceptance of poorly seen and technically incompetent images (I'm making a general point here-not making this point about this image). With this attitude how would one teach architectural photography?
Well, there is such a thing as formal architectural photography, just as there is formal portraiture. Which can be taught. But there is also romantic pictorialism (that's me, for better or worse), which is a lot harder to find rules for. And then there might be anarchic lomography or pin-hole mysticism in a church (why not?) all of which might be fun and probably all the better for not being taught.
Which is not to say that I approve of garbage masquerading as art. But technical excellence in and of itself makes for rather a dull world ;)
John
-
Honestly, all this over a flippin' image ???
Kirk, as I said, I admire what you do and the work you achieve. But EVERYONE is different in how they see the world and it is what makes us individuals. For me, it is how I saw it and chose to capture it.
I'm off to process my shots of Blois cathedral. Probably end up with a similar feeling. Heck, what do I know?
-
I'm off to process my shots of Blois cathedral. Probably end up with a similar feeling. Heck, what do I know?
You know what you like which in life is the most important thing!