Nevers cathedral - a BIG thanks to Luminous Landscape

[jools230575]

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 

Jools

[John R Smith]

Well, it's a very nice piece of exposure blending - but why didn't you sort out the perspective?

John

[francois]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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?

[artobest]

It's an impressive image, but it still has that HDR look to me. In what way do you find this technique superior?

[francois]

Could you please provide the link to that article?

It could be this one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks - looks like it may well be the one.

[fike]

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

[jools230575]

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.

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[feppe]

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, and the controls are poorly documented or are a black box.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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?

[feppe]

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

[jools230575]

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.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The Enfuse plugin for Lightroom works quite well for these situations and doesn't give you the extreme HDR look.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for that Alan - went to the site - looks interesting.

Mark

[Rhossydd]

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'.

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[jools230575]

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.