Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Murray Fredericks on April 04, 2008, 07:11:28 am
-
Hi All,
as I work almost exclusively with existing light, I find myself 'stacking' bracketed exposures on almost every shot, either for highlights (the contrast is very strong here in Australian light) or to reduce noise in the low end.
Doing this on 20 shots a day is really stretching my time(and stamina) in post...
I would be very interested to hear what others are doing. Are there any good applications out there that are 'controllable' to keep the images looking natural (I hate HDR)? Are people using actions (I saw some on other forums)?
Cheers
Murray
-
Isn't that exactly what Photoshop's HDR feature does? It should not look unnatural.
-
(I hate HDR)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you dont have to make this typical "hdr" effects to use 32bit images. anyway, processing 20 images to 32bit is a lot. image stacking to 32bit needs its time, more so because in post it needs a lot of work to look natural,- but its possible and allows you to work under nearly every possible contrast conditions. i do it a lot.
-
Try Photomatix, highlights and shadows
Marc
-
32bit is a lot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry Rainer
am I missing something here - I work in 16 bitt, why/ how do you work in 32 bitt?
Murray
-
Sorry Rainer
am I missing something here - I work in 16 bitt, why/ how do you work in 32 bitt?
Murray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Murray.
16 bit (1 RAW exposure) will not necessarily be able to hold details in both shadows and highlights...
especially in the harsh Aussie sun!
So when multiple exposures are combined in Photoshop or Photomatix it generates a 32 bit file.
This will then need to be compressed or tone mapped with either application to get the 'best bits'
from each image and combine it into a new 16 or 8 bit file.
The whole process is time cosuming.
Good luck.
A
-
So when multiple exposures are combined in Photoshop or Photomatix it generates a 32 bit file.
This will then need to be compressed or tone mapped with either application to get the 'best bits'
from each image and combine it into a new 16 or 8 bit file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks - did my research in the mean time and got it
My question though is to the extent of 'controllability' of these programs - do you accept what they give you or can you fade layers and adjust the effect etc etc?
Murray
-
Murray,
Take a look at this Multi-Pop/Multi-Exposure adapter that works on Phase One backs. There is also a link to Jeffrey Totaro's article on how he uses it.
http://www.captureintegration.com/solutions/featuredproduct/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/solutions/featuredproduct/)
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
[email protected]
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year (http://www.captureintegration.com)
877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Hi!
Take a look at this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml)
It's right here from LL and it works REALLY well. This is the easiest way I found to get better details on a single exposure (from a RAW file). It looks natural and the blending is almost perfect. Just be careful to use it on a good RAW file (well exposed, etc). If you RAW file is way under or overexposed there's not much left to do on those areas.
Hope it helps!
Regards,
Luis
-
Photomatix has a "Basic" version of their software which is freeware. It has a pretty simply exposure blending feature in a standalone program. Easy to select two or more image files to "blend" or "average" the highlights and shadows.
see, www.hdrsoft.com
Their download page is: http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html (http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html)
Scroll down and look for the Basic program download which is freeware.
Just another tool that may help!
ken
-
Does anyone know if Photomatrix will open a Phase One raw file? Often times when generating a HDR composite image, I prefer to let Photomatix open the files as raw. It's very dependent on the situation.
Paul C
-
It's worth taking a look at the highlight/shadow function in latter versions of photoshop. Working from one file over two layers with a layer mask can achieve what I believe are very satisfactory results. I personally always use it with a 16 bit file then for submission, put it down to 8. Worth a look anyway, Craig
-
It's right here from LL and it works REALLY well. This is the easiest way I found to get better details on a single exposure (from a RAW file). It looks natural and the blending is almost perfect. Just be careful to use it on a good RAW file (well exposed, etc). If you RAW file is way under or overexposed there's not much left to do on those areas.
There is a discussion here about blending pictures. It's the most useful thing that I've seen in any digital camera forum, actually - very amazing app that he's written.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17775 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17775)
Data goes in, data goes out. And you can blend up to ten images if you want.(3 seems to be optimal, from what I could see, he just programmed 10 as the maximum) This is basically just manipulating the raw data and spitting it back out as a merged image.
Then you can drop that in Photoshop and do your other effects if you want. From what I've seen, though, the image is pretty much good to go as-is. You might not even need a program like Photoshop except to maybe resize it.
Free as well.
-
The LADig group (Los Angeles Digital group) has an event next week on this subject.
High Dynamic Range Photography
http://www.ladig.org/ (http://www.ladig.org/)
-
I've recently started experimenting with TuFuse (http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm). It seems to produce pretty natural-looking results, none of the excessive local constrast and saturation that tools like PhotoMatix produce.
There's a front-end called EnfuseGui that you can use with TuFuse on Windows, and it can make batch processing pretty easy. (Don't have the link handy at the moment but it should be easy to find in Google).
-
I've recently started experimenting with TuFuse (http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm). It seems to produce pretty natural-looking results, none of the excessive local constrast and saturation that tools like PhotoMatix produce.
There's a front-end called EnfuseGui that you can use with TuFuse on Windows, and it can make batch processing pretty easy. (Don't have the link handy at the moment but it should be easy to find in Google).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
this excessive local contrasts and saturations are a question of the settings you use. you can set photomatix in a way that the results look completely natural, however you can use it also only to bring together your multiple exposures to 32bit files and afterwards compress these 32bit files to 16bit files using curve settings in photoshop.
the HDR/ 32bit file prozess works different in photshop than in photomatix. there are motifs where ps does a better job and others where photomatix brings better results.
-
however you can use it also only to bring together your multiple exposures to 32bit files and afterwards compress these 32bit files to 16bit files using curve settings in photoshop.
I'd like to add that from a programming perspective (I do CIS type stuff for a living), this is the best method of all. Each time you touch the original data, you add in an ever increasing and usually exponential amount of degradation.
Mix with no modifications, *then* toss it into the program of your choice to clean and adjust it.
Tfuse does look like a wonderful app. Also note the focus merge function. Often you have a great shot but the depth of field is impossible with your lens. I don't know how many DSLRs have bracketed focus(some apparently do, but not many it seems), but if your does, you have an amazing tool at your disposal that is potentially even more useful than HDR merging.
ie - want Ansel-like depth of field? Presto. No 4*5 or similar camera required.
-
16 bit (1 RAW exposure) will not necessarily be able to hold details in both shadows and highlights...
especially in the harsh Aussie sun!
So when multiple exposures are combined in Photoshop or Photomatix it generates a 32 bit file.
I read this constantly and still don't see the point. Real high dynamic range scenes hardly ever reach more than 12 or 13 f-stops of DR. With 16-bit linear integer numbers, to properly encode 12 f-stops of DR is truly possible. And if we apply some expansion curve (like a gamma) in floating point during the blending of the different shots, the final 16-bit non-linear enconding can hold easily more than 13 f-stops.
Why is it so common to hear that 32-bit or floating point formats are needed?
Moreover using 32 bit floating point images is useless if we bracketed {-2,0,2}, since the captured DR will never be higher of about 12-13 f-stops. To obtain the benefits of those large numerical formats shots more EV apart are needed.
BR
-
http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/ (http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/)
is a mac option / a bit like Tufuse .
batch processing is possible .
So you can process your 32 files during a lunch .
IMHO - there is no simple solution to all scenarios.
and to avoid overcooked HDR look , manual approach is
( in combination with some auto tool ) the best .
I prefer myself Photomatix exposure blend more then PS 32 bit approach .
-
I've recently started experimenting with TuFuse (http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm). It seems to produce pretty natural-looking results, none of the excessive local constrast and saturation that tools like PhotoMatix produce.
There's a front-end called EnfuseGui that you can use with TuFuse on Windows, and it can make batch processing pretty easy. (Don't have the link handy at the moment but it should be easy to find in Google).
Tufuse seconded. The pro version has a decent UI and it is quite easy to get good results with little experimentation. I've used it successfully on several shots with bracketed night time exposures by 4 stops.
-
I've had good luck with Enfuse so can offer a 3rd recommendation for it whichever front end you use. I use the front end GUI called bracketeer http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/ (http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/) on my Mac. But it seemed to make a much nicer file out of the box than photomatix.
-
Does anyone know if Photomatrix will open a Phase One raw file? Often times when generating a HDR composite image, I prefer to let Photomatix open the files as raw. It's very dependent on the situation.
Paul C
Yes My P30 .TIF files work directly in Photomatix... Mac OSX 10.5.6
Snook
-
Yes My P30 .TIF files work directly in Photomatix... Mac OSX 10.5.6
Snook
Before anybody gets confused, for those who don't know: ".TIF" (note capitalization) is a phase one raw format ".tif" is a processed file. There's an interesting story for why that is, but now's not the time for that.
It's been a while since I've checked, but I think non plus backs worked but plus backs did not. They may (likely) have added support for the plus backs since I last looked though.
If it doesn't have support the next thing I would try would be a Capture One 4.6 "export to DNG".
If that doesn't work I would process out to a tiff with the HDR sliders turned up to around 25 each and noise reduction and sharpening turned down or off.
Doug
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
I shoot mainly with my P45 and utilize the Photomatix Exposure Blend tool frequently in my architecture photography. I generally process my files to 8 bit tifs then selecting 2-3 different exposures let Photomatix do the rest. It creates a great base layer for me to start with and doesn't look unnatural in anyway. Jim
-
For Architectural work, I now mainly use a technique described here (the last one in the tutorial):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml)
As haefnerphoto mentions, I just use the resulting image as a base to progress from.
After posting the initial query, I tried PS photomatix and others, but found them all very time consuming. I like to have the result sitting on 2 layers which you can then start painting and fading to put some 'guts' and 'reality' back into the image.
Cheers
Murray
-
I shoot mainly with my P45 and utilize the Photomatix Exposure Blend tool frequently in my architecture photography. I generally process my files to 8 bit tifs then selecting 2-3 different exposures let Photomatix do the rest. It creates a great base layer for me to start with and doesn't look unnatural in anyway. Jim
Jim, Can you showing the Photomatix settings you use?
I have been fooling around with it a lot lately... I would also like to get just the blend images with out all the over contrasted look Photomatix gives..
I usually have all the setting on low and all smoothing HIGH. Whites and blacks usually pretty low also..
Are you tone mapping in photoshop or in Matix afterwards?
Thanks for any post... I some times have been putting one of the closest to best exposures on a layer below the Photomatix layer and bring back some "normality" to the image. Also I find with the Higher dynamic range of Medium format you can get a LOT out of a single file if you expose correctly...:+]
Many times I will use the original water or Ocean in the scene if possible as there is no blurring done by Photomatix . That is usually done to water,flags, blowing trees that may be blurred during the combining stages..:+]
Thanks for any further help.
I have read that usually the more Normal you want the image, the more smoothing you add...:+]
Thanks
Snook
-
For Architectural work, I now mainly use a technique described here (the last one in the tutorial):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml)
As haefnerphoto mentions, I just use the resulting image as a base to progress from.
After posting the initial query, I tried PS photomatix and others, but found them all very time consuming. I like to have the result sitting on 2 layers which you can then start painting and fading to put some 'guts' and 'reality' back into the image.
Cheers
Murray
Time consuming in another way. I've tried the method on LL, and Tufuse (didn't like Photomatix). LL method definitely gives more control, and is much better for scenes without extreme contrast.
But in night-time city scenes with deep deep shadows and extreme highlights the LL method becomes very tedious very quickly, especially on stitched panos. For those I have found Tufuse to take out the tediousness, while producing halo-free natural-looking results with some tweaking.
I still blend normal daylight scenes manually.
It's all about choosing the right tool for the right job.
-
I shoot mainly with my P45 and utilize the Photomatix Exposure Blend tool frequently in my architecture photography. I generally process my files to 8 bit tifs then selecting 2-3 different exposures let Photomatix do the rest. It creates a great base layer for me to start with and doesn't look unnatural in anyway. Jim
I too am interested in how you are using Photomatix. I have played with it dozens of times (every time I see a thread like this) and could never get natural looking results on inside looking out images. I've had some success with twilight exteriors, but find it better to just shoot one exposure at that magic time. I always go back to doing inside out shots the LL way. What am I missing?
-
especially on stitched panos. For those I have found Tufuse to take out the tediousness, while producing halo-free natural-looking results with some tweaking.
Feppe,
what is your workflow for stitching and exposure blending?
Are you using PTgui or a combination of apps (as I do depending on what works best).
Are you on mac or PC?
Cheers
Murray
-
Feppe,
what is your workflow for stitching and exposure blending?
Are you using PTgui or a combination of apps (as I do depending on what works best).
Are you on mac or PC?
Cheers
Murray
It's pretty straightforward on my PC:
Tufuse: export RAWs from LR as 16-bit TIFFs, (alternatively stitch in Autopano Pro for panos), Tufuse them, import to PS to do final editing (spotting, curves, etc). Save them as 16-bit ProPhoto psd files, reimport it to LR for easier cataloging and handling.
LL method: export directly from LR to PS (alternatively take them through Autopano Pro), blend, spot, curves, etc., save as 16-bit ProPhoto psd files, reimport it to LR.
I don't bother with 32-bit files: from my experience, and from what I've read from Guillermo Luijk here, and other sources, 16 bits is more than enough to store the dynamic range of a natural scene. And 32 bits is tough to image (and imagine) due to displays being 8 bit.
I usually use 2 or 3 bracketed exposures, ~4 stops apart for 2 exposures, 1-2 stops apart for 3. It all depends on the scene and the histogram.
-
.... Real high dynamic range scenes hardly ever reach more than 12 or 13 f-stops of DR. ....
I've been curious about this since I like to take pictures with high contrast lighting. High DR is one of the things that's on my wish list for future cameras. The ISO definition of DR is problematic for photographers because we need a higher threshold. So when DPreview or Steve's digicams reports that a canon 5D has 12 stops, its not really 12 useful stops - probably more like 8 or 9 is more like it. So if you go with useful stops then yeah I'd agree that most scenes are going to only need 12 or 13 stops. But in terms of how DR is measured then I'd say we need about 15-17 stops to cover most scenes. Actually I'd like to have about 4 more stops on my phase p20 back at base ISO. I've taken plenty of images with natural lighting where a few more stops would have been really great. Here's what I'm talking about natural light outside the window with a 8x4 ft foamcore on the inside for reflection but still a very high contrast scene. Would have been great to have a few more stops but with the phase back that is already using the 16 bits, wouldn't it need to go to 32 bits data?
btw - I have processed this image with enfuse/bracketeer using two variants of the same RAW file and that helps some. This image is just the straight file.
-
Guys, I'll provide some examples soon, I'm working on a Ford project and they've got me very busy. Snook, what I use most often is the Exposure Blending mode of Photomatix and since I don't have the most recent version of the program here at home, I'll have to use v3.0.3, but I select Highlights and Shadows-Adjust and occasionally increase the Strength (a slider) of the effect. This produces an image with more detail in the highlights and more detail in the shadows than a normally exposed image. The Generate HDR (another part of the application), in my experience, always creates a unusual look (which quite often I like) when the image is then tone-mapped. There is a limit to how much detail can be pulled from an extremely contrasty situation but with subjects that don't move (since a bracket is necessary) this program provides the greatest dynamic range I've found. Kirk, tomorrow I'll try to post some examples of inside looking out shots. By the way, I couldn't get the link to work that illustrates the LL method, where would I find it. Jim
-
Hey Haf.. any news on the examples?
Alos does anybody now the most natural way of combining exposures??
I have been trying just about every setting in Photomatix and it still just looks too cartoony?
I use to like that look but would like a way of combining the images but making them look a little more natural.
The colors for one.
The closest I have come is photomatixing then merging the origianl "correct" exposure with it to get a more balanced look, but not thrilled so far with the results.
here some examples of photomatix and all the settings set pretty low. Just loos too cartoony or is it me? :+}
Thanks
Snook
[attachment=11215:HDR1.jpg] [attachment=11216:HDR2.jpg]
[attachment=11217:HDR3.jpg] [attachment=11218:HDR4.jpg]
-
I recently transitioned into doing almost only HDRs (for architectural stuff). Picturenaut is a great program and if used right can generate great results that don't have the typical HDR haloing and contrast/saturation.
(http://fc54.deviantart.com/fs40/f/2009/025/4/e/4edb31ffceb77c900c72c3ee9c5fa7f4.jpg)
(http://fc39.deviantart.com/fs40/f/2009/023/3/f/3f48fb8e243d0927f0c8a8bd950dd135.jpg)
(http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs41/f/2009/019/1/5/15a16b0ff78cc502e04d236cc0c0ba27.jpg)
-
[quote name='Hoang' date='Jan 28 2009, 07:09 PM' post='255214']
I recently transitioned into doing almost only HDRs (for architectural stuff). Picturenaut is a great program and if used right can generate great results that don't have the typical HDR haloing and contrast/saturation.
Hoang.. those look pretty natural.
I forgot to mention I am on Macintosh..:+}
I found most programs cannot even handlt the P30 files since they are so large.
Photomatix handles them really well, I just not sure how to get a more natural end result as far as texture.
Yours look very natural and mine look cartoonier.. If that makes sense.
Thanks
Snook
-
Photomatix handles them really well, I just not sure how to get a more natural end result as far as texture.
I too am now Photomatix quite regularly. I can't really get great results out of the program itself for high contrast scenes, but its a start and saves me the pain of intricately masking out windows etc...
I find photomatix can 'create' quite a bit of chromatic aberration, particularly around whites with sun on them, but they can be painted out...
My workflow is to HDR file first then tonemap the result.
Cheers
Murray
-
Eric, have you tried CS4? The image blending tool can output a 16-bit TIFF which you can then work with in normal ways. The tone mapping is almost non-existent, but the blending results seem good, and if you can then get to where you want to be with your regular image operations, it might work.
-
Eric,
What do you use in Photomatix? 'Generate HDR' or 'Exposure blending'? I find Exposure blending generating the most natural looking result generally. I would either use 2 images (that are about 3 stops apart) or 'adjust' and tweak from there.
I sometimes make 1 image based on exposure blending, 1 based on HDR, blend these 2 by hand in PS to get to the best result.
I hardly ever use the 'Generate HDR' in Photomatix.
-
Eric,
What do you use in Photomatix? 'Generate HDR' or 'Exposure blending'? I find Exposure blending generating the most natural looking result generally. I would either use 2 images (that are about 3 stops apart) or 'adjust' and tweak from there.
I sometimes make 1 image based on exposure blending, 1 based on HDR, blend these 2 by hand in PS to get to the best result.
I hardly ever use the 'Generate HDR' in Photomatix.
Thanks Dustbak for the repsonse.
I am generating HDR with Photomatix and then do "Process" which I then save as a .tif and open in photoshop.
I have seen a lot of guys get more realistic images than what I am getting. The images I post above have a pretty big dynamic range. I have also tried on images with less dynamic range and get the cartoony look.
I usually do tone mapping and then process. Will give just Exposure blending option nwo and let you know..
Thanks a lot
Snook
PS.
In exposure Blening option it says that it is better to use Jpegs or Tifs, when I load my P30 RAW images. That does not happen when doing a tone mapping option.
I am doing Generate HDR then Tone mapping. When I goto Tone compressor I am getting a little more natural results also. Keeping Detail enhancer rther low on all settings. Strength around 77 Luminosity +9, Light smoothing On the last button (Less effect) ...
-
This is an example of the LL technique... There is one exposure for the shadow and one for the sky. Look the passage from the dark side to the light side in the palms and in the boats, I think it's pretty good and of course you can easily control the opacity of the clouds and the sky, if you think it's too much unreal, just pull down the opacity, or light up with a curve... P45+ and 35mm mamiya.
-
Michele,
Where is that marina? It looks like Las Palmas?
Here several I did today. Photomatix, the first with exposure blending the second a combination of exposure blending and HDR combined in PS.
-
Michele,
Where is that marina? It looks like Las Palmas?
Here several I did today. Photomatix, the first with exposure blending the second a combination of exposure blending and HDR combined in PS.
Hey Dustbak thanks for the post.
A couple of questions if you don't mind.
In the first image how did you keep the guy in the image? He looks perfectly in focus and lit.?? IS the whole inside image bascially normal exposure and you were trying to get the outside with more detail e.g. the windows and sky?
Also, was the guy completely still when you shot the image? Was your iso normal and what camera/Back/lens/Fstop.
When I tried exposure blending on a couple of images they look rather hot in some areas.. like it was doing the oposite of what I wanted. That might be b/c I used the RAWs? Your images look VERY natural compared to what I am getting.
Nice job..:+]
If you ever get a chance could you post a screen shot of an image of yours with the Photomatix settings...? I am sure there is some tweaking in photoshop after the fact but would be corios to see what the settings look like from a straight forward exposure blend.
Should I not be in tone mapping at all???
Thanks for any further help..
Snook
PS. Kind of a side note but I am noticing every time a do an HDR with my P30 there is ALWAYS a line down the middle of the blue sky where it looks like Sensor folding?sp?. In other owrds there is alays a strip down the middle of the sky where one side is darker and the other side is lighter? Is that normal for HDR's?
Will try and post an example right now.
-
The first image was generated from 3 exposures each 1.5 stops apart. H2F/CF39/HCD28, F11 & ISO50.
Exposures were typically ranging from 2sec's to 1/50th. The guy being in perfect focus is probably a bit of a lucky shot but people behing computers often don't move that much so chances are you will get them reasonably in focus.
The inside was 2 sec's and I upped shutter speed to get the lights, highlights and the outside.
I used JPG's to exposure blend. I processed my raws to the best JPG's I can in Phocus as a basis and entered that into Photomatix. You could also do Tiff (not sure about 16bits but that would be the only one I would consider with Tiffs). I would not let Photomatix touch my Raw's even if it could.
I have Photomatix open so no problem here is your screenshot for exposure blending as I am using it at the moment. 4 images, each 1.5stops apart. This is just how I use it at the moment, other files I might be doing something else!
I only use tonemapping when going HDR which I don't do that often. Only very few images really benefit from it IMO, when I do use it I mostly also make an exposure blend which I put below the HDR image in PS and start masking out the bad parts.
-
The first image was generated from 3 exposures each 1.5 stops apart. H2F/CF39/HCD28, F11 & ISO50.
Exposures were typically ranging from 2sec's to 1/50th. The guy being in perfect focus is probably a bit of a lucky shot but people behing computers often don't move that much so chances are you will get them reasonably in focus.
The inside was 2 sec's and I upped shutter speed to get the lights, highlights and the outside.
I used JPG's to exposure blend. I processed my raws to the best JPG's I can in Phocus as a basis and entered that into Photomatix. You could also do Tiff (not sure about 16bits but that would be the only one I would consider with Tiffs). I would not let Photomatix touch my Raw's even if it could.
I have Photomatix open so no problem here is your screenshot for exposure blending as I am using it at the moment. 4 images, each 1.5stops apart. This is just how I use it at the moment, other files I might be doing something else!
I only use tonemapping when going HDR which I don't do that often. Only very few images really benefit from it IMO, when I do use it I mostly also make an exposure blend which I put below the HDR image in PS and start masking out the bad parts.
Very cool of you, Thank you for posting..:+}
Lucky me you happen to be using it right now.
I think you idea of doing one of each then masking them in photoshop is probably the best way.
I usually NEVER work with Jpegs as they "can" lose quality through photoshopping. I always try an work with tifs and 16 bit if possible...
Thank you for your help. I appreciate it
Snook
-
No problem. I work with JPG quite often. When I am really going to beat the shit out of my files I revert to 16bits Tiff files. JPG' s (of decent quality) are really underestimated.
-
Michele,
Where is that marina? It looks like Las Palmas?
Here several I did today. Photomatix, the first with exposure blending the second a combination of exposure blending and HDR combined in PS.
It' Alghero in Sardinia, Italy...
Very nice jobs yours...