Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Hans Kruse on January 15, 2015, 10:37:23 am
-
When the dynamic range to be captured for a scene is larger than the sensor can capture without clipping essential highlights and having clean enough shadows after processing, then what do we do?
We do bracketing so that the dynamic range is covered for the highlights and the shadows and then use HDR programs to merge the shots and tonne map the result. It can also be done using either Photoshop or the Photomatix 32 bit plugin for Lightroom to create a 32 bit file that can be edited (tone mapped) in Lightroom. This has been available since version 4.1. Results can be good or not so good. In the case the result is not good then what do we do? Manual blending in Photoshop.
Now manual blending can be difficult to do if the different exposures are brought into Photoshop with different exposures. There is another way that uses Lightroom and the ability of Lightroom to very closely align different exposures.
The way it can be done is as follows: One exposure that has acceptable or no clipping of highlights is selected. Edit it to your liking ignoring noise and artifacts. How much noise and artifacts depends on the dynamic range and the sensor involved (and ISO). When the editing is done check if there is another exposure exposed higher. Now select all the higher exposed files from the bracket sequence and copy the edits by shift-cmd-S and select all parameters. The edited file need to be the most selected, of course. Now align exposure by shift-alt-cmd-M. Then check each exposure and find the one with the best shadows and without being more than 3 stops higher exposed. Now open the files as layer in Photoshop (any version will do). Align the layers and put the most exposed as the top layer. Add an adjustment layer and brush the areas where the highlights are blown. Then save the file and back in Lightroom you have the blended result.
Quick and easy and does not require a lot of Photoshop skill. I never saw this method mentioned before so thought I would share it :)
I have found that more than 3 stops between the two shots selected for blending does not work so well for the exposure alignment. It would be possible for larger dynamic ranges to do this in two steps to achieve a 6 stop difference, but I have not tried this. Make sure the white balance is the same for the blended images. This will work for scenes with movement as long as the most exposed has the right composition of the moving parts. I have been using it for landscapes. It makes wonders for my Canon :) But also even the D810 which I'm using will have situations where blending is better than not due to the noise in the shadows (seldom pattern noise though as in the Canon files).
Any thoughts on this?
-
I have found that more than 3 stops between the two shots selected for blending does not work so well for the exposure alignment.
Fuji sensors ( like in S5Pro ) were with half of their sensels "masked" to separate them by 4 stops...
-
When the dynamic range to be captured for a scene is larger than the sensor can capture without clipping essential highlights and having clean enough shadows after processing, then what do we do?
GL (he is a member of this forum) once suggested to do blending of 2 exposures before raw converter = http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm
-
I guess we all find the methods that suit us best.
For my purposes, using Nikon D800/D800E/D810 Raw files, I find the best way is to take exposures at 2EV intervals (with those cameras, for some obscure reason, Nikon limit me to 1EV intervals in auto-bracketing, so I just discard the intermediate values). Normally + or - 5 EV will cover the dynnamic range of even quite an extreme sunrise or sunset.
I then process in HDREfexPro2 from within Lightroom. I find the Nik program vastly superior to Photomatix as it allows me to use the control points to avoid getting an "overcooked" HDR. For my purposes, a good HDR image is one where no-one can tell that HDR has been used.
-
Define with a sample shot what is considered dynamic range that is larger than the sensor can record. Describing in stops is too vague.
I've never had to resort to the amount of work you describe just walking around and shooting whatever interests me using a 6 year old Pentax K100D DSLR. I have over 3000 hand held single exposure Raw shots of interiors and exteriors, some with noisy shadows that can't be seen on an inkjet print because the fineness of the grain (thanks to PV2010-2012 noise removal) is smaller than inkjet droplets.
If you're talking about professional quality, prestine looking architectural interiors with exposed windows showing outdoor detail, then I'ld understand the use of exposure blending, but then I still get decent single exposure results of shots I've taken of downtown local businesses as a hobbyist.
Could you post a before and after sample capture demonstrating how well your described technique makes it worth the trouble?
-
I agree with Tim - it's really not clear how the OP's technique would be preferable to what I do: 3 exposures at -2, 0, and +2 EV and then process in HDR Expose. I get very naturally appearing results (and I truly hate the HDR "look", so I am fussy) with a minimum of effort and time.
-
Same process as Peter for me. I'm happy with the results. - Jim
-
Define with a sample shot what is considered dynamic range that is larger than the sensor can record. Describing in stops is too vague.
I've never had to resort to the amount of work you describe just walking around and shooting whatever interests me using a 6 year old Pentax K100D DSLR. I have over 3000 hand held single exposure Raw shots of interiors and exteriors, some with noisy shadows that can't be seen on an inkjet print because the fineness of the grain (thanks to PV2010-2012 noise removal) is smaller than inkjet droplets.
If you're talking about professional quality, prestine looking architectural interiors with exposed windows showing outdoor detail, then I'ld understand the use of exposure blending, but then I still get decent single exposure results of shots I've taken of downtown local businesses as a hobbyist.
Could you post a before and after sample capture demonstrating how well your described technique makes it worth the trouble?
One example is in the attached photos. First one is a -1EV as imported in Lightroom. The second is edited and the 3rd is the +1EV after the adjustment of exposure and the last one is the merged one.
The whole point of this technique is that the editing is done in Lightroom as any RAW file and the mering is quick and easy since the exposures are adjusted in Lightroom before the manual merging in Photoshop.I hope it is clear :)
-
Define with a sample shot what is considered dynamic range that is larger than the sensor can record. Describing in stops is too vague.
I've never had to resort to the amount of work you describe just walking around and shooting whatever interests me using a 6 year old Pentax K100D DSLR. I have over 3000 hand held single exposure Raw shots of interiors and exteriors, some with noisy shadows that can't be seen on an inkjet print because the fineness of the grain (thanks to PV2010-2012 noise removal) is smaller than inkjet droplets.
If you're talking about professional quality, prestine looking architectural interiors with exposed windows showing outdoor detail, then I'ld understand the use of exposure blending, but then I still get decent single exposure results of shots I've taken of downtown local businesses as a hobbyist.
Could you post a before and after sample capture demonstrating how well your described technique makes it worth the trouble?
I'm shooting landscapes and it is only in rather extreme situations where this is needed anyway. But when it is and I think most landscape photographers will recognize what I'm talking about, then here is presented a different technique that makes the editing as natural as you like from Lightroom and at the same time merging to another exposure easy and quick. That's the whole point of this. If you have never tried to do this then you may not appreciate it :)
-
One example is in the attached photos. First one is a -1EV as imported in Lightroom. The second is edited and the 3rd is the +1EV after the adjustment of exposure and the last one is the merged one.
The whole point of this technique is that the editing is done in Lightroom as any RAW file and the mering is quick and easy since the exposures are adjusted in Lightroom before the manual merging in Photoshop.I hope it is clear :)
Hans, by adjusting the exposure you are defeating the purpose of shooting the brackets in the first place. Also, I use LR/Enfuse to do the blending (merging) right in LightRoom. - Jim
-
I'm shooting landscapes and it is only in rather extreme situations where this is needed anyway. But when it is and I think most landscape photographers will recognize what I'm talking about, then here is presented a different technique that makes the editing as natural as you like from Lightroom and at the same time merging to another exposure easy and quick. That's the whole point of this. If you have never tried to do this then you may not appreciate it :)
Which of the four is strictly edited in LR as a finished image without resorting to merging bracketed shots as a comparison to show whether there are benefits gained using the extra steps?
I can hardly tell a difference between the 2nd and 4th image.
-
Hi,
Pushing the limits of an exposure intended to keep highlights can cause noise in the shadows, which may be masked by downscaling for web size images but are very obvious at actual pixels.
Using HDR may be a good solution, but HDR has a couple of extra problems.
- Ghosting is possible if there is anything that moves.
- Tone mapping is needed
In many cases it amy be better to use the technique that Hans describes. Use an image optimised for the highlight and blend manually with one having better shadow detail.
I have run into a situation similar to what Hans describes recently and resolved it with a method pretty similar to what Hans describes.
Horses for the courses.
Best regards
Erik
I'm shooting landscapes and it is only in rather extreme situations where this is needed anyway. But when it is and I think most landscape photographers will recognize what I'm talking about, then here is presented a different technique that makes the editing as natural as you like from Lightroom and at the same time merging to another exposure easy and quick. That's the whole point of this. If you have never tried to do this then you may not appreciate it :)
-
Hans, by adjusting the exposure you are defeating the purpose of shooting the brackets in the first place.
Hi Jim,
Not entirely. The 'exposed for the shadows' image(s) will have significantly lower noise than the 'exposed for the highlights' image. So what Hans is achieving is the creation of a better version of the highlights shot, that will stand subsequent post-processing much better than the single highlights shot.
However, you are correct that it is not the same as exploiting a floating point HDRI file, because Hans' version will become a low noise 15-bit/channel Photoshop file after merging the layers, while an HDRI can span a hugely larger range of unique (in linear gamma) values, which will allow more extreme tonemapping. Of course, before merging one can tonemap the shadows image separately, but that may introduce posterization and color issues (depending on the tools).
Also, I use LR/Enfuse to do the blending (merging) right in LightRoom.
Yes, that already uses some more of the HDR potential, although Lightroom can also do some useful stuff with a 32-bit/channel floating point TIFF. The size of the TIFF however, may be a discouragement to have it around longer than necessary (one can always remerge it, e.g. with the "Merge to 32-bit Plugin for Lightroom " from HDRSoft or their Photomatix application, if one keeps the original Raw exposure brackets around).
The merit of Hans' method is that it just improves the signal to noise level (esp. for the shadows) for a regular/natural looking image. The goal is similar to Guillermo Luijk's ZeroNoise method (but that is potentially more accurate). That already allows a bit more playroom, especially in the shadows, even if it isn't an HDR scene.
I personally like the level of control and tonemapping capabilities of real HDRI files, which is more flexible, but Hans' method is a nice approach as an alternative.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just as an additional point of reference, here is a brief explanation I prepared for my camera club last year which shows the basic idea (plus some of the negative effects if you take it too far).
http://www.premier-pages.co.uk/hdr/hdr.htm
-
Which of the four is strictly edited in LR as a finished image without resorting to merging bracketed shots as a comparison to show whether there are benefits gained using the extra steps?
I can hardly tell a difference between the 2nd and 4th image.
Number 2 was edited in LR and the editing copied to number 3 using cmd-shift-S and the exposure was adjusted using shift-alt-cmd-M. So number 2 and 3 are entirely adjusted in LR and only number 4 is a result of the manual blending in LR. The difference between my method and the typical manual blending is that the two images to be blended are as identical as possible before blending except for noise in the shadow areas and clipping in the highlight areas. The blending keeps all areas from the most exposed shot and only has areas from the least exposed shot where the highlights are clipped. Therefore the best of two worlds and with the undesired side effects of the typical automatic blending process.
-
I agree with Tim - it's really not clear how the OP's technique would be preferable to what I do: 3 exposures at -2, 0, and +2 EV and then process in HDR Expose. I get very naturally appearing results (and I truly hate the HDR "look", so I am fussy) with a minimum of effort and time.
There are a number of problems using HDR programs and also other automatic blending methods. I'm not suggesting that you change method if you are happy with the results, but what I am suggesting is that for those who found manual blending difficult and time consuming to look at my method because it is very quick and effortless to do.
-
Hi Jim,
Not entirely. The 'exposed for the shadows' image(s) will have significantly lower noise than the 'exposed for the highlights' image. So what Hans is achieving is the creation of a better version of the highlights shot, that will stand subsequent post-processing much better than the single highlights shot.
However, you are correct that it is not the same as exploiting a floating point HDRI file, because Hans' version will become a low noise 15-bit/channel Photoshop file after merging the layers, while an HDRI can span a hugely larger range of unique (in linear gamma) values, which will allow more extreme tonemapping. Of course, before merging one can tonemap the shadows image separately, but that may introduce posterization and color issues (depending on the tools).
Yes, that already uses some more of the HDR potential, although Lightroom can also do some useful stuff with a 32-bit/channel floating point TIFF. The size of the TIFF however, may be a discouragement to have it around longer than necessary (one can always remerge it, e.g. with the "Merge to 32-bit Plugin for Lightroom " from HDRSoft or their Photomatix application, if one keeps the original Raw exposure brackets around).
The merit of Hans' method is that it just improves the signal to noise level (esp. for the shadows) for a regular/natural looking image. The goal is similar to Guillermo Luijk's ZeroNoise method (but that is potentially more accurate). That already allows a bit more playroom, especially in the shadows, even if it isn't an HDR scene.
I personally like the level of control and tonemapping capabilities of real HDRI files, which is more flexible, but Hans' method is a nice approach as an alternative.
Cheers,
Bart
I just got the idea of the approach I described a few days ago. I have shunned manual merging for a while and have used the 32 bit blending and tone mapping in LR for a while when needed. But I often were not quite happy with the results and often preferred a straight edit of the best compromise of the bracketed sequence. This meant that I had to accept noise in the shadows and sometimes a bit more clipping of highlights than I really liked. Now with this approach I can blend two exposures easily 3 stops apart and that solves almost all the cases I have come across. That's for shots I have in my archives using the Canon 1Ds III and 5D III. With the D800E and D810 I can avoid most of these cases however I have seen noise that I'd like to avoid and in some cases even some banding. So even with these cameras there are cases where this approach is useful.
As I mentioned in another response, I'm not going to preach this is a solution to all problems :) My suggestion is rather: Try it out and see for yourself when it makes sense to use and when it gives better results.
I have now checked a number of my earlier blendings and I found almost always the manual blending gave the better result. This I believe is mainly due to imperfections in the algorithms used in the automatic blending approaches. I have used the 32 bit Photomatix plugin for Lightroom, LR/Enfuse and Photoshop HDR Pro 32 bit. I have also tried a number of stand alone HDR programs and rejected all of them. I have not systematically documented all of these findings, which could have been useful, of course. However my approach is to suggest other ways and techniques and people can try for themselves to see what works for them. Depending on style and taste someone else can easily come to a different result than I do.
-
Hi,
Pushing the limits of an exposure intended to keep highlights can cause noise in the shadows, which may be masked by downscaling for web size images but are very obvious at actual pixels.
Using HDR may be a good solution, but HDR has a couple of extra problems.
- Ghosting is possible if there is anything that moves.
- Tone mapping is needed
In many cases it amy be better to use the technique that Hans describes. Use an image optimised for the highlight and blend manually with one having better shadow detail.
I have run into a situation similar to what Hans describes recently and resolved it with a method pretty similar to what Hans describes.
Horses for the courses.
Best regards
Erik
Can you describe how your blending method was different than what I suggest? I'm interested in experience in other blending methods in Photoshop. What did you prefer in terms of final result, manual blending and automatic blending? As you know I have been preaching up to now to avoid HDR approaches of any kind merging bracketed shots if possible. However with this new found approach (for me :)) I have changed my opinion.
-
Hans, first - thank you for starting this thread...
as i understand :
you used 2 photographes in your sunset example; say 2 stops different in exposure. A= Light and B= dark
The lightest one A you have developed in two different ways - only adjusting the exposure in LR. So you have now two versions of Photo A
As a result you end up with 3 images and you mix them- as three layers- together in photoshop.
( correct me if i am wrong)
if i am correct; the conclusion is that LR or ACR at the moment is unable to get one perfect version of photo A.
It is something i also conclude from my own experience with ACR.
it looks like that Abobe did not see coming the enormous dynamic range of some sensors- maybe in a next version it will do better.
Your method is about how i deal with enormous dynamic range problems.. I am good with photoshop and find HDR programs usually not doing so well in getting a natural looking photo.
btw your sunset mix is very well done.
-
Using HDR may be a good solution, but HDR has a couple of extra problems.
- Ghosting is possible if there is anything that moves.
- Tone mapping is needed
In many cases it amy be better to use the technique that Hans describes. Use an image optimised for the highlight and blend manually with one having better shadow detail.
Just to add, significant tonemapping is mostly required to fit the dynamic range of the scene in the more limited dynamic range of or output-modalities. This already applies to normal scenery which easily surpasses what e.g. printed output can handle. Real HDRI obviously poses an even bigger challenge.
In addition, shadows are more noisy by default, due to the Poisson distribution of exposure by Photons, and made worse by sensor limitations and demosaicing. It usually helps to improve technical shadow quality (unless one down-samples a large amount).
The implementation that Hans described, will help to improve overall image quality if ghosting artifacts can be managed. Other methods would involve the averaging of multiple (identical) exposures that are chosen to preserve highlights. Averaging will not only improve shadow detail, but also highlight detail, although it would require to average some 8 exposures to achieve similar shadow quality as a +3 stop exposure bracketed shot can add to the overall quality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hans, first - thank you for starting this thread...
as i understand :
you used 2 photographes in your sunset example; say 2 stops different in exposure. A= Light and B= dark
The lightest one A you have developed in two different ways - only adjusting the exposure in LR. So you have now two versions of Photo A
As a result you end up with 3 images and you mix them- as three layers- together in photoshop.
( correct me if i am wrong)
if i am correct; the conclusion is that LR or ACR at the moment is unable to get one perfect version of photo A.
It is something i also conclude from my own experience with ACR.
it looks like that Abobe did not see coming the enormous dynamic range of some sensors- maybe in a next version it will do better.
Your method is about how i deal with enormous dynamic range problems.. I am good with photoshop and find HDR programs usually not doing so well in getting a natural looking photo.
btw your sunset mix is very well done.
I would say that LR is an excellent tool to handle high dynamic situations and the limitation is in the sensors in our cameras. Some sensors are way better than others, but the sensor still has a limit and this is the situation I'm discussion here.
So in post #7 in this thread I show 4 pictures:
#1: The unedited version of the -1EV picture from the bracket sequence. The original bracket sequence was -3EV, -2EV, -1EV, 0EV, +1EV. The purpose of showing this version was simply to show how dark this is in the shadows.
#2: The edited version of the -1EV done in Lightroom using highlights and shadows sliders with exposure and some grad filters.
#3: Is the +1EV picture from the bracket sequence and edited with the same settings as the -1EV picture and adjusted for the difference in exposure. Lightroom can automatically by the short I mentioned (shift-alt-cmd-M) adjust the expost in all other shots selected relative to the most selected. The exposure in Lightroom of the -1EV was +0.9 and the +1EV one was adjusted to -1.18 and this is a difference of 2.08 where the exposure difference in the camera from bracketing should be 2EV. The exposure in the camera of the -1EV was 1/13s, f/16 and ISO 100 and the +1EV was 0.3s, f/16 and ISO 100. All done on a tripod.
#4: The manually merged result done in Photoshop. And as mentioned since the pictures look identical except for the blown highlights and noise in shadows teh merge is simply painting in the missing highlights around the sun which is done in 5 seconds.
Attached to this post is the 1:1 view of a part of the picture. #1: -1EV, #2, +1EV and #3: merged result.
-
Hans, by adjusting the exposure you are defeating the purpose of shooting the brackets in the first place. Also, I use LR/Enfuse to do the blending (merging) right in LightRoom. - Jim
The adjustment of exposure was in post processing from different exposures from the bracket sequence. You could from the same exposures blend automativally using LR/Enfuse or the 32 bit Photomatix plugin I mentioned. They both work by exporting a TIFF file which is blended by an external program and then the result is brought back into Lightroom. It is not done IN Lightroom. Maybe one day Lightroom will feature blending directly in Lightroom of different exposures.
So what I describe here is exactly the same is these other blending methods in principle except that the blending is done manually by me in Photoshop from two fully edited files.
I have used LR/Enfuse from time to time but mostly before I discovered the method described in this thread. Sometimes I have been happy with the results from LR/Enfuse sometimes not and the same with the Photomatix plugin. I found them both to be superior to the 32 bit HDR Pro in Photoshop.
-
I'm interested in experience in other blending methods in Photoshop.
Similar approach here (https://imagingpro.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/expanding-the-dynamic-range-of-a-single-raw-file/)
(but just with 1 Raw file). Anyway, the blending procedure is based on a Luminosity mask
with some interesting refinements in steps 10 to 12.
Peter
--
-
Similar approach here (https://imagingpro.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/expanding-the-dynamic-range-of-a-single-raw-file/)
(but just with 1 Raw file). Anyway, the blending procedure is based on a Luminosity mask
with some interesting refinements in steps 10 to 12.
Peter
--
Yes, there were many of these approaches around before Lightroom and ACR got the local edits and tone mapping controls. Also many used to make HDR tone mapping from single RAW files, but all that is history now in my opinion.
-
Similar approach here (https://imagingpro.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/expanding-the-dynamic-range-of-a-single-raw-file/)
(but just with 1 Raw file).
Hi Peter,
When the procedure is based on a single Raw, then it's something quite different, it becomes a way of tonemapping with different gamma adjustments, but not with less noise.
Shooting actual exposure brackets means that more photons get recorded in the shadow exposure. More photons give a higher S/N ratio, less noise. Blending that will always be superior. The only thing that differs from the point of tonemapping is the difference in gamma, but that can be adjusted in various ways.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for the clarification with the 100% view crops, Hans. That helped quite a bit in my getting an idea on the benefits of layer blending bracketed exposures.
I see your technique got rid of the vertical banding in the shadows which wasn't evident in your previous full frame versions.
This appears to work best on shots with flat areas of tone where finer detail such as the grass can suffer from over softening. I was under the impression newer sensors on higher end cameras would render cleaner fine detail in the shadows. It looks pretty much but a bit cleaner than what I get on my 6 year old 6MP Pentax DSLR.
-
Hi,
- just avoid a misunderstanding, my response was referring the PS blending part, as an alternative to
>>Add an adjustment layer and brush the areas where the highlights are blown.<< (from the initial post),
and without intending to question that bracketed exposures do provide a better database than one single Raw file.
Peter
--
-
Thanks for the clarification with the 100% view crops, Hans. That helped quite a bit in my getting an idea on the benefits of layer blending bracketed exposures.
I see your technique got rid of the vertical banding in the shadows which wasn't evident in your previous full frame versions.
This appears to work best on shots with flat areas of tone where finer detail such as the grass can suffer from over softening. I was under the impression newer sensors on higher end cameras would render cleaner fine detail in the shadows. It looks pretty much but a bit cleaner than what I get on my 6 year old 6MP Pentax DSLR.
No matter what camera you will have scenes with high enough DR such that a single RAW file will expose noise and maybe too much noise if you print large and do not want to see the noise and would like not to have too much clipped highlights. In essence cases where you otherwise would use HDR techniques and manual blending. The reason you will use such techniques is to expand the dynamic range of the camera system to match the scene you photograph by using bracketed shots which is a quite normal technique to use.
Notice in my example anything else than the clipped highlight areas were all coming from the most exposed shot. I only had to brush a relatively small area. This means that the quality of the higher exposed shot comes through fully in almost the entire photo.
Notice all I'm presenting here is a way to blend manually in Photoshop without the traditional work and difficulty.
Manual blending is a way to get more control over how blending is done than automatic blending which I mentioned in the beginning of this post.
To make it really clear how much I needed to brush in the example see the rough outline of what I brushed away from the most exposed shot to reveal the lesser exposed shot.
-
- just avoid a misunderstanding, my response was referring the PS blending part, as an alternative to
>>Add an adjustment layer and brush the areas where the highlights are blown.<< (from the initial post),
and without intending to question that bracketed exposures do provide a better database than one single Raw file.
What I'm trying to get across is that with the presented approach I do not need to do really editing in Photoshop except a bit of 100% brushing with the top layer to reveal what is under that layer. This means it is quick to do and all the editing decisions are made within Lightroom only and if you have to redo an image then the final steps of copying the edit to another exposure and the blending in Photoshop are very mechanical and can easily and quickly be redone.
-
This appears to work best on shots with flat areas of tone where finer detail such as the grass can suffer from over softening. I was under the impression newer sensors on higher end cameras would render cleaner fine detail in the shadows. It looks pretty much but a bit cleaner than what I get on my 6 year old 6MP Pentax DSLR.
The approach means that it is not needed to do any noise reduction on the images as long as the most exposed shot is well exposed for the shadows. This also means there is no softening af any structures. The amount of DR when this approach is needed clearly depends on how large the DR of the sensor is, but as Bart points out there is an inherent noise in low exposed shadows regardless of the sensor. So given then camera you have (new or old, Canon or Nikon D810) it will vary, however there is always a threshold where it will be needed. Well, at least as long as we use a global shutter on our cameras ;)
-
Lightroom is actually already doing tone mapping with its Shadow/Highlights/Clarity etc sliders. When Process Version 2012 was released (LR4), I actually compared it to results on few published papers on HDR tone mapping, and the results were superb. For extreme situations, the range provided by these sliders is a bit limited, but you can sometimes work around it by adding local adjustments on full frame.
For combining the exposures, you might also want to try http://jcelaya.github.io/hdrmerge/ which combines several frames of RAW data as a float DNG. You can then do all your processing in Lightroom with a single merged exposure.
-
Lightroom is actually already doing tone mapping with its Shadow/Highlights/Clarity etc sliders. When Process Version 2012 was released (LR4), I actually compared it to results on few published papers on HDR tone mapping, and the results were superb. For extreme situations, the range provided by these sliders is a bit limited, but you can sometimes work around it by adding local adjustments on full frame.
For combining the exposures, you might also want to try http://jcelaya.github.io/hdrmerge/ which combines several frames of RAW data as a float DNG. You can then do all your processing in Lightroom with a single merged exposure.
Yes, Lightroom has the tone mapping built-in and that is what I mention in the first post in this thread. I also mentioned the different merge methods of bracketed shots and with final tone mapping in Lighroom. I also mentioned that this approach works sometimes and sometimes does not work so well. The approach I presented actually builds directly on this capability to tonemap a single RAW image (or any other format for that matter including 32 bit TIFF files). The method I presented is a way to improve IQ in cases where the tonemapping of a single image is suffering from quality loss in shadows (edither noise and sometimes color shifts).
Tonemapping in Lightroom as I do it (I just call it editing my photos :)) consists for me in using the white balance, exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, whites and blacks and tone curve globally and typically a number of grad filters. Often the radial filter and the brush for local edits. The assumption for the blending approach is that there is one photo in a bracket sequence that is edited like this to the final look. The blending itself is only to improve IQ based on another shot in the bracket sequence that it can be blended with. The edits from the edited picture is copied to the other picture in the bracket sequence and exposure is adjusted to match and then blending is easy and quick as I described.
Again I would like to emphasize (for those who jump into the thread without reading it all) that the method I describe here is not suggested to be a panacea for all cases. It does not necessarily replace the other blending methods I mentioned that creat 32 bit TIFF files or other blending methods that just create 16 bit TIFF files and with final tone mapping in Lightroom or manual blending in the traditional way in Photoshop.
I have described the method in detail and this is available in a PDF file which I'm happy to send to all who contact me via e-mail. The e-mail address can be found on my homepage in my signature.
-
Hi,
My understanding is that the benefit of Hans way of doing this is that it mostly relies on the mapping methods in Lightroom. Compressing the tone scale can cause problems with excessive noise in dark areas.
What Hans does, according to my reading, is to mix two exposures so he can have clean darks and still avoid clipping in the sky. I used to do this by blending in darks from a longer exposure. Hans I think found a smarter way to do it. I still need to work trough his recipe but my impression is that he blends in the parts that would be overexposed. That approach seems smart to me!
Best regards
Erik
Yes, Lightroom has the tone mapping built-in and that is what I mention in the first post in this thread. I also mentioned the different merge methods of bracketed shots and with final tone mapping in Lighroom. I also mentioned that this approach works sometimes and sometimes does not work so well. The approach I presented actually builds directly on this capability to tonemap a single RAW image (or any other format for that matter including 32 bit TIFF files). The method I presented is a way to improve IQ in cases where the tonemapping of a single image is suffering from quality loss in shadows (edither noise and sometimes color shifts).
Tonemapping in Lightroom as I do it (I just call it editing my photos :)) consists for me in using the white balance, exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, whites and blacks and tone curve globally and typically a number of grad filters. Often the radial filter and the brush for local edits. The assumption for the blending approach is that there is one photo in a bracket sequence that is edited like this to the final look. The blending itself is only to improve IQ based on another shot in the bracket sequence that it can be blended with. The edits from the edited picture is copied to the other picture in the bracket sequence and exposure is adjusted to match and then blending is easy and quick as I described.
Again I would like to emphasize (for those who jump into the thread without reading it all) that the method I describe here is not suggested to be a panacea for all cases. It does not necessarily replace the other blending methods I mentioned that creat 32 bit TIFF files or other blending methods that just create 16 bit TIFF files and with final tone mapping in Lightroom or manual blending in the traditional way in Photoshop.
I have described the method in detail and this is available in a PDF file which I'm happy to send to all who contact me via e-mail. The e-mail address can be found on my homepage in my signature.
-
My understanding is that the benefit of Hans way of doing this is that it mostly relies on the mapping methods in Lightroom. Compressing the tone scale can cause problems with excessive noise in dark areas.
What Hans does, according to my reading, is to mix two exposures so he can have clean darks and still avoid clipping in the sky. I used to do this by blending in darks from a longer exposure. Hans I think found a smarter way to do it. I still need to work trough his recipe but my impression is that he blends in the parts that would be overexposed. That approach seems smart to me!
Your understanding is correct although I would remove the word mostly. The only thing that happens in Photoshop is brushing the highlight areas away to reveal the lesser (or not) clipped highlights in the lesser exposed picture. The editing is entirely in Lightroom on a single picture which then is the basis for the rest of the procedure.
-
As a side comment on this approach the method relies on Lightroom can render exposures done at different exposures in the camera, like e.g. 2 stops apart very precisely if the exposure is adjust accordingly in Lightroom. Especially if you use the function Match Total Exposures in the fucntion in the Settings menu in the Develop module. For shots that are 2 stops apart from the camera this function would normally adjust the exposure difference in the exposure slider in Lightroom to be close to 2 stops, but not exact since the camera does not provide infinitely precise 2 stops apart bracketing. So rather than "manually" adjust for the 2 stops in Lightroom, it is more precise to use the Match Total Exposures function from what I have seen.
So what I often do is to adjust what I think is the optimal exposure from a bracket sequence and then later realize that is may not be the optimal judged from the look after editing rather than the look before editing by judging clipped areas. This happens typically in shots with the sun in it or with very strong light from the sun on e.g. clouds. Then what I do is to select all shots in the bracket sequence and keep the edited one the most selected and then copy edits to all by shift-cmd-S and then adjust exposure to all by shift-alt-cmd-M. Then I look at each of the exposures and choose the one that I find most compelling. I may even continue editing on that one and if the IQ is satisfactory I'm done. If there are noise in shadows and I have high exposed shots in the bracket sequence then I will copy the edits to the other shots in the bracket sequence and normalize exposure again (using the short cuts mentioned) and then choose the exposure optimal for the blending approach and with acceptable noise and then do the blend. Then I'm done.
In order to have shots available for this approach it is necessary to bracket the shots in such situations and I prefer 1 stop apart in the brackets and at least 5 in a bracket sequence in high DR scenes. Often I will end up with an edit of a single RAW file, but I never know this when I'm shooting as the judging of what is best only can be judged in Lightroom after the editing is done. It is not possible (in my opinion) to judge this on the back of the camera when shooting. It is also my shooting philosophy not to bother with judging histograms etc. when I'm shooting and concentrate on getting the right compositions while I'm there and the light may be changing by the minute.
-
OP, nice if you know what your doing with PS... I don't. I'm an old film photog and know very little about computers. As such I only use LR.
Here is an image that had lots of sky burnout. I just dodge and burn on LR to bring it back. It is a single image HDR. I have a better version, but no link to it. This is about 90% done.
nsfw
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Queen_of_the_Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/709px-Queen_of_the_Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg
I do lots of single image HDR. Don't have the luxury of using a tripod doing doc work.
-
Hi,
I guess that the OP, you and for that part me are shooting different pictures. For landscape Hans and I need credible skies. Lightroom does a great job of recovering blown out highlights.
Here is an example what I am trying to do:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/HansStuff/20141014-CF045812-3.jpg)
This is shadow detail:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/HansStuff/20141014-CF045812_crop.jpg)
And this is same shadow detail with my technique (that differs from Hans's method a bit)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/HansStuff/20141014-CF045812-3_crop.jpg)
There may be need for less workarounds if we used a camera with very little readout noise.
Best regards
Erik
OP, nice if you know what your doing with PS... I don't. I'm an old film photog and know very little about computers. As such I only use LR.
Here is an image that had lots of sky burnout. I just dodge and burn on LR to bring it back. It is a single image HDR. I have a better version, but no link to it. This is about 90% done.
nsfw
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Queen_of_the_Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/709px-Queen_of_the_Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg
I do lots of single image HDR. Don't have the luxury of using a tripod doing doc work.
-
Isn't this just Guillermo Luijk's zero noise technique?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=17775.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=17775.0)
-
Isn't this just Guillermo Luijk's zero noise technique?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=17775.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=17775.0)
No. I had not even seen his technique and have not (yet) tried it. If you read the description again you will realize that my suggested techinque is quite different. It is also different from the traditional blending techniques I have seen. If you are interested in a detailed description send me an e-mail and I will send you the PDF.
-
If you read the description again you will realize that my suggested techinque is quite different....
I guess I should have been more precise. The implementation techniques are of course different, in that one uses built-in LightRoom controls to equalize exposures, while the other uses custom software, and one uses Photoshop layers to combine frames, while the other uses custom software. However, the basic idea and the end results are the same -- create an image where the darker (noisier) pixels come from an over-exposed (less noisy) frame, mathematically scaled back down to the proper brightness.
-
I guess I should have been more precise. The implementation techniques are of course different, in that one uses built-in LightRoom controls to equalize exposures, while the other uses custom software, and one uses Photoshop layers to combine frames, while the other uses custom software. However, the basic idea and the end results are the same -- create an image where the darker (noisier) pixels come from an over-exposed (less noisy) frame, mathematically scaled back down to the proper brightness.
I'm curious, have you tried my approach? Have you tried the other approaches? I can tell you the result is not the same, well maybe from 30.000 feet ;D
-
Yes, I have tried your approach. It works great. It was a very fine idea to combine the exposures in the way you do, using existing programs to make the work quick and easy. I still consider the end result equivalent to creating a file with extended dynamic range (lower noise shadows), ready for further processing by the user. I dislike the HDR tone mapping imposed by some other approaches. Your method makes this a separate and optional step, which is perfect. I prefer to use only normal LightRoom adjustments, as you suggest in your workflow.
-
Yes, I have tried your approach. It works great. It was a very fine idea to combine the exposures in the way you do, using existing programs to make the work quick and easy. I still consider the end result equivalent to creating a file with extended dynamic range (lower noise shadows), ready for further processing by the user. I dislike the HDR tone mapping imposed by some other approaches. Your method makes this a separate and optional step, which is perfect. I prefer to use only normal LightRoom adjustments, as you suggest in your workflow.
Thanks Erik for trying it. In principle I agree with what you say about blending before editing of multiple exposures, but the approaches are currently limited to 32 bit TIF files done in the Photomatic 32 bit plugin for Lightroom and Photoshop HDR Pro (32 bit) as well as LR/Enfuse. I'm not aware of any other commercially available methods. I have tried them all and sometimes they work and sometimes not. Therefore the presented approach is an approach that can be used in such cases of even in most cases.
-
Hans, I cannot try the method since I don't have LR. I guess it works fine in the task of achieving the desired tone mapping action so as the expected noise reduction. But I find two weak points.
The problem I see is that manually brushing layers means progressive blending, and this means a loss of sharpness. Even if the captures are software aligned, missalignment is a continuous variable, it never happens at 1-photosite intervals, so you can have up to 1/2 pixel missalignment even after aligning the captures.
I have managed though to achieve perfect alignment both with my 350D DSLR (mirror lockup, remote shutter) and my E-P5 (no mirror, remote shutter), but I prefer a non-progressive blending of images so I don't need to worry about that.
Commercial software such as Photomatix also apply strong progressive blending, and this ruins sharpness specially if you take care in this aspect (good optics, perfect focus,...). This is an example where I showed a Photomatix multiexposure maniac (he takes up to 9 shots at 1 stop intervals) how multiple shots can reduce sharpness in Photomatix because of its high progressiveness (7 captures means more progressive blending than 3 captures and hence loss of sharpness):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/nitidez.gif)
Of course this is pixel peeping, but if you spend a good amount of money in a sharp lens you don't want this to happen. You don't want progressive blending.
Thanks to sensor linearity, captures of different exposure can be joined in a seamless composite reducing progessiveness to a minimum. This is just a recent scene, not very high DR but built from 3 captures 2 stops apart to make it very clean in terms of noise:
(http://www.micro4tercios.com/misc/mazinger.jpg)
The following blending map illustrates which areas are taken from each of the 3 shots (obviously black represents the most exposed, and white the least):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mapa_bn.png)
The same blending map here shows in red color those pixels that are strictly taken from just one shot. These usually represent between 95-97% of the total surface, this is a virtually 0-progressiveness approach and that means detail loss because of (micro)missalignment is almost reduced to none.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mapa_rojo.png)
The green marked area above zoomed at 400% shows the 3 pixels progressive radius I chose for the blending.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/map_detail.gif)
The second criticism I could see is about suboptimum noise reduction. Even if noise is not a problem in the final image (and this goal is easily achieved when enough captures are taken), mixing images of different SNR makes the result be worse than just taking the most exposed (this holds true when differences of exposure are >1 stop). So again by manually brushing, you are not achieving the maximum SNR your source files could provide because the participation of lower exposure shots turns SNR down.
Regards
-
Hans, I checked out your PDF, it was well prepared and very easy to follow.
I tried your method on several of my own image brackets, and compared it to results from the Photomatix Merge to 32 HDR Plugin. In every case I have tried so far, I prefer the look from your method. I find the Merge to 32 HDR plugin often creates some odd color and saturation shifts, and can easily look too HDR instead of realistic in certain parts of an image.
I have generally abandoned the Merge to 32 HDR plugin, and have been manually blending exposures in Photoshop, often using Tony Kuypers luminosity masks to assist the blend. This produces great results, but it is a very time consuming approach. Your method is very efficient, it produces very similar results in a fraction of the time of doing manual blends. And it produces more realistic looking results than the Merge to 32 HDR plugin.
Thank you very much for sharing this approach. The value of your method is it’s simplicity, it will be a great time saver.
-
Hans, I cannot try the method since I don't have LR. I guess it works fine in the task of achieving the desired tone mapping action so as the expected noise reduction. But I find two weak points.
The problem I see is that manually brushing layers means progressive blending, and this means a loss of sharpness. Even if the captures are software aligned, missalignment is a continuous variable, it never happens at 1-photosite intervals, so you can have up to 1/2 pixel missalignment even after aligning the captures.
I have managed though to achieve perfect alignment both with my 350D DSLR (mirror lockup, remote shutter) and my E-P5 (no mirror, remote shutter), but I prefer a non-progressive blending of images so I don't need to worry about that.
Commercial software such as Photomatix also apply strong progressive blending, and this ruins sharpness specially if you take care in this aspect (good optics, perfect focus,...). This is an example where I showed a Photomatix multiexposure maniac (he takes up to 9 shots at 1 stop intervals) how multiple shots can reduce sharpness in Photomatix because of its high progressiveness (7 captures means more progressive blending than 3 captures and hence loss of sharpness):
Of course this is pixel peeping, but if you spend a good amount of money in a sharp lens you don't want this to happen. You don't want progressive blending.
Thanks to sensor linearity, captures of different exposure can be joined in a seamless composite reducing progessiveness to a minimum. This is just a recent scene, not very high DR but built from 3 captures 2 stops apart to make it very clean in terms of noise:
The second criticism I could see is about suboptimum noise reduction. Even if noise is not a problem in the final image (and this goal is easily achieved when enough captures are taken), mixing images of different SNR makes the result be worse than just taking the most exposed (this holds true when differences of exposure are >1 stop). So again by manually brushing, you are not achieving the maximum SNR your source files could provide because the participation of lower exposure shots turns SNR down.
Guillermo,
I think it would be an idea if you e-mail me to get the description to avoid misunderstandings about the method I described. It is not about progressive blending at all at any point in the final image the pixels comes from one of the two images, not a blend.
Thanks for your post and I agree with what you write.
-
Hans, I checked out your PDF, it was well prepared and very easy to follow.
I tried your method on several of my own image brackets, and compared it to results from the Photomatix Merge to 32 HDR Plugin. In every case I have tried so far, I prefer the look from your method. I find the Merge to 32 HDR plugin often creates some odd color and saturation shifts, and can easily look too HDR instead of realistic in certain parts of an image.
I have generally abandoned the Merge to 32 HDR plugin, and have been manually blending exposures in Photoshop, often using Tony Kuypers luminosity masks to assist the blend. This produces great results, but it is a very time consuming approach. Your method is very efficient, it produces very similar results in a fraction of the time of doing manual blends. And it produces more realistic looking results than the Merge to 32 HDR plugin.
Thank you very much for sharing this approach. The value of your method is it’s simplicity, it will be a great time saver.
Thanks very much for your feedback. I agree very much on your view of the Photomatix 32 bit plugin for Lightroom, unfortunately.
-
Interesting thread. I used to use photomatix, HDR in photoshop and nik HDR programs, but now I just blend in PS. I will usually take 2-3 images and globally adjust each one in LR. I then bring them into PS as a layers. I then just use a gradient mask on top layer and get decent results. Afterwards, I will brush any other regions that need emphasis depending upon shadow detail. It's pretty quick and simple for me this way. After this, I flatten and bring back into LR as working file. Then I will bring back into PS and ad a couple of curves, will sharpen specific areas, mid tone contouring and finally noise reduction.
-
The problem I see is that manually brushing layers means progressive blending, and this means a loss of sharpness. Even if the captures are software aligned, missalignment is a continuous variable, it never happens at 1-photosite intervals, so you can have up to 1/2 pixel missalignment even after aligning the captures.
Hi Guillermo,
I agree that for all multiple exposure methods, alignment of the brackets is important for achieving the best results. But the method that Hans suggests, allows to define the sharpness/abruptness of the blending zone between two image layers by using a layer blending mask, thus minimizing the residual multiple exposure mis-alignment.
To improve alignment/registration of the output images, one could use a simple super-sampling trick, just output from LR at a larger size (e.g. 200%) and align those layers in Photoshop (which would reduce the average 1/2 photosite error to an average of 1/4th of an original photosite in the end). Then a down-sample to 50% would give us the original file dimensions in pixels but with better interpolated registration.
The only downside to that method is Photoshop's relatively poor resampling algorithms, but with down-sampling to 50% (after Lightroom's decent upsampling quality to 200%) there is not that much that is lost. Of course Capture sharpening of the twice resampled result will work quite nicely. Even the use of the built-in Smart sharpening will achieve an improvement (although a dedicated sharpening tool like FocusMagic will do better).
As long as one blends by using a mask, to reveal the highlight detail that was still Clipped in the overexposed shadow exposure bracket after pulling it's output luminosity with the Match exposure step in Lightroom, there will be plenty of opportunity to adjust that mask by using curves adjustments to create a faster transition near sharp edges, and use local blur for a more gradual transition. One could attempt using a 'sharp' mask (contrast enhanced by using a Curves adjustment on the mask), followed by a median blur (Filter>Noise>Median...) which tends to preserve sharper edges and blur gradual transitions more.
IMHO, the main feature of Hans' method is the Match Exposure step, which should allow to avoid brightness and color jumps at the blending seams to a significant degree.
The second criticism I could see is about suboptimum noise reduction. Even if noise is not a problem in the final image (and this goal is easily achieved when enough captures are taken), mixing images of different SNR makes the result be worse than just taking the most exposed (this holds true when differences of exposure are >1 stop). So again by manually brushing, you are not achieving the maximum SNR your source files could provide because the participation of lower exposure shots turns SNR down.
Using Smoothed blending mask edges will also hide (shot-)noise discontinuities/jumps in smooth gradient areas, where as Sharper edge transitions will avoid registration differences to spoil the party, by limiting the mix of different exposure contributions. Working with layer masks is more precise than using a Blend-if layer blending strategy, although that would also work well for many types of images where quick results are required.
Cheers,
Bart
-
IMHO, the main feature of Hans' method is the Match Exposure step, which should allow to avoid brightness and color jumps at the blending seams to a significant degree.
Thanks Bart, that step was the break through for me. One can also do this "manually" by adjusting the exposure between bracketed shots so they look equal and especially in the areas around the clipped highlights that need to be brushed. Although one could brush with an opacity to smooth areas that might fit 100% when the brushing stops, I so far did not need that.
Since the approach does in not involve blending pixels from different exposures there is no issue about sharpening as the capture sharpening I do in Lightroom come through into the final image from either the most exposed or the least exposed image. Pixels come 100% from one of the two images I blend with with approach.
-
From the original post:
The way it can be done is as follows: One exposure that has acceptable or no clipping of highlights is selected. Edit it to your liking ignoring noise and artifacts. How much noise and artifacts depends on the dynamic range and the sensor involved (and ISO). When the editing is done check if there is another exposure exposed higher. Now select all the higher exposed files from the bracket sequence and copy the edits by shift-cmd-S and select all parameters. The edited file need to be the most selected, of course. Now align exposure by shift-alt-cmd-M. Then check each exposure and find the one with the best shadows and without being more than 3 stops higher exposed. Now open the files as layer in Photoshop (any version will do). Align the layers and put the most exposed as the top layer. Add an adjustment layer and brush the areas where the highlights are blown. Then save the file and back in Lightroom you have the blended result.
To improve the readability, I added a part of the original post above.
Thanks Bart, that step was the break through for me. One can also do this "manually" by adjusting the exposure between bracketed shots so they look equal and especially in the areas around the clipped highlights that need to be brushed. Although one could brush with an opacity to smooth areas that might fit 100% when the brushing stops, I so far did not need that.
Hi Hans,
I think it's the second part of your original description of the procedure (the part that I marked bold and italic) that may confuse readers, especially if they haven't read the whole thread or tried it themselves. Is it an adjustment layer, or a mask, that you create? If the latter, one has a lot of flexibility, allowing anything between hard and soft transition zones. Guillermo advocates (relatively) hard zone transitions to avoid mixing slightly mis-aligned layers.
Since the approach does in not involve blending pixels from different exposures there is no issue about sharpening as the capture sharpening I do in Lightroom come through into the final image from either the most exposed or the least exposed image. Pixels come 100% from one of the two images I blend with with approach.
Yes, that would be the case with a mask made with a hard brush. A blend-if layer adjustment would mix pixels based on luminosity, which will be different for the R/G/B channels even with a hard blend-if transition, so a mask would be superior (and allows to correct it easily if needed).
Cheers,
Bart
-
From the original post:
To improve the readability, I added a part of the original post above.
Hi Hans,
I think it's the second part of your original description of the procedure (the part that I marked bold and italic) that may confuse readers, especially if they haven't read the whole thread or tried it themselves. Is it an adjustment layer, or a mask, that you create? If the latter, one has a lot of flexibility, allowing anything between hard and soft transition zones. Guillermo advocates (relatively) hard zone transitions to avoid mixing slightly mis-aligned layers.
Yes, that would be the case with a mask made with a hard brush. A blend-if layer adjustment would mix pixels based on luminosity, which will be different for the R/G/B channels even with a hard blend-if transition, so a mask would be superior (and allows to correct it easily if needed).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
Actually I'm using Photoshop too seldom ;) I should have said that it is a layer mask that I created and that I painted on the layer mask in the areas of the clipped highlights. With the most exposed photo as the top layer and creating a layer mask on that layer I paint with black to reveal the lesser exposed image in the areas where the most exposed has clipped highlights. I find that a lot of landscape shots lends themselves to easily be blended using this approach but there are also pictures where this would not be so easy, at least with my Photoshop skills ;D
-
Actually I'm using Photoshop too seldom ;) I should have said that it is a layer mask that I created and that I painted on the layer mask in the areas of the clipped highlights.
That's what I assumed you did, and masks make perfect sense. The use of a hard brush on the mask will indeed select one, or the other layer, without blending.
As you also mentioned, it works best if the exposure differential is 2 stops of less between brackets. Otherwise there may be a visible jump in noise structure of the highlights.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The problem is when the blown highlights are not easy to brush because of their complexity. An accurate mask can be created in a pair of clicks without manual brushing, using the image itself as a luminosity map as explained in this tutorial: "Yet another method to reduce noise with two exposures".
http://jtrujillo.net/qpix/
-
The problem is when the blown highlights are not easy to brush because of their complexity. An accurate mask can be created in a pair of clicks without manual brushing, using the image itself as a luminosity map as explained in this tutorial: "Yet another method to reduce noise with two exposures".
http://jtrujillo.net/qpix/
Thanks and I agree this is easy way to do it. I will add this approach to the description.