Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: ashikthomas.photography on August 08, 2014, 09:54:27 am
-
I am just getting into landscape photography from Wedding photography and some HDR....i just want to know how most of you get such amazing dramatic mindblowing results...an inspiration would be Trey Ratcliff... I used Photoshop, Lightroom & HDR Efex for this...lotta time...what do you guys use??? thanks
https://scontent-a-mad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/14178_343812105768138_7658650462605980183_n.jpg (https://scontent-a-mad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/14178_343812105768138_7658650462605980183_n.jpg)
-
I must say that the photo you suggested is what I consider a horrid example of HDR. It is so blatantly fake and over-processed, I do not see how it can be considered attractive. But, different strokes and all that.
I did a lot with HDR out west last fall and am very happy with most of the results, this may be my fave. It was taken in a slot canyon in Utah using a D600 and a Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Three shots, handheld, one at the metered exposure and then 2 stops over and 2 stops under. The original raw files were combined in HDR Expose 3 and the resulting TIFF sent to Lightroom for final tweaking. So, the process is not really all that involved, although some people make it so (as they do with pano stitching).
-
HDR tends to soak the contrast out of pictures, especially the blacks, highlighting the mid-tones reducing the range of blacks to whites.
I find that blacks and dark shadows are what adds interest to photos and makes them attractive to my eyes. Why is it necessary to see every detail in the shadows just because we technically can do it? When we look at a scene, we naturally look to the highlights and keep the shadows in the background of our minds. When we open up the shadows, we present details and too much information that the brain isn't interested in looking at.
Photography is art, or can be. Unless there is an actual need to see shadow detail, it may be better to keep it darkened; to subdue it making for a more attractive image to the brain.
-
For what it is worth I really like doing tonal manipulation with 32-bit files.
With regards to landscape images the great advantage is having all that information to play with in both shadows and highlights.
Being ale to precisely control highlights without blowing the highlights and to be able to "re-introduce" deep rich shadows while retaining subtle detail, all without the noise.
That said I continue to be astounded by the image quality of late-model cameras, both with regards to dynamic range and lack of shadow noise.
Perhaps HDR will yet reduced to the playground of the grunge artists.
Tony Jay
-
HDR tends to soak the contrast out of pictures, especially the blacks, highlighting the mid-tones reducing the range of blacks to whites.
I find that blacks and dark shadows are what adds interest to photos and makes them attractive to my eyes. Why is it necessary to see every detail in the shadows just because we technically can do it?
My view too. I like black shadows.
However being able to pull info out of some shots at the extremes is a fantastic tool at times, particularly with architectural work. HDR used well is an amazing tool, used badly it tends be grotesque and not in a good way.
-
I don't do a lot of "HDR" , but I have tried some aps that do tone mapping and it hasn't pleased me.
I couldn't bring life to the image the way I imagined. But I do sometimes take multiple exposures and combine them by using the best exposure for each part of the image and "painting" them in using layer masks.
I've attached an example that was taken at midnight, by moonlight. I think I used 3 exposures for the final image. Is this what you have n mind?
-
I don't do a lot of "HDR" , but I have tried some aps that do tone mapping and it hasn't pleased me.
I couldn't bring life to the image the way I imagined. But I do sometimes take multiple exposures and combine them by using the best exposure for each part of the image and "painting" them in using layer masks.
I've attached an example that was taken at midnight, by moonlight. I think I used 3 exposures for the final image. Is this what you have n mind?
I like the photo - I can see HDR but in a subtle and effective way that improves the image without making it look at all fake.
Perhaps you can explain what "tome mapping" means. I have seen this term but never understood it. And, if there are HDR apps that do not do tome mapping, how do they work differently?
-
Thanks Peter,
I think that "tone mapping" is the math that maps the tones from multiple exposures to one continuous tone image. If it's accurate, you'll get one very low contrast, but "normal" image.
To add contrast to make the image interesting, some math must be applied, often with the effect of the "HDR" look, which can be interesting, but not natural.
What I've done is akin to using grad filters after the fact so that my sky is a separate exposure than the mountains than the city. So what you see are three "normal" exposures blended together.
-
I don't do a lot of "HDR" , but I have tried some aps that do tone mapping and it hasn't pleased me.
I couldn't bring life to the image the way I imagined. But I do sometimes take multiple exposures and combine them by using the best exposure for each part of the image and "painting" them in using layer masks.
I've attached an example that was taken at midnight, by moonlight. I think I used 3 exposures for the final image. Is this what you have n mind?
That's pretty good but the mountains are too light. It doesn't comport with the blacks of the city and the lightness in the sky. While you have the blacks dark, why would the mountains be that light? I think part of the problem with HDR is even when you try to get it right, it's so hard to match reality. The picture doesn't match what you really perceive in reality.
-
something happened on the way through the phone to the web and the contrast in my illustration photo looks a little bit crushed in the blacks, but I think it's a good example of using multiple exposures to capture a scene without using HDR software.
-
>Perhaps you can explain what "tome mapping" means. I have seen this term but never understood it. And, if there are HDR apps that do not do tome mapping, how do they work differently?
>I think that "tone mapping" is the math that maps the tones from multiple exposures to one continuous tone image. If it's accurate, you'll get one very low contrast, but "normal" image.
My understanding is
-that the math that combines the tonal values of multiple images would be called 'fusion' or 'exposure stacking' or 'EDR' (extended dynamic range); resulting in an image that contains all values, but may look dark and/or dull;
-that HDR (in the narrower/correct sense of the word) is a special advanced form of such fusion using 32 bit floating point calculation;
-that the 2 terms are not always used correctly, but often confused
-that 'tone mapping' is the process to transform this 'contains-all-but-looks-dull' image to something more natural/pleasing. This process can be done manually (by applying a tone curve), but there is software that automates it. I think Photomatix has both options.
Good light!
-
This is my preferred method, but now I use LR5 and PS CC.
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/quick-tip-creating-32bit-hdr-images-in-lr-41/
http://thelightroomlab.com/2012/05/working-with-32-bit-hdr-images-within-adobe-photoshop-lightroom-4-1/
http://kelbytv.com/lightroomkillertips/2012/06/21/a-new-hdr-feature-in-lightroom-4-1/
Watch all 3, because they're slightly different.
-
I shot in the same slot canyon exactly a year ago and used the Merge to 32 bit HDR Pro in PS. Worked very well giving me a lot of room to adjust sliders in ACR.
-
I'd like to take a crack at this conversation. We all know the light values in a scene can have a tremendous dynamic range. A faithful representation of the full dynamic range sometimes benefits from HDR techniques, namely capturing/converting the light values to floating point numbers (floats). This allows a much wider range than a 16 or 32 bit integer (ints). Here is the point: Whether or not we are using floats or ints we have to map the intensities to a display/output device, usually one with less dynamic range. This is tone mapping and it takes place in Lightroom and Photoshop as well as HDR programs. When we render from 16 bit ints to the screen, tone mapping is required. When we render from floats to a print, even more severe tone mapping is required because our papers and coatings have a low dynamic range. I argue that LDR and HDR are actually very similar, both requiring tone mapping, though with LDR this term is not often used. Furthermore, it seems logical to at least capture the full dynamic range of the scene. How can that hurt our artistic version? Maybe next year there will be better output devices. Don't we use Prophoto RGB to assure that we can register all the colors, even though we can't display them? It is up to the artist to decide how to tone map the data. Maybe the artistic decision is to throw away shadow and/or highlight information. But there is nothing sacred about capturing an image with a single exposure. I argue that there should be a way to advance our artistic vision by using more of the HDR data. I believe that we can restore the full contrast to the scene with less noise in the shadows and more detail in the highlights. We have all seen horrible LDR results from Photoshop and Lightroom. No one would conclude from such observations that those tools are worthless. You would merely conclude that the user didn't know what he or she was doing.
-
I shot in the same slot canyon exactly a year ago and used the Merge to 32 bit HDR Pro in PS. Worked very well giving me a lot of room to adjust sliders in ACR.
At last someone who understands HDR . It isn't a means to an end but the starting point for further editing. Harold Davis (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creating-HDR-Photos-Harold-Davis/dp/0823085864/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407743549&sr=1-18&keywords=harold+davis) has been pointing this out for years but few have listened/read what he has stated.
-
That's pretty good but the mountains are too light. It doesn't comport with the blacks of the city and the lightness in the sky. While you have the blacks dark, why would the mountains be that light? I think part of the problem with HDR is even when you try to get it right, it's so hard to match reality. The picture doesn't match what you really perceive in reality.
Maybe the goal of that picture is not to represent reality. I believe picture making is a lot more than "just" representing reality, whatever that is ;)
-
Maybe the goal of that picture is not to represent reality. I believe picture making is a lot more than "just" representing reality, whatever that is ;)
I agree with Alan's comment about that image - I would not personally have gone with that interpretation.
However it is an interpretation - this is not a fault or deficiency in the process of HDR.
All HDR gives you is much more depth of image data to play with.
HDR does not drive your interpretation in any particular direction however fine-tuning the technique of tone-mapping does take practice but now that we can bring 32-bit TIFF files into Lightroom it is easier to learn how.
The result that makes an individual happy is an aesthetic one not ultimately a function of the HDR process.
Tony Jay
-
I can accept HDR when used to create "grunge" because "grunge" could be an expression of style. There's no apparent attempt to duplicate reality, so the brain interprets it as artistic, although some might not like its effect.
However, I think HDR fails, when in the attempt to better create "reality", it creates an imbalance in the lighting that flags the brain's sensitivity immediately to the imbalance. How could mountains be lighter than the surrounding areas. We've never seen that in reality. The HDR attempt to improve reality MUST succeed or the attempt fails. The brain won't accept incorrect lighting effects.
On the other hand, the brain for whatever reason, doesn't have a problem with shadows being too dark. It doesn't consider the image as being imbalanced. In fact we can even add a vignette, which doesn't happen in nature at all, but the brain will accept, even applaud its effect. We can argue all day long about what is reality. But the brain will go on its own way as to what it will and will not accept.
-
I shot in the same slot canyon exactly a year ago and used the Merge to 32 bit HDR Pro in PS. Worked very well giving me a lot of room to adjust sliders in ACR.
Very nice! I see that a few trees disappeared between your visit and mine, last October.
-
nma did a succinct job of explaining what tone mapping is actually all about. I've always said that the objections many photographers have to "HDR" is not so much the HDR foundation per se, but that they don't like the way some photographers handle the tone mapping part of an HDR workflow, frequently too aggressively.
Alan is right that HDR images, no matter how photometrically correct, can still look unnatural. It's something I struggle with a lot. At first, I made every effort to go down the path of attempting a completely realistic look. I'd often get frustrated by how much work it took to coax a traditional looking image out of an HDR original.
Then I met Dan Burkholder, and learned to embrace the surreal grunge look. Not my instinctual style, but I came to appreciate it nonetheless. Now I can put an enormous amount of tone mapped weirdness into prints, and people just love them all the more for it. In fact, the more outrageous my prints are, the more likely I am to sell them. Go figure.
But, instinct being instinct, I still try for something more traditional when I think it's appropriate. Take a look at the attached images. The church image looks pretty standard, but in fact it's an HDR from a 5 stop span. I knew there was no way my camera had enough dynamic range to hold the details in the whiter than white statue under blaring New Mexico sun, while still capturing the shadowed wall with enough light to prevent noise. But when I started tone mapping the sequence, it looked very strange. I didn't put much time into that image, but I did play with the HDR until I got some detail back into the statue, but not too much. You can judge whether or not I was successful. You can see from the straight train image that the black and white result is tone mapped beyond any level of reality. Again, a 5 stop range, only with this one, I was going for complete fantasy.
-
My opinion, FWIW which may not be much, is that there are too many unnecessary attempts at HDR. With apologies to Misrilou, I'm posting the same church in Rancho de Taos. The image is from a single exposure made with 30D. There is enough data in the image to produce detail in both the whites and the shadows.
When DR needs to be extended, I prefer Exposure Fusion with either LightRoom Enfuse or SNS-HDR. My understanding is that EF simply automates, in a very sophisticated way, the kind of blending techniques that many have been doing by hand in PS for quite some time. I find its results much more natural than HDR. EF doesn't get the attention it deserves.
About "natural". I find myself in substantial agreement with Alan. I think that shadows should not be unnaturally opened up just because we can. I generally like deep shadows as long as they are not muddy.
-
My opinion, FWIW which may not be much, is that there are too many unnecessary attempts at HDR. With apologies to Misrilou, I'm posting the same church in Rancho de Taos. The image is from a single exposure made with 30D. There is enough data in the image to produce detail in both the whites and the shadows.
It really depends. I was there on a day with no clouds whatsoever. And I wanted to use my Sigma DP2M (for maximum print size), which uses a proprietary raw format that can't even be opened in Lightroom, much less anything else. I used the newest exposure fusion method in Photomatx on a set of TIFFs that I got out of SPP. I tend to avoid Photomatx's garish HDR tonemap prests. In fact, that train shot was processed through exposure fusion, based on a preset called "real estate interior." Go figure.
-
There were light clouds the day I was there and the little bit of diffusion they provided certainly helped. With full sun I would probably have made a my best exposure followed by a couple of brackets in case the shadows were dark enough to be muddy.
I have to agree about Photomattix. I have played with the demo but been unsatisfied. I have found the Real Estate preset to be the best one much of the time. With LR Enfuse, I get the blended tiff and am taken right back to LR to finish any editing I want to do. It's seamless and seems to do a good job of blending the exposures. I also like SNS-HDR which does both EF and HDR in a separate program like Photomattix but seems to work better for me.
-
I've never tried SNS, but I do like LR Enfuse a great deal. My main reason for having gone back to Photomatx lately is that it now has outstanding deghosting tools. The best I've ever used in fact. But for something like that church shot, LR Enfuse would have worked just as well, maybe better.
My original point was that HDR doesn't automatically mean freaky looking contrast ranges and shadows. LR Enfuse is a good tool if you want to avoid that kind of thing. And you can't beat the price.
On the other hand, there are times when the over the top stuff can be a very guilty pleasure. Even Photomatx exposure fusion can be talked into some really untoward behavior when you're feeling frisky.
-
My opinion, FWIW which may not be much, is that there are too many unnecessary attempts at HDR....
You may be right.
Certainly the DR of most late-model cameras is much better than it used to be so HDR has therefore become much less necessary than it used to be.
Tony Jay
-
I get the best results using Photomatix, that said there is a learning curve to get good results. I personally prefere a more subtle hdr, as good as Treys are, some are 'overblown' to my taste.
I also found that varying the number of stops between shots makes a huge difference, I've now settled on 2 stops as that produces the best results with my set up.
-
I get the best results using Photomatix, that said there is a learning curve to get good results. I personally prefere a more subtle hdr, as good as Treys are, some are 'overblown' to my taste.
I also found that varying the number of stops between shots makes a huge difference, I've now settled on 2 stops as that produces the best results with my set up.
Yes, I agree. 2 stops seems to work much better than 1, and it's easier to shoot too.
-
Certainly the DR of most late-model cameras is much better than it used to be so HDR has therefore become much less necessary than it used to be.
CAPTURE
Mixing several shots to capture the entire DR of a scene has become less and less necessary since a single shot is more often enough due to low noise modern sensors. But...
TONE MAPPING
All the tone mapping techniques and tricks to map the linearly captured information onto the output devices (of limited DR) remain exactly as up to date as they always were.
So HDR programs such as the terrific Photomatix, SNS-HDR, Photoshop, any RAW developer with shadows/highlights abilities, exposure blending techniques using layers... will still make sense exactly in the same way as they used to. The only diference is that a single input file will be more often enough with high DR cameras.
Regards
-
CAPTURE
Mixing several shots to capture the entire DR of a scene has become less and less necessary since a single shot is more often enough due to low noise modern sensors. But...
TONE MAPPING
All the tone mapping techniques and tricks to map the linearly captured information onto the output devices (of limited DR) remain exactly as up to date as they always were.
So HDR programs such as the terrific Photomatix, SNS-HDR, Photoshop, any RAW developer with shadows/highlights abilities, exposure blending techniques using layers... will still make sense exactly in the same way as they used to. The only diference is that a single input file will be more often enough with high DR cameras.
Regards
Nice follow-on!
Tony Jay
-
...I did a lot with HDR out west last fall and am very happy with most of the results, this may be my fave. It was taken in a slot canyon in Utah using a D600 and a Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Three shots, handheld, one at the metered exposure and then 2 stops over and 2 stops under. The original raw files were combined in HDR Expose 3 and the resulting TIFF sent to Lightroom for final tweaking.
Peter, great shot/composition, but what jumped out at me was its odd reddish color (like a faded old print). In Photoshop do a quick Auto Colors/Levels and see what I mean. That tweak would be a much better example of good HDR, which you otherwise pulled off.
Too bad about the chubby "contrail" in the sky, but they're hard to avoid these days!
-
Peter, great shot/composition, but what jumped out at me was its odd reddish color (like a faded old print). In Photoshop do a quick Auto Colors/Levels and see what I mean. That tweak would be a much better example of good HDR, which you otherwise pulled off.
Too bad about the chubby "contrail" in the sky, but they're hard to avoid these days!
I don't see any red in the photo other than the natural red of the rocks - is that what you mean? It is quite true to the original scene, if memory serves. The "contrail" was actually a real cloud, and IMO the photo is better with it that it would be with a uniform blue sky.
-
I shot in the same slot canyon exactly a year ago and used the Merge to 32 bit HDR Pro in PS. Worked very well giving me a lot of room to adjust sliders in ACR.
Nice picture, except perhaps the contrast of the sky, to much for me.
Have a Nice DAY.
Thierry
-
Peter, there is a definite reddish hue across the board (including in the tree leaves) that disappears upon color correction, while maintaining the natural redness of the rocks. I can post a fixed version if you'd like, though it would be easy to see yourself on your own screen.
As for the presence of clouds or whatever they are, something is better than nothing, but in this case it is too large and bright of a white area and pulls the eye right up out of the scene. The old "Ansel Adams" clouds would be better ;-). They could be stripped in easily enough if you wanted to go that route.
-
Maybe the goal of that picture is not to represent reality. I believe picture making is a lot more than "just" representing reality, whatever that is ;)
Pictures are an illusion, photography a unique art form that takes the viewer to a place in their mind that the illusion represents to them. I think Hans is right on, it's completely dependent on the goal. I don't think anyone told Picasso his pictures don't represent reality.
-
Peter, there is a definite reddish hue across the board (including in the tree leaves) that disappears upon color correction, while maintaining the natural redness of the rocks. I can post a fixed version if you'd like, though it would be easy to see yourself on your own screen.
As for the presence of clouds or whatever they are, something is better than nothing, but in this case it is too large and bright of a white area and pulls the eye right up out of the scene. The old "Ansel Adams" clouds would be better ;-). They could be stripped in easily enough if you wanted to go that route.
Well, I do not know how to respond. I appreciate the feedback, but neither I nor any of the other people who have seen the photo have perceived any red cast. I tried the color correction you suggested and it just made the photo look pale and not like the original scene. FWIW, I use calibrated high-gamut NEC monitors. I know that different folks see things differently, but if I saw a photo one way and everyone else saw it differently, I might begin to wonder if the issue was with the photo or with me.
As for the clouds, the "eye-drawing" stuff has long ago been shown to be crap by psychologists who study where people actually look in photos and paintings (as I posted recently in another thread. Don't ask for links, look it up yourself). As for stripping in other clouds, I would no sooner do that than I would strip in Bigfoot and Elvis. The scene is what it was, for better or worse, and to add something like that is totally against the way I view photography.
-
Peter, no stress and it's not a big deal, I'm just reporting my initial reaction to the image and a color fix that would make me happy were it my image. I saw the red hue in the thumbnail before I even opened it. FWIW, I don't see the same hue in Wolfman's version.
I'm viewing with an iMac so it's not a cheap generic PC monitor. And of course I don't doubt the quality of your NEC.
-
Peter, no stress and it's not a big deal, I'm just reporting my initial reaction to the image and a color fix that would make me happy were it my image. I saw the red hue in the thumbnail before I even opened it. FWIW, I don't see the same hue in Wolfman's version.
I'm viewing with an iMac so it's not a cheap generic PC monitor. And of course I don't doubt the quality of your NEC.
Understood, thanks.
-
How true - a few day ago on Cambridge in Colour a photo was posted asking for help with DR - the mod pointed out that the image had only seven (7) stops of DR. :-[
-
Peter, there is a definite reddish hue across the board (including in the tree leaves) that disappears upon color correction, while maintaining the natural redness of the rocks. I can post a fixed version if you'd like, though it would be easy to see yourself on your own screen.
No red hue here either. Is your monitor off?
-
I guess the best way to tell is by posting this comparison that everyone can view on their own monitors, if Peter doesn't mind (if he does I will delete it).
The image at left is the original; #2 is Photoshop's native Auto Color+Auto Tone; #3 is iCorrect EditLab (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/icorrecteditlabpro.html), Smart Color mode with no further adjustments; #4 is Perfectly Clear (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/perfectlyclear.html) (default settings with no further adjustments).
I have not been to this particular place but to my eye, the original image looks like it has a faded/flat red cast across it. Photoshop's version is a bit different from the last two; I don't know which reds are closer to the actual rocks but all of the corrected versions look better to my eye.
-
I have not been to this particular place but to my eye, the original image looks like it has a faded/flat red cast across it. Photoshop's version is a bit different from the last two; I don't know which reds are closer to the actual rocks but all of the corrected versions look better to my eye.
Here's a thought. If you are taking photos in a place where the light is generally bouncing off reddish surfaces, what colours are things likely to be?
The 'faded' look is one look HDR can have or that may be Peter's preferred style. The contrast in the second shot looks more 'natural' in the sense that's what photos usually look like if that are not HDR, though the the sky looks a bit odd with the colour it has now become.
Which is the 'best' shot is more a matter of taste than 'accuracy'.
-
Of course Peter would be the final judge, but as a member of his "audience", I am seeing a red cast that distracted me. That's all, no biggie. If it were my work I would display a corrected version, but I am only speaking for myself. This art of photography is very subjective, as we all know.
-
Of course Peter would be the final judge, but as a member of his "audience", I am seeing a red cast that distracted me. That's all, no biggie. If it were my work I would display a corrected version, but I am only speaking for myself. This art of photography is very subjective, as we all know.
I think I see the problem. You prefer a "neutral" image, whereas I prefer an image that looks like the scene. And the scene, because of the red rocks, had a bit of a rosy tinge to it. It's not a color cast or color imbalance, it's part of what made that canyon special. If you took a picture during a glorious red and orange sunset, would you try to "correct" the image to get neutral color? I sure wouldn't. It's the special quality of the light that makes some images special. Anyway, thanks for your input.
-
Thanks Peter. I'm curious if any of the 3 "corrections" were true (or truer) to the scene.
-
I think we sometimes attach processing to an image that mirrors our emotional reaction to it. Not that that is wrong - just not necessarily neutral. Painters do it all the time, and with the tools we now have, I see no objective reason we shouldn't. I can imagine subjective reasons but that is a different discussion entirely. Personally I like the third version. I like the red and the separation of the leaves in the shadow to the right. I can imagine being there and seeing that shot even if it wasn't what was really there.
-
Richard, if you're counting from the left and including the original, that is the iCorrect (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/icorrecteditlabpro.html) version. In the screenshot I just made you can see where I activated the Smart Color mode and then made further tweaks by manually clicking on two neutral areas (the dark shadow of the rock at lower left and the cloud) to address color cast, which is being reported as a lot of red cast and some green. The preview image shows the corrections, not the original. IMO the rocks are still properly red (they didn't go grey) and the overall images looks more bright, though that "cloud" really annoys me ;-).
BTW, I often use iCorrect to color-adjust my own images since I like the easy click-on-neutral area results. I am not a left-brained by-the-numbers color correction person...
At any rate, this is developing into an interesting discussion about image perception and correction!