Stacking Exposures (contrast blending) Methods?

[EricWHiss]

I've had good luck with Enfuse so can offer a 3rd recommendation for it whichever front end you use.  I use the front end GUI called bracketeer  http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/  on my Mac.  But it seemed to make a much nicer file out of the box than photomatix.

[Snook]

Does anyone know if Photomatrix will open a Phase One raw file?  Often times when generating a HDR composite image, I prefer to let Photomatix open the files as raw.  It's very dependent on the situation.  

Paul C

Yes My P30 .TIF files work directly in Photomatix... Mac OSX 10.5.6
Snook

[Doug Peterson]

Yes My P30 .TIF files work directly in Photomatix... Mac OSX 10.5.6
Snook

Before anybody gets confused, for those who don't know: ".TIF" (note capitalization) is a phase one raw format ".tif" is a processed file. There's an interesting story for why that is, but now's not the time for that.

It's been a while since I've checked, but I think non plus backs worked but plus backs did not. They may (likely) have added support for the plus backs since I last looked though.

If it doesn't have support the next thing I would try would be a Capture One 4.6 "export to DNG".

If that doesn't work I would process out to a tiff with the HDR sliders turned up to around 25 each and noise reduction and sharpening turned down or off.

Doug

Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer  |  Personal Portfolio

[haefnerphoto]

I shoot mainly with my P45 and utilize the Photomatix Exposure Blend tool frequently in my architecture photography.  I generally process my files to 8 bit tifs then selecting 2-3 different exposures let Photomatix do the rest.  It creates a great base layer for me to start with and doesn't look unnatural in anyway.  Jim

[Murray Fredericks]

For Architectural work, I now mainly use a technique described here (the last one in the tutorial):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml

As haefnerphoto mentions, I just use the resulting image as a base to progress from.

After posting the initial query, I tried PS photomatix and others, but found them all very time consuming. I like to have the result sitting on 2 layers which you can then start painting and fading to put some 'guts' and 'reality' back into the image.

Cheers

Murray

[Snook]

I shoot mainly with my P45 and utilize the Photomatix Exposure Blend tool frequently in my architecture photography.  I generally process my files to 8 bit tifs then selecting 2-3 different exposures let Photomatix do the rest.  It creates a great base layer for me to start with and doesn't look unnatural in anyway.  Jim

Jim, Can you showing the Photomatix settings you use?
I have been fooling around with it a lot lately... I would also like to get just the blend images with out all the over contrasted look Photomatix gives..
I usually have all the setting on low and all smoothing HIGH. Whites and blacks usually pretty low also..
Are you tone mapping in photoshop or in Matix afterwards?

Thanks for any post...  I some times have been putting one of the closest to best exposures on a layer below the Photomatix layer and bring back some "normality" to the image. Also I find with the Higher dynamic range of Medium format you can get a LOT out of a single file if you expose correctly...:+]

Many times I will use the original water or Ocean in the scene if possible as there is no blurring done by Photomatix . That is usually done to water,flags, blowing trees that may be blurred during the combining stages..:+]
Thanks for any further help.
I have read that usually the more Normal you want the image, the more smoothing you add...:+]

Thanks
Snook

[feppe]

For Architectural work, I now mainly use a technique described here (the last one in the tutorial):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-blending.shtml

As haefnerphoto mentions, I just use the resulting image as a base to progress from.

After posting the initial query, I tried PS photomatix and others, but found them all very time consuming. I like to have the result sitting on 2 layers which you can then start painting and fading to put some 'guts' and 'reality' back into the image.

Cheers

Murray

Time consuming in another way. I've tried the method on LL, and Tufuse (didn't like Photomatix). LL method definitely gives more control, and is much better for scenes without extreme contrast.

But in night-time city scenes with deep deep shadows and extreme highlights the LL method becomes very tedious very quickly, especially on stitched panos. For those I have found Tufuse to take out the tediousness, while producing halo-free natural-looking results with some tweaking.

I still blend normal daylight scenes manually.

It's all about choosing the right tool for the right job.

[Kirk Gittings]

I shoot mainly with my P45 and utilize the Photomatix Exposure Blend tool frequently in my architecture photography.  I generally process my files to 8 bit tifs then selecting 2-3 different exposures let Photomatix do the rest.  It creates a great base layer for me to start with and doesn't look unnatural in anyway.  Jim

I too am interested in how you are using Photomatix. I have played with it dozens of times (every time I see a thread like this) and could never get natural looking results on inside looking out images. I've had some success with twilight exteriors, but find it better to just shoot one exposure at that magic time. I always go back to doing inside out shots the LL way. What am I missing?

[Murray Fredericks]

especially on stitched panos. For those I have found Tufuse to take out the tediousness, while producing halo-free natural-looking results with some tweaking.

Feppe,

what is your workflow for stitching and exposure blending?

Are you using PTgui or a combination of apps (as I do depending on what works best).

Are you on mac or PC?

Cheers

Murray

[feppe]

Feppe,

what is your workflow for stitching and exposure blending?

Are you using PTgui or a combination of apps (as I do depending on what works best).

Are you on mac or PC?

Cheers

Murray

It's pretty straightforward on my PC:

Tufuse: export RAWs from LR as 16-bit TIFFs, (alternatively stitch in Autopano Pro for panos), Tufuse them, import to PS to do final editing (spotting, curves, etc). Save them as 16-bit ProPhoto psd files, reimport it to LR for easier cataloging and handling.
LL method: export directly from LR to PS (alternatively take them through Autopano Pro), blend, spot, curves, etc., save as 16-bit ProPhoto psd files, reimport it to LR.

I don't bother with 32-bit files: from my experience, and from what I've read from Guillermo Luijk here, and other sources, 16 bits is more than enough to store the dynamic range of a natural scene. And 32 bits is tough to image (and imagine) due to displays being 8 bit.

I usually use 2 or 3 bracketed exposures, ~4 stops apart for 2 exposures, 1-2 stops apart for 3. It all depends on the scene and the histogram.

[EricWHiss]

.... Real high dynamic range scenes hardly ever reach more than 12 or 13 f-stops of DR. ....

I've been curious about this since I like to take pictures with high contrast lighting.  High DR is one of the things that's on my wish list for future cameras.   The ISO definition of DR is problematic for photographers because we need a higher threshold.  So when DPreview or Steve's digicams reports that a canon 5D has 12 stops, its not really 12 useful stops - probably more like 8 or 9 is more like it.   So if you go with useful stops then yeah I'd agree that most scenes are going to only need 12 or 13 stops.  But in terms of how DR is measured then I'd say we need about 15-17 stops to cover most scenes.   Actually I'd like to have about 4 more stops on my phase p20 back at base ISO.  I've taken plenty of images with natural lighting where a few more stops would have been really great.  Here's what I'm talking about natural light outside the window with a 8x4 ft foamcore on the inside for reflection but still a very high contrast scene.   Would have been great to have a few more stops but with the phase back that is already using the 16 bits, wouldn't it need to go to 32 bits data?  

btw - I have processed this image with enfuse/bracketeer  using two variants of the same RAW file and that helps some. This image is just the straight file.

[haefnerphoto]

Guys, I'll provide some examples soon, I'm working on a Ford project and they've got me very busy.  Snook, what I use most often is the Exposure Blending mode of Photomatix and since I don't have the most recent version of the program here at home, I'll have to use v3.0.3, but I select Highlights and Shadows-Adjust and occasionally increase the Strength (a slider) of the effect.  This produces an image with more detail in the highlights and more detail in the shadows than a normally exposed image.  The Generate HDR (another part of the application), in my experience, always creates a unusual look (which quite often I like) when the image is then tone-mapped.  There is a limit to how much detail can be pulled from an extremely contrasty situation but with subjects that don't move (since a bracket is necessary) this program provides the greatest dynamic range I've found.  Kirk, tomorrow I'll try to post some examples of inside looking out shots.  By the way, I couldn't get the link to work that illustrates the LL method, where would I find it.  Jim

[Snook]

Hey Haf.. any news on the examples?
Alos does anybody now the most natural way of combining exposures??
I have been trying just about every setting in Photomatix and it still just looks too cartoony?
I use to like that look but would like a way of combining the images but making them look a little more natural.
The colors for one.
The  closest I have come is photomatixing then merging the origianl "correct" exposure with it to get a more balanced look, but not thrilled so far with the results.
here some examples of photomatix and all the settings set pretty low. Just loos too cartoony or is it me? :+}
Thanks
Snook
[attachment=11215:HDR1.jpg] [attachment=11216:HDR2.jpg]
[attachment=11217:HDR3.jpg] [attachment=11218:HDR4.jpg]

[Hoang]

I recently transitioned into doing almost only HDRs (for architectural stuff). Picturenaut is a great program and if used right can generate great results that don't have the typical HDR haloing and contrast/saturation.

[Snook]

[quote name='Hoang' date='Jan 28 2009, 07:09 PM' post='255214']
I recently transitioned into doing almost only HDRs (for architectural stuff). Picturenaut is a great program and if used right can generate great results that don't have the typical HDR haloing and contrast/saturation.

Hoang.. those look pretty natural.
I forgot to mention I am on Macintosh..:+}
I found most programs cannot even handlt the P30 files since they are so large.
Photomatix handles them really well, I just not sure how to get a more natural end result as far as texture.
Yours look very natural and mine look cartoonier.. If that makes sense.


Thanks

Snook

[Murray Fredericks]

Photomatix handles them really well, I just not sure how to get a more natural end result as far as texture.

I too am now Photomatix quite regularly. I can't really get great results out of the program itself for high contrast scenes, but its a start and saves me the pain of intricately masking out windows etc...

I find photomatix can 'create' quite a bit of chromatic aberration, particularly around whites with sun on them, but they can be painted out...

My workflow is to HDR file first then tonemap the result.

Cheers

Murray

[Carsten W]

Eric, have you tried CS4? The image blending tool can output a 16-bit TIFF which you can then work with in normal ways. The tone mapping is almost non-existent, but the blending results seem good, and if you can then get to where you want to be with your regular image operations, it might work.

[Dustbak]

Eric,

What do you use in Photomatix? 'Generate HDR' or 'Exposure blending'? I find Exposure blending generating the most natural looking result generally. I would either use 2 images (that are about 3 stops apart) or 'adjust' and tweak from there.

I sometimes make 1 image based on exposure blending, 1 based on HDR, blend these 2 by hand in PS to get to the best result.

I hardly ever use the 'Generate HDR' in Photomatix.

[Snook]

Eric,

What do you use in Photomatix? 'Generate HDR' or 'Exposure blending'? I find Exposure blending generating the most natural looking result generally. I would either use 2 images (that are about 3 stops apart) or 'adjust' and tweak from there.

I sometimes make 1 image based on exposure blending, 1 based on HDR, blend these 2 by hand in PS to get to the best result.

I hardly ever use the 'Generate HDR' in Photomatix.

Thanks Dustbak for the repsonse.
I am generating  HDR with Photomatix and then do "Process" which I then save as a .tif and open in photoshop.
I have seen a lot of guys get more realistic images than what I am getting. The images I post above have a pretty big dynamic range. I have also tried on images with less dynamic range and get the cartoony look.
I usually do tone mapping and then process. Will give just Exposure blending option nwo and let you know..
Thanks a lot

Snook
PS.
In exposure Blening option it says that it is better to use Jpegs or Tifs, when I load my P30 RAW images. That does not happen when doing a tone mapping option.
I am doing Generate HDR then Tone mapping. When I goto Tone compressor I am getting a little more natural results also. Keeping Detail enhancer rther low on all settings. Strength around 77 Luminosity +9, Light smoothing On the last button (Less effect) ...

[michele]

This is an example of the LL technique... There is one exposure for the shadow and one for the sky. Look the passage from the dark side to the light side in the palms and in the boats, I think it's pretty good and of course you can easily control the opacity of the clouds and the sky, if you think it's too much unreal, just pull down the opacity, or light up with a curve... P45+ and 35mm mamiya.