Topic: Help needed with DHP HDR sunrise (Read 5394 times)

David Eckels · « **on:** February 10, 2015, 01:30:50 pm »

I am trying to process this image, which I like and find quite dramatic. Sorry, but it is an HDR series (Nik) using what was basically the default with really minor tweaking of highlights and shadows. Usual post sharpening in PS. Back in LR, I adjusted the highlights down slightly. I had to tone the blue cast down in the shadow areas, but the area around the rising sun is just way over the top dramatic and I am having trouble with how to deal with it. It looks like the freaking sky is on fire. I know this is not really a question, but I thought I'd put it out there for suggestions. All appreciated.
From Dead Horse Point by the way. And also by the way, it prints quite well. What am I missing?

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2015, 01:33:34 pm »

What's DHP?

The bottom part is acceptable, the sky is grotesque, so just tone it down.

Then again, you probably know by now my strong antipathy towards canned solutions. So asking how to improve it is like asking how to turn a canned soup into a home-made one (given your talent for cooking, I am sure you get the parallel

)

David Eckels · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:23:59 pm »

DHP=Dead Horse Point
Grotesque. Not quite the word I would have used, but OK

Maybe I will try a gradient filter and desaturate, but that seems to head in the wrong direction and looks washed out. Or maybe just take out some of the orange/yellow. Back to the drawing board.
As for canned solutions, I agree, and the HDR was intended as a starting point. Tried other HDR merges, but they all choked, only Nik HDREP2 was able to finish.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:31:10 pm »

Have you tried manual blending?

P.S. Sorry for the harsh words

RSL · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:42:14 pm »

Hi, David, if you're using the Nik plugins in Photoshop CC then you'll have access to Photoshop's HDR Pro. Another alternative is Photomatix. With a difficult subject I tend to use Photomatix, but Photoshop's built-in HDR Pro is pretty darn good. I'm surprised you're having a problem with Nik's stuff. I used to use it quite a bit before Photomatix came out with their latest, and never had a problem.

Just a quick checklist: How many frames? How far apart was the exposure between frames? Were you on manual ISO and aperture priority?

It's best to get reasonably close with tone-mapping in the HDR software itself, but I've found it's better then to get out of HDR and bring up the Camera Raw filter for tone and color adjustments.

David Eckels · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2015, 03:02:30 pm »

No harsh words taken! I think I felt the same it's just that grotesque didn't occur to me

But, actually, you're right!
Russ, Yes, I agree with what you said and for some reason, both Photomatix and PS were choking on it. Sixteen half stop images; I could cut it to 8 full stoppers. All manual exposures BTW in RAW.
I tried it again with a manual blend and I think it's a lot better. Used one of the frames in which the clouds around the sun were not blown and blended over the grotesque upper section of the OP. May go back and try something else, but I was stymied

so thanks for the comments.
See below.
By the way, my 89 yo dad had a ball on this trip just in case you didn't follow my other post on Arches, Canyonlands, and Monument Valley. Fun moments to treasure.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2015, 03:15:59 pm »

The sky is better. A little bit on the red-orange side for my taste. Perhaps more toward yellow-orange? Something that would resemble "golden" light?

Also, the middle ground has a cyan cast, not likely to be seen in nature. All artifacts of the HDR program, I presume.

Sorry for being a pest with my nitpicking, but I wouldn't do it if I didn't think the picture has a potential.

Come to think of it, 16 half-stop images seems like an overkill. I assume you are shooting with modern Nikon sensors with excellent DR, so how about selecting, say, only three frames, process them in PS HDR as 32-bit and exporting them (without any fiddling in PS) to LR for further processing?

RSL · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:31:44 pm »

I agree with Slobodan. Half-stops are overkill. But I don't agree that you should cut it to three frames. Try one-stop increments -- 8 frames, and see how it goes. When I do an HDR I go for nine frames -- four one-stop steps down and four one-stop steps up plus the middle exposure. The only failures I've had have been hand-held in a windstorm.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:43:24 pm »

Quote from: RSL on February 10, 2015, 04:31:44 pm

... I don't agree that you should cut it to three frames...

That is because I am suggesting NOT to process it as a HDR, but as a single 32-bit file (single once in LR, that is). Actually, Jeff Schewe even suggests to use just two, each covering the extremes (i.e., one with highlights not blown, and the other with desired level of shade detail)

David Eckels · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:46:42 pm »

I see the cyan and am still working with this. No I don't mind the comments and value your opinion. I think I have been sitting in front of it too long and am going to take a break (nap

) before continuing on. I did try 8 full stop HDR in photomatix, but haven't tried PS, export as 32 before toning in LR. The light was changing so fast, I wanted to make sure I got a good exposure and so went with the half stops. Wanted to get as much potential for ETTR, but I don't think this image will work with a single. At best best, two blended frames, but I will give the 32-bit edit a chance after a break. Thanks fellas.
Again, I posted for the comments so don't hold back! I know you won't

Slobodan, just saw your comment. I will try it both ways (3 and

in PS HDR, then a 32-bit edit in LR. After my nap!

RSL · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:50:48 pm »

Okay, Slobodan. We agree on the 32 bit stuff. Worth a try anyway.

sarrasani · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:56:32 pm »

sorry, but for my tastes detail and colours are un-natural.
More artifact than dramatic.
All the best,
Sandro

Wolfman · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:00:04 pm »

+1 for using PS HDR Pro 32 bit processing with 8- 1 stop brackets.

Misirlou · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2015, 11:52:19 am »

I've settled on 2 stop brackets, after several years of experimentation. For a time, I still shot 1 stop brackets, and just selected every other one for processing. My theory was that there must be clipping cutoffs that can be effectively measured to one stop or less. In practice, I find that being able to speed up my shooting by taking fewer shots is a much better strategy. Shooting more quickly helps to avoids ghosting issues from movement, for sure. And who cares if you've got clipping in the shots with more exposure anyway? It looks to me like most of the HDR packages actually work better when they can sense clipped areas that can be handled with data from the underexposures.

David Eckels · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2015, 02:17:31 pm »

So I had a re-go at it. Actually blended 4 1-stop exposures for the earth and 5 for the sky separately in PS HDR Pro, saved a 32-bit flattened tiff and then optimized each in LR. Then I opened them as layers in PS and did a manual blend, with which I am very happy. For some reason, getting an 8 or 9 stop blend was harder to work with in LR. Or maybe by breaking into two elements, I could concentrate better. Warning: Colors and detail may not fully reflect reality.

Anyway, this process worked more smoothly and I am satisfied with the results for now. There is a cyanish/bluish cast in this sRGB version, but the print looks about right. Thanks for all the comments and reminders!

Colorado David · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2015, 02:52:28 pm »

I wasn't sure I was going to like this version when I just looked at the thumbnail, but when I opened it I decided I did like it. I think you could reduce the saturation a bit and that would improve the image. I think it's perfectly natural for an area in shadow to have a bluish cast. Years ago we would look for an area of blue cast in shadow to white balance video cameras as that would give an overall warm look to the video.

RSL · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2015, 03:42:31 pm »

Hi David, It's definitely an improvement. I agree that the saturation probably could be taken down a notch, but my main beef is that on my calibrated monitor what I see is a green sky above the clouds. Ya gotta deal with that one.

David Eckels · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2015, 05:29:35 pm »

Yeah Russ, I worked on that after I posted. Went away from for about 10 min and it really stood out!

David Eckels · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2015, 06:30:04 pm »

But I still didn't like it! So I went back to a single 1/1500 sec exposure and blended the sky onto the landscape. Now the clouds don't look funny and the green sky issue is addressed. Makes me want to just take two and blend them manually!

RSL · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2015, 07:50:02 pm »

I think you got what you were after. Let's hear what Slobodan has to say about it.

Author Topic: Help needed with DHP HDR sunrise (Read 5394 times)