hdr question

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 3 July 2015 21:54:11 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
This was a 5 exposure HDR, converted to BW. The HDR rendition and the BW
conversion were done using NIK software. No other modifications were
made. I cannot undertand why the vertical post on the door is so blurry,
compared to the ret of the image. What did I misss?


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150703_Amish_0105_HDR.jpg

thanks

--
PeterN

And how is it possible to blur part of the image and not the whole image?

With HDR software? Let me count the ways ...

It all depends on the software, how it works, and what you have done
to confuse it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-05 00:40:52 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/4/2015 6:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-04 22:31:53 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 3 July 2015 21:54:11 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
This was a 5 exposure HDR, converted to BW. The HDR rendition and the BW
conversion were done using NIK software. No other modifications were
made. I cannot undertand why the vertical post on the door is so blurry,
compared to the ret of the image. What did I misss?


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150703_Amish_0105_HDR.jpg


thanks

And how is it possible to blur part of the image and not the whole image?

Hand held in unsteady hands. Then NIK HDR Efex Pro did not have a
primary frame to key on for allignment and ghost removal.


Is there a way of designating a single shot from a group, for that purpose.

https://support.google.com/nikcollection/answer/6098837

You are really selecting a key frame for ghost removal. In a 5 frame
bracket the frame will show at the top of the merge dialog window. it
is best to first examine each for potential problems such as birds
flying, or people or other animals moving through the scene. One of
these is going to be better as a key image than the others. Otherwise
you could end up with birds with odd looking wings, people with three
legs, or two heads.
You slide the selector to choose the right one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_199.jpg

For good alignment you can have only minor variations or there is no
saving a shakey bracket.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-07-05 01:09:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 15:38:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-04 21:58:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 20:59:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

My solution would be to use Lightroom Photo Merge - HDR. See my prior
post or if you want more detailed help we can move this to email.

This might give you some idea of how I use Photo Merge - HDR in LR for
a single exposure. In the case of your bracket I would choose the 0 EV
and work with that in LR.
https://db.tt/nIuPyfxx

My hackles always rise when this process is called HDR.

Why?

A single-shot HDR image can only be a pseudo-HDR image in that it has
been obtained from no more dynamic range than is contained in the
original single image.

That is true of single image HDR in NIK HDR Efex Pro, or Photomatix
where the single image is nothing more than a ton mapped image with no
true extension of the DR.

The conventional HDR process extends the dynamic range of the final
image beyond that of any single image by combining data from more than
one image of different exposures.

...and that is just what the "Photo Merge" - HDR function does in LR
CC/6. By taking a RAW file and processing it, a 32-bit RAW file is
created. All you have to do to check that is with the resulting image,
in the Develop module, go to the basic panel and note that now in place
of the usual -5/+5 exposure slider range it is now -10/+10. It is in
every way an HDR process, and if it still troubles you, you can always
shoot a usual 5, 7, or 9 shot exposure bracket. LR will process that
just as well.

The LR single RAW exposure method just opens up a whole bunch of
opportunities where an HDR is the logical answer, but you never exposed
the bracket. I suspect you might have quite a few indoor shots from
your last trip which might benefit.

That thought had occurred to me when I looked at your Model A Ford.
But even so, all the process does is to further fiddle with the tone
curve. It cannot incorporate data which was beyond the original
camera's ability to capture.

The bottom line is, I have no idea of the details of the Adobe Photo
Merge algorithm, but I can appreciate the results.

Here are three processed HDR images, one is a single exposure -3.0/+3.0
LR method. Then there is a Photo Merge of a 5 shot -2, -1, 0, +1, +2
bracket in LR. Finally the same 5 shot bracket is processed with NIK
HDR Efex Pro 2. They are arranged in no particular order. I have tried
to keep the tone mapping as neutral as possible.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_202.jpg

You have LR and if I am not mistaken you have NIK HDR Efex Pro. Test
for yourself. I did and I am the HDR maniac in this room. The LR single
RAW exposure method works, and works well.

The NIK HDR I have is incorporated in Corel PaintShop Pro X6 (now
obsolete).

Oh! Well!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:37:24 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 2:23 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:21:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You would be very surprised at how good the NR in LR CC/6 and ACR is.

As an owner of DXO, I agree with this. DXO is great, but not
necessarily any better than LR for NR. I've had different results
between the two with some photos, but nothing significant. The other
thing is that LR is much faster. (DXO has two types, the much better
one for RAW only, but the better one is the very slow one.)

I really did just love DXO, definitely worth the money, but LR/PS CC
seems to be good enough these days to make DXO redundant for most
things. I hate to admit that - it means I have wasted money.


At least you admit it. I am not sure I want to. Have you compared Smart
Lighting inDXO with ACR?

I'm not sure of how to get a valid comparison, but at the same time,
clarity and vibrance in LR seem to do about the same thing, except
manually. I rarely adjust the RAW files in ACR. I've never found much
need for it, mainly because I'm not sure what you can do in ACR that
you can't do in LR - at least things I normally do. I had a habit of
saving the RAW files to Tiffs, so all of the info remains, but I don't
know if there's any point to that anymore, either. I can make virtual
copies in LR, and can always process those copies in PS if needed. The
only time I'm likely to adjust in ACR is when I have a very bad photo
that I want to save.