More on Exposure 7

On 2015-04-14 03:22:28 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:53:53 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-13 22:42:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:39:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Here is a B&W take of my Exposure 7 trial.

For this rendition I wanted to see how it matched up against NIK Silver
Efex Pro 2, and I am impressed.

Here I used an Ilford B&W emulation + Vignette, and added 50% grain as
if developed in Rodinal, and a few other tweaks.
This really looks like grain, not noise.
https://db.tt/NBuFaHS1

I guess that's OK, if you want to photograph grain. :-(

I wasn't trying to photograph grain. I was trying to emulate a classic
B&W film, and a classic developer, both of which together would produce
a reasonably visually pleasing grain. It managed this task quite well,
and I didn't have to handle the smells of a wet darkroom. I can
certainly get a similar result with NIK Silver Efex Pro 2, but I am
test driving Exposure 7 right now.

I'm aware of all that. What I'm trying to say is that it is far too
grainy for my taste. Just after I posted I read your post describing
how your vision is soft focus and you hope that will be fixed by your
forthcoming eye operations. It then occurred to me to wonder how your
views on what is a desirable amount of visible grain will be affected
by your forthcoming eye operations. It will be interesting to hear
back from you once your vision has settled down.

Agreed. However, grain isn't noise and I only introduce some grain when
I am actually trying to emulate a specific B&W film & process rather
than a straight coor-B&W conversion. Otherwise I hate noise and will do
all I can to remove it from my images, sometime too much so. You are
not going to see too much "grain" in my color images.

....and I too am looking forward to having my soft focus veil lifted, so
I can see where I have been going wrong for the last two years.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:46:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-14 01:34:45 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:04:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-13 23:15:27 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:39:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Here is a B&W take of my Exposure 7 trial.

For this rendition I wanted to see how it matched up against NIK Silver
Efex Pro 2, and I am impressed.

Here I used an Ilford B&W emulation + Vignette, and added 50% grain as
if developed in Rodinal, and a few other tweaks.
This really looks like grain, not noise.
https://db.tt/NBuFaHS1

What was your final verdict on HDR Express? Did you buy it?

Yes. I like the subtlety of the results, and I can afford it. It adds
another tool to my tool box.
Very different HDR results from those produced by NIK HDR Efex Pro or
Photomatix, and even HDR Pro in Photoshop.

Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new software
on that one?

Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when I
saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major way.
Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and after
images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this is
not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:45:27 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:46:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-14 01:34:45 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:04:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-13 23:15:27 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:39:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Here is a B&W take of my Exposure 7 trial.

For this rendition I wanted to see how it matched up against NIK Silver
Efex Pro 2, and I am impressed.

Here I used an Ilford B&W emulation + Vignette, and added 50% grain as
if developed in Rodinal, and a few other tweaks.
This really looks like grain, not noise.
https://db.tt/NBuFaHS1

What was your final verdict on HDR Express? Did you buy it?

Yes. I like the subtlety of the results, and I can afford it. It adds
another tool to my tool box.
Very different HDR results from those produced by NIK HDR Efex Pro or
Photomatix, and even HDR Pro in Photoshop.

Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new software
on that one?

Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when I
saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major way.
Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and after
images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this is
not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

Oops - the correct link is: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

The top photo is the processed one.

In article , Bill W wrote:

Bill W:
Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new
software on that one?

Savageduck:
Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

Bill W:
For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when
I saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major
way. Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and
after images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this
is not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

That's just one image, though, or what am I missing?

--
Sandman

On 2015-04-14 05:54:00 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:45:27 -0700, Bill W
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:46:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-04-14 01:34:45 +0000, Bill W said:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:04:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-04-13 23:15:27 +0000, Bill W said:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:39:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Here is a B&W take of my Exposure 7 trial.

For this rendition I wanted to see how it matched up against NIK Silver
Efex Pro 2, and I am impressed.

Here I used an Ilford B&W emulation + Vignette, and added 50% grain as
if developed in Rodinal, and a few other tweaks.
This really looks like grain, not noise.
https://db.tt/NBuFaHS1

What was your final verdict on HDR Express? Did you buy it?

Yes. I like the subtlety of the results, and I can afford it. It adds
another tool to my tool box.
Very different HDR results from those produced by NIK HDR Efex Pro or
Photomatix, and even HDR Pro in Photoshop.

Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new software
on that one?

Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when I
saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major way.
Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and after
images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this is
not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

Oops - the correct link is: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

The top photo is the processed one.

There are several things at play here, the first being the subtle
nature of the HDR Express algorithm compared to that of most of the
other HDR processing applications which tend to rely on heavy tone
mapping and end up with over cooked results.

The resulting HDR processed 16-bit TIFF, regardless of processor used
should not be considered the finished image. There will always be some
fine tuning to be made in whatever image processor you are using,
Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.

Now on to the example you posted:

Image selection is everything; I suspect this was a single exposure,
not a multi-exposure bracket set. So depending on the exposure settings
for the original RAW, you might not have any/enough detail in the
shadows to recover. (If you go to the other extreme with over exposure
the same holds true. Clipping on either end of the histogram remains
clipped, irrecoverable, and lost data. If there is clipping on the left
of the histogram in the unadjusted RAW image nothing is going to
recover it. The process will only work on data that is there. Not even
making a pseudo-exposure bracket from the original RAW will help.

If you make any adjustment to the original RAW, or if you use a
pseudo-exposure bracket, the HDR processor can at best only process it
as a 16-bit TIFF. If you want HDR Express to use the 32-bit engine you
must use the unadjusted RAW file.

With this 5 shot set, in the dark (-2EV)image there is some serious
clipping in the shadows. Processing that as a single image gets to some
shadow detail, but the noise produced is unacceptable.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_93.jpg

Here is the processed HDR compared to the -2EV shot.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_94.jpg



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 14 Apr 2015 05:57:23 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Bill W wrote:

Bill W:
Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new
software on that one?

Savageduck:
Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

Bill W:
For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when
I saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major
way. Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and
after images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this
is not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

That's just one image, though, or what am I missing?

This is the correct link: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

On 2015-04-14 14:12:22 +0000, Bill W said:

On 14 Apr 2015 05:57:23 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Bill W wrote:

Bill W:
Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new
software on that one?

Savageduck:
Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

Bill W:
For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when
I saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major
way. Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and
after images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this
is not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

That's just one image, though, or what am I missing?

This is the correct link: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

It seems HDR Express has acted on the only part of the image it could
extend the DR and get detail, that is the area around the blown
highlight of the setting Sun. The blown highlight remains blown and
clipped, as does the deep shadow where the data is clipped. The
processed image does reveal some detail in the shadows, but not as much
as you would get from processing a multi-exposure bracket.

A look at the histogram tells the story, the unprocessed on the left,
all channels still show clipping after processing:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_97.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-14 14:12:22 +0000, Bill W said:

On 14 Apr 2015 05:57:23 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Bill W wrote:

Bill W:
Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new
software on that one?

Savageduck:
Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

Bill W:
For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when
I saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major
way. Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and
after images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this
is not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

That's just one image, though, or what am I missing?

This is the correct link: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

It seems HDR Express has acted on the only part of the image it could
extend the DR and get detail, that is the area around the blown
highlight of the setting Sun. The blown highlight remains blown and
clipped, as does the deep shadow where the data is clipped. The
processed image does reveal some detail in the shadows, but not as much
as you would get from processing a multi-exposure bracket.

A look at the histogram tells the story, the unprocessed on the left,
all channels still show clipping after processing:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_97.jpg

Actually, the dark areas at the bottom remain pretty dark by choice.
There is lots of detail available, but it's my opinion that lightening
those dark areas too much is what makes HDR so unpleasant in so many
cases. Also, it was single exposure HDR. This is the photo without any
adjustments to the HDR image:

http://i.imgur.com/7FW7vV2.jpg

You can see that no detail is actually lost in the dark ground. In
fact, after sleeping on it, that image doesn't look so bad after all,
and maybe my adjustments are too dark. It needs some tweaking of
course, but my original concern is still present - the most obvious
problem is that the blue sky turns grayish when saving the HDR output
to either TIFF or JPG. The HDR output itself does not show any
desaturation at all, at least on my monitor. The problem appears only
when I export that image to TIFF or JPG.

BTW, I just checked the preferences, and I am exporting to 16 bit
TIFF, and using Adobe RGB, which is what my camera is set to.

This is hardly a deal breaker, though. I like the program, and I'm
sure there's an easy work around for this.

On 2015-04-14 16:28:50 +0000, Bill W said:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-04-14 14:12:22 +0000, Bill W said:
On 14 Apr 2015 05:57:23 GMT, Sandman wrote:As I have
said, not all
In article , Bill W wrote:

Bill W:
Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new
software on that one?

Savageduck:
Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

Bill W:
For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when
I saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major
way. Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and
after images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this
is not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

That's just one image, though, or what am I missing?

This is the correct link: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

It seems HDR Express has acted on the only part of the image it could
extend the DR and get detail, that is the area around the blown
highlight of the setting Sun. The blown highlight remains blown and
clipped, as does the deep shadow where the data is clipped. The
processed image does reveal some detail in the shadows, but not as much
as you would get from processing a multi-exposure bracket.

A look at the histogram tells the story, the unprocessed on the left,
all channels still show clipping after processing:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_97.jpg

Actually, the dark areas at the bottom remain pretty dark by choice.
There is lots of detail available, but it's my opinion that lightening
those dark areas too much is what makes HDR so unpleasant in so many
cases. Also, it was single exposure HDR. This is the photo without any
adjustments to the HDR image:

http://i.imgur.com/7FW7vV2.jpg

You can see that no detail is actually lost in the dark ground. In
fact, after sleeping on it, that image doesn't look so bad after all,
and maybe my adjustments are too dark. It needs some tweaking of
course, but my original concern is still present - the most obvious
problem is that the blue sky turns grayish when saving the HDR output
to either TIFF or JPG. The HDR output itself does not show any
desaturation at all, at least on my monitor. The problem appears only
when I export that image to TIFF or JPG.

BTW, I just checked the preferences, and I am exporting to 16 bit
TIFF, and using Adobe RGB, which is what my camera is set to.

This is hardly a deal breaker, though. I like the program, and I'm
sure there's an easy work around for this.

As I have said, no two images are equal, and not all images or scenes
are good candidates for HDR treatment. So what I would do is take a
look at a few more of their tutorial videos and play around to
familiarize yourself with the various nuances of the program.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:41:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-14 16:28:50 +0000, Bill W said:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-04-14 14:12:22 +0000, Bill W said:
On 14 Apr 2015 05:57:23 GMT, Sandman wrote:As I have
said, not all
In article , Bill W wrote:

Bill W:
Wasn't that you who posted the photo of a tree next to a road,
inviting everyone to try some HDR on it? Did you try the new
software on that one?

Savageduck:
Yup! Here is a rendition of that tree done with HDR Express 3.
https://db.tt/NB1lG9Ng

Bill W:
For ~$80, I'll probably get it, too.

Okay, I got the lighting where I wanted it pretty quickly, but when
I saved the image as a Tiff, it seemed to desaturate it in a major
way. Did you notice anything like that? Here are the before and
after images:

http://imgur.com/5Vn88BN

They are both JPG, but I worked with the raw file, and saved the
adjusted image as a Tiff. The Tiff is desaturated just like the JPG.
There is a saturation slider, and I'm sure I can fix this, but this
is not WYSIWYG for some reason, and I would have to do the trial and
error thing.

That's just one image, though, or what am I missing?

This is the correct link: http://imgur.com/a/UcAeJ

It seems HDR Express has acted on the only part of the image it could
extend the DR and get detail, that is the area around the blown
highlight of the setting Sun. The blown highlight remains blown and
clipped, as does the deep shadow where the data is clipped. The
processed image does reveal some detail in the shadows, but not as much
as you would get from processing a multi-exposure bracket.

A look at the histogram tells the story, the unprocessed on the left,
all channels still show clipping after processing:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_97.jpg

Actually, the dark areas at the bottom remain pretty dark by choice.
There is lots of detail available, but it's my opinion that lightening
those dark areas too much is what makes HDR so unpleasant in so many
cases. Also, it was single exposure HDR. This is the photo without any
adjustments to the HDR image:

http://i.imgur.com/7FW7vV2.jpg

You can see that no detail is actually lost in the dark ground. In
fact, after sleeping on it, that image doesn't look so bad after all,
and maybe my adjustments are too dark. It needs some tweaking of
course, but my original concern is still present - the most obvious
problem is that the blue sky turns grayish when saving the HDR output
to either TIFF or JPG. The HDR output itself does not show any
desaturation at all, at least on my monitor. The problem appears only
when I export that image to TIFF or JPG.

BTW, I just checked the preferences, and I am exporting to 16 bit
TIFF, and using Adobe RGB, which is what my camera is set to.

This is hardly a deal breaker, though. I like the program, and I'm
sure there's an easy work around for this.

As I have said, no two images are equal, and not all images or scenes
are good candidates for HDR treatment. So what I would do is take a
look at a few more of their tutorial videos and play around to
familiarize yourself with the various nuances of the program.

I am going to try some others, and I haven't looked at any of the
tutorials yet, so I'll get around to that, too. I'll probably grab the
camera and try some bracketed shots this week - handheld and tripod.
This might be more of an issue with single shot HDR.