Landscape

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013062323002438165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

On 2013-06-23 22:10:56 -0700, Savageduck
said:

On 2013-06-23 21:09:42 -0700, "Dudley Hanks"
said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013062320224237709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2013-06-23 19:21:44 -0700, "Dudley Hanks"
said:
Ok, now that I've got that communications glitch straightened out, I
think I was able to put together the image I was shooting for.

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/pics/Landscape.jpg

It's a quasiHDR image of the river valley, here in Edmonton.
What do you mean by "quasiHDR"?

Just that it's an attempt to compress a dynamic range my cam couldn't
capture by using multiple exposures and merging them using the exposure
merge feature in Elements.

There is more to HDR than merging an exposure bracket set. Stacking those
exposures will give you a blend. However, the dynamic range is not going
to be expanded as evidenced in your result image.

Five shots, ranging from -2 to +2 stops and combined using Elements 11.
That is a start, but just combining the bracket set with PSE11 does not
make it any sort of HDR.

Your result is bland and no better than the WB problem shot, HDR
doesn't really seem to be needed.
If you are going to process the 5 shot bracket as an HDR you will need
at a minimum the Photoshop "merge to HDR" feature or dedicated HDR
software such as Photomatix or NIK HDR Efex Pro2.

It's my understanding that HDR is simply a term used to describe the
process used to compress a highly dynamic scene into colours / tones that
can be reproduced in a single image. Am I missing something in this
definition?

An HDR image is the result of processing an HDR exposure bracket stack to
capture a wider dynamic range than you would obtain in a "normal"
exposure. Together with the merge, there are also tone-mapping, tonal
contrast, saturation, and other tweeks to make it truly work right.

If you care to post the 5 shots from your HDR bracket and I would be
happy to see what I can get from them.

This pic is just the end result of an exercise I undertook to help me
understand an issue I'm systematically working through: to develop a
process by which I can achieve results similar to those of a sighted
photographer in settings whereby the lighting range exceeds the
capability of my camera to capture it, and in which it is impractical to
use an artificial means to smooth out the lighting curve (i.e. flash,
reflectors, etc).

...and certainly true HDR processing can give you that type of solution. I
suggest you get a trial of Photomatix or NIK HDR Efex Pro 2, so you can
see what you can really do with those bracketed shots. More importantly
HDR software can do a decent job of doing single exposure tone-mapping,
which might be all you need.

I understand that a few adjustments in Camera Raw to the shadows,
highlights, whites, and blacks sliders, to name only a few, can do the
same thing,

Not quite.

but it wouldn't tell me much about what kind of results can be achieved
with the exposure merge feature.

Exposure merge on its own is not the answer.

Again, exposure merge is not HDR.

It's not an attempt to produce a completed image for the sake of the
image, just another step in the journey...

After I feel more comfortable doing an exposure merge, I'll devote more
time and energy to producing an actual HDR image.


Take Care,
Dudley

Just to give you an idea of a single exposure tone map treatment here
is your original compare with the result after a run through NIK HDR
Efex Pro 2 for tone mapping, no exposure brackets used.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_241.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Thanks, SD, I'm working on a script that will (hopefully) help me pixel peep
a bit and do a thorough comparison of differently processed images. This
will be a good test to see how much of the difference it can detect.

Take Care,
Dudley

"David Taylor" wrote in message ...

On 24/06/2013 06:31, Sandman wrote:
[]
As others have said, it's a bit bland. Since you were after some HDR
effect, I made this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks.jpg

Horizon straightened. Chromatic aberration fixed, sharpened, and HDR
detail enhanced.

... for me, that's an example of everything which makes me /hate/ HDR.
Absolutely awful. Something between that and your original bland and
over-exposed image, if possible.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Thanks, David.

I think your comment that the original was over-exposed is the key to my
problem.

I just did a straight five shot, plus or minus two stops, without checking
to see if I had captured an appropriate range. As it turns out, I didn't
capture a range sufficiently exposed to eliminate all of the clipping.

When I try it the next time, I'll bring along my netbook and tether it to
the cam so I can get a bit more info on how the bracket set gets exposed.

Hopefully, it will help me get in the right exposure ballpark.

Take Care,
Dudley

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 24/06/2013 06:31, Sandman wrote:
[]
As others have said, it's a bit bland. Since you were after some HDR
effect, I made this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks.jpg

Horizon straightened. Chromatic aberration fixed, sharpened, and HDR
detail enhanced.

.. for me, that's an example of everything which makes me /hate/ HDR.
Absolutely awful. Something between that and your original bland and
over-exposed image, if possible.

Well, the OP said he was looking for HDR, so I thought I'd do it
strongly rather than subtly.

If I was "forced" to do HDR, I would probably do it more like this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks2.jpg

--
Sandman[.net]

On 25/06/2013 05:47, Sandman wrote:
[]
Well, the OP said he was looking for HDR, so I thought I'd do it
strongly rather than subtly.

If I was "forced" to do HDR, I would probably do it more like this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks2.jpg

Well, thanks. Yes, that is more acceptable, but still too much "HDR"
for me. Perhaps less colour saturation, and a little less dynamic range?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 08:55:37 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
On 25/06/2013 05:47, Sandman wrote:
[]
Well, the OP said he was looking for HDR, so I thought I'd do it
strongly rather than subtly.

If I was "forced" to do HDR, I would probably do it more like this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks2.jpg

Well, thanks. Yes, that is more acceptable, but still too much "HDR"
for me. Perhaps less colour saturation, and a little less dynamic range?



Can I join in?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25369438@N06/?saved=1

(In Photoshop 5, selected various areas, then adjusted levels and/or hue and saturation in various channels, just quick and dirty. May have slightly overdone it in some areas. Main objective was to make picture less brown.)

On 6/25/2013 8:24 AM, pensive hamster wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 08:55:37 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
On 25/06/2013 05:47, Sandman wrote:
[]
Well, the OP said he was looking for HDR, so I thought I'd do it
strongly rather than subtly.

If I was "forced" to do HDR, I would probably do it more like this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks2.jpg

Well, thanks. Yes, that is more acceptable, but still too much "HDR"
for me. Perhaps less colour saturation, and a little less dynamic range?



Can I join in?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25369438@N06/?saved=1

(In Photoshop 5, selected various areas, then adjusted levels and/or hue and saturation in various channels, just quick and dirty. May have slightly overdone it in some areas. Main objective was to make picture less brown.)


I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.
Create a new layer
Filter! blur ! average
levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.
Make other adjustments from there.




--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.
Create a new layer
Filter! blur ! average
levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.
Make other adjustments from there.

I don't get it. You are adding a layer, doing something to that
layer, and then deleting the layer. That does nothing to the layer
under the added layer. What's missing?

the colour balance step, where he's using levels.

the reason for the blur is to effectively cover the entire photo rather
than just an area under the dropper.

statistically, most images are neutral grey and gets a reasonably good
result.

there are easier and better ways to remove a cast.

On 6/25/2013 2:13 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:29:00 -0400, peternew
wrote:

On 6/25/2013 8:24 AM, pensive hamster wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 08:55:37 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
On 25/06/2013 05:47, Sandman wrote:
[]
Well, the OP said he was looking for HDR, so I thought I'd do it
strongly rather than subtly.

If I was "forced" to do HDR, I would probably do it more like this:

http://sandman.net/files/dudley_hanks2.jpg

Well, thanks. Yes, that is more acceptable, but still too much "HDR"
for me. Perhaps less colour saturation, and a little less dynamic range?



Can I join in?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25369438@N06/?saved=1

(In Photoshop 5, selected various areas, then adjusted levels and/or hue and saturation in various channels, just quick and dirty. May have slightly overdone it in some areas. Main objective was to make picture less brown.)


I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.
Create a new layer
Filter! blur ! average
levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.
Make other adjustments from there.

I don't get it. You are adding a layer, doing something to that
layer, and then deleting the layer. That does nothing to the layer
under the added layer. What's missing?


The level layer simply adds instructions. It does not shange the
underlying layer itself. Only how it appears.
Try it. the purpose for the blurred layer is to easily set levels, or
curves, to neutral gray.
Seriously, try it.

--
PeterN

On 6/25/2013 2:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.
Create a new layer
Filter! blur ! average
levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.
Make other adjustments from there.

I don't get it. You are adding a layer, doing something to that
layer, and then deleting the layer. That does nothing to the layer
under the added layer. What's missing?

the colour balance step, where he's using levels.

the reason for the blur is to effectively cover the entire photo rather
than just an area under the dropper.

statistically, most images are neutral grey and gets a reasonably good
result.

there are easier and better ways to remove a cast.


The use it. my method, implemented by using action works for me.

--
PeterN

In article , peternew
wrote:

I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.
Create a new layer
Filter! blur ! average
levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.
Make other adjustments from there.

I don't get it. You are adding a layer, doing something to that
layer, and then deleting the layer. That does nothing to the layer
under the added layer. What's missing?

the colour balance step, where he's using levels.

the reason for the blur is to effectively cover the entire photo rather
than just an area under the dropper.

statistically, most images are neutral grey and gets a reasonably good
result.

there are easier and better ways to remove a cast.

The use it. my method, implemented by using action works for me.

your way is just one of many.