The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Photomatix Blended Exposures

D

DougDolde

Guest
I have finally settled on a workflow (not that it won't possibly change of course) for my Aptus 75S, and invariably using a three exposure blend is far superior to a single exposure. I bracket +2, 0, -2 then blend them usually with the default settings.

First I convert the raw .mos file with Leaf Capture 11 but I don't do any more than run auto exposure on all three files.

These are not straight out of the Photomatix box. Considerable work was done on both in CS3 to get them to this point.

The first is the blend, the second is the best I could do with a single exposure.



 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
What would help me understand is to see all three of the initial images that go into your blend...
 
D

DougDolde

Guest
Yea but then I'd have to charge you for a workshop :D

Best you try it yourself then you'll understand.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I'm always very hesitant to comment in threads such as this, but this tends to be a mutually respectful group.

Before scrolling down and seeing the second image, and before reading any text to understand the amount of processing other than it was a blended image, my initial feeling was that the image shows way too much processing. The clouds were the first thing that hit me – they look quite "bruised". The canyon walls come across as CGI to me.

Now, I'm one to prefer minimal processing, so I'm probably not the right audience here, but if this treatment was on a layer over the second image I would opt for dialing it back by about 40-50%. And if one could then mask so that more of the sky from the second image, and the canyon walls in the first image came through, the blend would be more successful to m eye. We all have different taste and I'm expressing mine here. If the goal is to produce an image like a frame for Myst, then I think that the process is working. Please understand that I would not make such comments if this was not an image processing section of the forum, and one that is friendly and respectful at that.

My guess is that the original looks better on your display before downsizing and converting to JPEG for display here, but even so, this image definitely represents a difference in image preferences to me.

Thanks for posting it and sharing your ideas.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
HDR - via Photomatix and their tone mapping tools can be fun. I dont see any tonal issues here..however i have noted a disposition towards very very SHARP landscapes from a number of posters..- I am feeling that his is personal preferences at play.

hahahah - maybe i shoudl post some soft landscapes - but then again I woudlnt want anyone to call me a softy. :)
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Yea but then I'd have to charge you for a workshop :D
Best you try it yourself then you'll understand.
C'mon Doug, please teach us what you do step by step, after all we are here to share :)
I could definitely need some good instructions on this, because everytime I try HDR merging myself I end up trashing my HDR results.
It's great fun to play with but at the end I'm never really satisfied with my results, they look too artificial for some reason. So I just delete them :(
I must be doing something wrong, using bad settings or whatever ?
I use the Photomatix Pro ver. 2.2.1 software, it's the only one I've got.
/Steen
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
The one thing I find most unsettling about the pair of images is the idea that the second image represents "...the best I could do with a single exposure." Maybe I'm misunderstanding but if the second image is what an expensive MF back provides in a well-exposed capture, and the only way to achieve a better image is to blend a set of bracketed exposures, then MF (or maybe this particular back/camera combo) means a lot of extra work. Am I missing something?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Yea but then I'd have to charge you for a workshop :D

Best you try it yourself then you'll understand.
No offense, but I have used it, and I find I can usually do as well or better blending them manually in CS. Moreover my point is I think you can probably get to the same endpoint you are showing here with a single image. Plus as mentioned above, if the second exposure is the best you could do on a single frame, then perhaps you may want to consider some tutoring in raw processing or CS :) If you were to share all three exposures, even the small jpegs, it might help us understand what you had to work with to begin with. While I am pretty sure I could replicate your displayed HDR result by working a single frame, I won't know until see all three. Ideally, you'd send me the raws and I'd work from those...

Cheers,
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Too me the sky looks posterized for some reason. I also agree looks a little over processed. But i would like to see us explore this also, maybe there is something missing in the overall process that would smooth the look a little. I like what you can do with it though and has great potential as a program.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I know it's fun to work with different approaches, and to experiment with different looks, but even the second image carefully handled in Photoshop can come up a lot without the use of additional tools. I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't use other tools or methods, but wanted to mention that the second image can be adjusted to come rather close to the first without blending.

It's great that there are options to achieve what is envisioned by the photographer.
 

robsteve

Subscriber
Doug:

On an image like that with such an obvious transition from bright sky to the land, couldn't you just use a ND grad on the lens to make achieve the same thing?
 

robsteve

Subscriber
Doug:

It says "If you don't have access to ND filters" I have some and I am sure you must have some from your film days. I guess what I am saying is you could have done better with your single exposure if you used a ND filter.

Where I find ND filters don't work is where the transition is not so even, such as a valley between two mountains. HDR would be a better option there.

Robert
 
Last edited:

Dale Allyn

New member
In the absence of ND filters I have taken two frames, one exposed for the sky and one exposed for the "terra firma", and blended them by overlaying the layers and painting in. (I'm a great one for lightening my bag and then regretting it when I get into the field.) It works well for shots when the scene geometry allows.

HDR is definitely a tool to keep in the bag. Some folks like to push it hard to create some wild stuff, and some use it just to create harmonious blends (and there are lots of examples of everything in between).

It's nice of Doug to post a shot where he used the technique and opened a dialogue. I found that his second image also responds pretty well to PS work, so I image that much more could be done with the original in comparison to the JPEG which was uploaded.

I'd not like for an exchange of ideas regarding styles and techniques to be misunderstood as disapproval or non-constructive discussion.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'd not like for an exchange of ideas regarding styles and techniques to be misunderstood as disapproval or non-constructive discussion.

Thanks Dale this is what this forum is about folks. We are here to learn and share . Please let's keep this in mind.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Doug,

chill man - we are all old enough to know that everything is a mater of taste! :clap:

The forum will evolve to include more threads like this abotu photos rather than the never ending gear head discussions - I appreciate your posting and I am sure so do others.

Pete
 
D

DougDolde

Guest
My last comment on this thread. Look I was just presenting MY findings. If you don't agree that's fine, it works for me. I find Jack's attempt to disprove my findinngs by asking for my raw files both rude and arrogant. Perhaps he didn't mean it that way.

I have no interest, time or patience for arguing about or trying to convince anyone that blended exposures are the only solution.

Yes I own a good set of Singh Ray grads. I find blended exposures superior in almost every case. If you have a perfectly straight horizon, a hard grad is still a good solution.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I find Jack's attempt to disprove my findinngs by asking for my raw files both rude and arrogant. Perhaps he didn't mean it that way.
Huh??? How can asking to see original files to help clarify the work involved in the final image be construed to become rude, arrogant, and me trying to disprove you?

:wtf:
 
Top