Raw file download of DualExposure+ feature (IQ4)

[dougpeterson]

If you’d like to see the pros, cons, improvements, and limitations of capturing in DualExposure+ we have a writeup and free downloadable raws here:
https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/dual-exposure/

 

[dougpeterson]

Updated with additional raw files.

 

[Paul2660]

Still waiting on my email with link. Request send over an hour ago.

Would appreciate the ability to view additional al examples as weather here is worthless.

Paul C

 

[dougpeterson]

Still waiting on my email with link. Request send over an hour ago.

Would appreciate the ability to view additional al examples as weather here is worthless.

Paul C

Probably went to your spam folder or something; should be delivered within a few seconds in most cases, couple minutes at most. Will email you a link from my personal email address.

 

[dougpeterson]

Probably went to your spam folder or something; should be delivered within a few seconds in most cases, couple minutes at most. Will email you a link from my personal email address.

Sent.

 

[Paul2660]

Thanks Doug

Sent you a response on the email address confusion.


Paul C

 

[dougpeterson]

Thanks Doug

Sent you a response on the email address confusion.


Paul C

Received. What do you think of the raws?

 

[Mexecutioner]

Received. What do you think of the raws?

Very nice, noise is almost entirely absent.

 

[Paul2660]

Received. What do you think of the raws?

Doug, thanks again for the link to the raws. The results are impressive.

Looking at the shot which has the building on the right side and water on the left, any of the areas that are in shade or dark, really come alive with the Dual exposure shot.

Examples are the grass below the bikes, the water below the dock and near the blue rope, and the parts of the building in the shade.

The other thing I see over a "frame averaged" image is no loss of sharpness. The frame averaging process does tend to pull down the finer details at least to me.

Paul C

 

[Paul2660]

After looking at all the images, it's apparent the results can be very close at times. However you can also see the effect that Frame averaging has on the water in several images.

In the last series, with the skyline in the background, the frame averaged image still has some noise in the darkest parts of the shot, especially under the dock in the foreground, and the dual exposure image handles it very well.

However overall the frame averaged look on the water, especially the pier on the right side works IMO better, it's just better looking, more appealing.

So IMO the answer is to use both tools all the time and have both outputs available to work on in post.

Paul C

 

[SCHWARZZEIT]

Received. What do you think of the raws?

Thanks for providing the raws.

I played around with the Harbor Sunset and Promenade Underexposed raw files and noticed that the DualExposure+ files have lots of little blending/masking artifacts.
On the Sunset image the darkest area seems to be under the pier near the bottom right corner. When pushed hard (+100 Black and +100 Shadows, no exposure push) the sensor banding shows up even in the DualExposure+. And in that particular area there are some noisy blobs where it seems the software chose to blend in parts from the darker exposure.
On the Harbor image for some reason I cannot find any banding in the single exposure while there is some banding in the DualExposure+ file when you look at the deep shadows under the pier. Again, that area has lots of blending artifacts where parts of noisy texture from the darker exposure are blended onto the smoother texture of the brighter exposure. Near the bottom left corner there is a jogger in pink. Based on her running direction I’d say the DualExposure+ process starts with the longer exposure and finishes with the shorter exposure. You can see a pinkish trail from the longer exposure behind her which feels more natural than the other way around. But still, the way moving objects are blended in from the shorter exposure feels like bad retouching because of the difference in texture. If the individual exposures of the DualExposure+ files could be processed with different noise reduction settings maybe the differences in texture can be smoothed out.
While DualExposure+ surely is a promising tool, in the current Capture One processing the user has to examine the file very carefully for artifacts. It would be great if Phase One allows the user to fine tune the automatic blending/masking suggestion in Capture One. I’m aware the feature is still in beta. Let’s see where they take it.

I really welcome the Lab approach. Hopefully, this will open a dialogue between the Phase One R&D team and Phase One users.

-Dominique

 

[Paul2660]

Since they are EIPS they are carrying all the adjustments of owner. Best thing to do is create a copy and reset the adjustments and start the process over.

Paul C

 

[dougpeterson]

Thanks for providing the raws.

I played around with the Harbor Sunset and Promenade Underexposed raw files and noticed that the DualExposure+ files have lots of little blending/masking artifacts.
On the Sunset image the darkest area seems to be under the pier near the bottom right corner. When pushed hard (+100 Black and +100 Shadows, no exposure push) the sensor banding shows up even in the DualExposure+. And in that particular area there are some noisy blobs where it seems the software chose to blend in parts from the darker exposure.
On the Harbor image for some reason I cannot find any banding in the single exposure while there is some banding in the DualExposure+ file when you look at the deep shadows under the pier. Again, that area has lots of blending artifacts where parts of noisy texture from the darker exposure are blended onto the smoother texture of the brighter exposure. Near the bottom left corner there is a jogger in pink. Based on her running direction I’d say the DualExposure+ process starts with the longer exposure and finishes with the shorter exposure. You can see a pinkish trail from the longer exposure behind her which feels more natural than the other way around. But still, the way moving objects are blended in from the shorter exposure feels like bad retouching because of the difference in texture. If the individual exposures of the DualExposure+ files could be processed with different noise reduction settings maybe the differences in texture can be smoothed out.
While DualExposure+ surely is a promising tool, in the current Capture One processing the user has to examine the file very carefully for artifacts. It would be great if Phase One allows the user to fine tune the automatic blending/masking suggestion in Capture One. I’m aware the feature is still in beta. Let’s see where they take it.

I really welcome the Lab approach. Hopefully, this will open a dialogue between the Phase One R&D team and Phase One users.

-Dominique

That’s great feedback! Thanks!

 

[dougpeterson]

Since they are EIPS they are carrying all the adjustments of owner. Best thing to do is create a copy and reset the adjustments and start the process over.

Paul C

Absolutely. New Variant is a great first step; that way you can start with all-defaults, but still see what was done previously in case there are any lessons to be learned (positive or negative).