Ogwen Valley N. Wales

[Steve Smith]

149504

HDR image Sept 15 2014. Canon70 D EF 10-22mm lens at 13 mm, 1/160, ISO 800. Left my tripod in the car - used my backpack instead. Had to cut image size down to get under the 400k bar and lost some sharpness. Applied NR to the sky. Increased colour and contrast a bit in the non-sky midtones. Some sharpening. Is the big rock in the RHS midground a distraction?

[Diane Miller]

A very nice scene, but just a little too HDR for my tastes. (Mileage can vary on that.) It would be interesting to layer on a straight conversion and vary it's opacity or even mask it to different amounts in different areas.

It should only rarely be necessary to reduce the dimensions to post -- an image with a lot of fine detail will give a bigger file size, but you probably won't see image degradation at the allowed full size and reduced JPEG quality. Certainly worth a comparison.

Lightroom is handy for that as you can make a preset for the BPN dimensions and check a box to limit file size too 400K, and compare that exported JPEG with ones done with higher quality settings.

[Andrew McLachlan]

I really like this scene, but would like to see it at a much larger size to offer a more thorough critique. At this image size it works quite well. Not sure about that bluish streak in the sky above the horizon.

[Steve Smith]

Hi Diane,

N. Wales has interesting skies. To get them one has to underexpose for the rest of the scene or use HDR. I use Polish HDR software - SNS HDR Pro - because it gives more natural results than other HDR software. Maybe in this one I guess my HDR tolerance is greater than yours.

I will follow up on your suggestions and go back to the middle exposure of my three exposure bracket and see what I can make of that.

Regarding the image sizing when there is a lot of entropy in an image - I will never buy software from Adobe - their name is mud :S3: as far as I am concerned. The software that I use is very flexible with resizing and I will play with lowering the jpeg quality in order to preserve both maximum pixel dimensions and stay below 400kb.

The highway to the RHS of this image was built by the Romans so a while ago there were Roman legions tramping down the valley on the look out for wild Celts. The Romans probably took a snappicus with their camera obscura to send home to Gina and the kids back in Rome, or something.

[Steve Smith]

Hi Andrew,

We are looking West toward the ocean and the blue streak is a patch of blue sky on the coast. I will produce a bigger image but it will of necessity be lower quality.

Steve Smith

[Don Railton]

Hi Steve

Sorry, but I too am with Diane in thinking this is a little too HDR'ish for me. Maybe I too have a low tolerance.. I especially see this look in the rock columns in the LLC, and to a lesser extent in the distant rocks. Not sure what software you are using other than the polish HDR application, but a simple blend of the sky at one exposure and the ground in another should be an option in all but the most basic editing programs, and I think this would give me an image I would prefer... I do love the composition, you have a nice lead along the wall to the road into the image.. I hope to see more of your work..

Don

[Steve Smith]

Andrew - here is a file that is 1200 by 729 pixels. I dropped the jpeg quality to 93% to reduce the entropy and the file size.

149512

Don - yes for HDR I choose the number of images to bracket at capture time and then select the number of images to blend at HDR time. In this case I blended three images because that gave the best result. The "HDR effects" that you and Diane dislike were added after blending by me. To get these "HDR" effects in the non sky portion, along with my masking I increased the saturation and increased medium and large detail. With the sky I only applied noise reduction.


Diane, Andrew and Don - jpeg file size is related to the number of pixels in an image but the amount of entropy in an image also greatly affects jpeg file size. Try comparing the jpeg file size of two files with the same number of pixels, but where one file is simply a single colour fill and the other is an image with many bits of information in it.

The image below is the one that was produced by the HDR software - also at 93% quality to reduce the entropy while maintaining the maximum number of pixels. Notice that the sky is noisy and I applied NR to the image that I first posted. SNS HDR-Pro is known for producing natural looking HDR images of landscapes. In this case the "HDR effect" isn't due to the HDR software. I did that in post HDR processing.

.149513

Thank you all for your time and thoughtful comments because they are really helpful to anyone like me who is trying to improve their photography.

[Don Railton]

Steve

How about posting a single image before the HDR software has been used? Pick one from the middle of your bracket. I agree that the file above (pane 7) does not have the HDR look to it, so the HDR look must be from the subsequent processing. The noise is also quite evident. At a glance this scene does not appear to have a large dynamic range (overcast conditions) so I question the need for HDR at all... so I am guessing the middle of the bracket shot alone might produce an image equal to the best above. Also note that setting ISO as low as you can (100ish) is the norm for Landscapes where the camera is tripod mounted and this probably applies for backpack mounts too. Will help with that noise.

DON

[Steve Smith]

Hi Don,

HDR stands for "high dynamic range" - it is designed to produce a higher dynamic range than you can get from a single frame. I chose HDR for this scene for the same reason that Real Estate Agents use HDR to show the interior of a house and the view through the windows in a single image. I wanted to get a dynamic range that included the relatively light sky and the relatively dark land as visible entities in a single image. A single frame could only get one or the other - the sky or the land but not both and could not possibly achieve a higher dynamic range than a blended HDR image. As proof of this, the histogram from the blended image is far superior to any histogram from one of my single frames.

I chose ISO 800 because of the very low light conditions. ISO 100 here would have given an excellent image of a black screen. Roger Clark at clarkvision.com has some very interesting articles about the meaning of exposure and ISO in digital cameras that are well worth reading.

Steve Smith

[Diane Miller]

By the "HDR look" I (and I'm sure Don) was actually referring to the tone-mapped aspect. I think the issue here that we are seeing is midtone contrast, which seems a little on the flat side even for a cloudy day. But of course that's maker's choice. Images get comments on how things strike others -- not necessarily to mean that view is better.

[Don Railton]

Hi Don,

HDR stands for "high dynamic range" - it is designed to produce a higher dynamic range than you can get from a single frame. I chose HDR for this scene for the same reason that Real Estate Agents use HDR to show the interior of a house and the view through the windows in a single image. I wanted to get a dynamic range that included the relatively light sky and the relatively dark land as visible entities in a single image. A single frame could only get one or the other - the sky or the land but not both and could not possibly achieve a higher dynamic range than a blended HDR image. As proof of this, the histogram from the blended image is far superior to any histogram from one of my single frames.

I chose ISO 800 because of the very low light conditions. ISO 100 here would have given an excellent image of a black screen. Roger Clark at clarkvision.com has some very interesting articles about the meaning of exposure and ISO in digital cameras that are well worth reading.

Steve Smith


Hi Steve, I am fully aware what HDR stand for... Thanks for the heads up anyway. The point I was trying to make is that I would have thought that this scene (because it was overcast, which limits how bright the whites are and how black the shadows are) could have been fully captured (ie no blacks 'blocked' or no whites 'burnt') in a single image that was correctly exposed, even at ISO 100. So I am saying the dynamic range of the scene probably does not exceed what the sensor could capture in a single image, therefore I was questioning the need to use HDR techniques... I might be wrong, maybe you did need to bracket, but that is why I suggested a post of a 'middle of the bracket' image so we could see. In the end you do what works for you, its your art after all, but when you post on sites like this people are going to ask why you do what you do and make suggestions based on what they do...and be aware we both might be wrong.

DON

[Steve Smith]

Hi Don and Diane,

No worries. I just thought that we had gone off track a bit. As far as I know, an HDR image blended from two or more original images must, by definition, have a larger dynamic range than either of the single images. The flatness of the HDR image, I believe, is simply a reflection of the flat light existing at that location on that day. Nevertheless the HDR image was way better than any of the single frames. It just turned out that my post HDR efforts at increasing colour and contrast in the mid-tones just weren't to yours and Diane's taste.

I appreciate all of your comments because they have opened up some new directions and ideas for me. I am really uncomfortable with Group Think anywhere and very uneasy with the idea that consensus is mandatory. It doesn't bother me when other people's opinions are different from mine and it shouldn't bother them either. I think that is what both of you are saying too.

We must remember that some of the fundamental questions of life have yet to be answered. For example since time began humans have vainly sought the answer to the question "what disease did cured ham have?" :S3:

[Diane Miller]

Not the case that "... an HDR image blended from two or more original images must have a larger dynamic range than either of the single images." It's actually the opposite. The component images of the HDR image can capture a larger DR (with different exposures) and shrink it into one image with the small range of tonal detail that can be represented in a print or on screen (a pathetic 5-6 stops, I'd bet), resulting in more detail in darks and lights.

I used to shoot a lot of HDR and processed mostly in Photomatix or Nik HDR, and neither pleased me most of the time, largely due to the necessary tone mapping step to bring down the tonal range. With the advent of greater tonal recovery from a raw capture possible in Adobe Camera Raw 7 (PS CS6) and Lightroom 4 and above, I generally get much better results processing a middle capture than doing HDR on a range of exposures. In extremis, I may composite by masking two exposures, for example for a brighter sky and darker FG. Some of the Nik filters can further refine contrast to give a pleasing result.

[Steve Smith]

Hi Diane,

Thank you - I didn't know that. I've just gone back to my Digital Photography reference by Jay Dickman and Jay Kinghorn and they say the same as you. I was wrong.

I agree about the aliens from outer space look that Photomatix seems to give. That is why I went with Sebastian Nibisz for HDR software. I do my RAW processing with Canon DPP. I don't know how that compares with Adobe camera RAW. Adobe lost me around 2000 with their over priced Adobe Acrobat and I never went back. Like Canada Post with their ridiculous labour strikes in the late 70's - we customers have long memories.

Steve Smith

[Diane Miller]

It's not Photomatix as such that gives that psychedelic look. All HDR programs I've tried can do it -- the problem lies in the tone mapping step, which is part of the process for all of them, which can be wildly overdone. Some may limit it more than others. PM isn't simple, and that flexibility makes it easy to misuse or overdo. But it also makes it possible to achieve a relatively natural look. There is a lot of latitude in it.

There is a lot of differing opinion here about DPP vs. ACR. Mine is that for people who know how to use recent versions of ACR that it gives superior tonal and color control. I favor the interface it has in Lightroom, and would go nuts without the integrated total photography workflow there.

Your experience with Adobe sounds very unpleasant. For many their products are simply the best, but it is certainly possible do wonderful work with other software. It's the result that counts.

[Don Lacy]

HI steve,
First the image I really like the composition with the flow of the lines and the placement of the elements within the frame. Second on posting size you will generally not see any degradation to an image posted at 90% jpeg quality and for most images you can go even lower so i would not worry about that to much I would much rather see a larger images at 80% quality then a small image at 100%. The HDR look, while I do not have a problem with look of tone map images I much prefer natural looking images and that is the reason why I started hand blending my images when I am in DR limited situations and while I think you could have captured this scene with one exposure I can see why you would have wanted to bracket it also. Here is example of an image that was blended using luminosity mask for both highlight and shadow detail, now I could have used a single exposure and pulled the shadows in post but I knew I would be pushing the quality of the shadow detail for noise, so by using and exposure for the shadows where I had pushed the histogram to the right and pulled the exposure back down in post I was assured noise free shadows. This is commonly referred to as ETTR or exposed to the right which works fine unless you end up blowing the highlights to get the shadows thus the reason to bracket and then blend the images. https://500px.com/photo/94988843/dead-horse-point-pano-%23-3-by-don-lacy?from=user_library

[Steve Smith]

Hi Don,

Thank you for a very instructive comment. I agree with you about the quality reduction of jpegs. Having played about with levels of quality reduction and file size I am pretty sure that I will always be able to keep above 90% quality and meet the rules for file size. I have blown out a few interesting skies in my time so I try to avoid that. I have read about ETTR but have never tried it. I took a look at your blended image taken from Dead Horse Point and am very impressed. No wonder the horse died - there's not a blade of grass to be seen from camera position to the horizon! I will now will go back to a few blended images and see if I can copy the hand blending that you described. I will also go back to my three single images and see what I can do there.

Steve Smith

[Don Lacy]

Hi Don,

Thank you for a very instructive comment. I agree with you about the quality reduction of jpegs. Having played about with levels of quality reduction and file size I am pretty sure that I will always be able to keep above 90% quality and meet the rules for file size. I have blown out a few interesting skies in my time so I try to avoid that. I have read about ETTR but have never tried it. I took a look at your blended image taken from Dead Horse Point and am very impressed. No wonder the horse died - there's not a blade of grass to be seen from camera position to the horizon! I will now will go back to a few blended images and see if I can copy the hand blending that you described. I will also go back to my three single images and see what I can do there.

Steve Smith
Do you know how to make and use luminosity mask

[Steve Smith]

Do you know how to make and use luminosity mask

Hi Don,

I have read about luminosity masks and (think) I understand the basics but have never tried it. There are many "how to do it" pieces on the interwebs. In my software I assume it is done using channels and alpha channel creation. All the necessary tools, alpha channel creation, painting over selected areas with different levels of grayscale etc etc seem to be available in my software. Having made and stored the painted over alpha channels, then a regular selection can be created from each one and used for subsequent layer masking. I have scheduled my first learn-by-giving-it-a-go tutorial for this evening in order to test my assumptions. If it doesn't work I'll back off, ponder some more and then keep trying until something good happens.

Steve Smith

[Steve Smith]

Don Lacy and Don Railton,

I found the tutorial "Luminosity Masks" by Tony Kuyper and was able to repeat the process using Photoplus X7. Once I hit myself over the head to clear my mind - it was easy. Turning the luminosity selections into new alpha channels means that you can turn on more than one alpha channel to get an intersection of two or more luminosity masks,The opportunities for experimentation within Photoplus are endless. The interface is old fashioned and clunky but with patience all seems possible. The Topaz plugins can also be applied to the luminosity masks. The image shown here was made from the single middle exposure of my bracket. It isn't artistically perfect but it's a good start and provides an interesting comparison with the other images.

Thank you for the help and suggestions. Much appreciated.

Steve

149648


The original middle exposure is shown below.

149649

[Steve Smith]

149716

Don Lacy,

To finish it off, this one has a better use of luminosity masks.

Steve Smith