Blended landscape exposure

This is my first blending of exposures using layer mask and raw for sky and land because of dynamic range .Please tell me what you think .
Regards
Don

Hi Don,

I think it is a very commendable effort for a first try in blending using layer masks .
The resulting image does not work for me that well due to the clashing colours of the greens and the vivid blues. If I were you, I'd hold back on the sky saturation and brightness a bit.
Secondly, I think I can see some white areas (halo like) around the trees, especially the single one in the middle. Maybe you can check to see if your mask is accurate enough.

OTOH, why don't you try doing the same with the Merge to HDR action of PS? Assuming that you use PS CS 1/2 of course. If so, convert the image in three steps from RAW into 16 bit TIFF, using normal exposure, +2 and -2. Save the tiff files, and then open the Merge to HDR action and point it to the tiff files. After the HDR image is generated, convert it to 16bit, using local adaptation option in the HDR conversion dialog window, click on the downwards arrow for toning curve and histogram and then bring the lower left dot to the right where the histogram data starts. Play with the curves until you are satisfied, and there you have done the same without masking at all.

Good job! .

Cheers,

Cem

Hi Don,

This is an important subject. I'm glad you brought it up!

Could you provide small versions of the originals?

The result is pleasant. The scene is attractive with the varied foliage and the details with spots of red and sienna. The cloud shadows are potentially interesting features to explore. This picture demands the dynamic range and detail in the riverbed, rocks and the reflections in the water to impact powerfully on the observer.

I wonder about the following:

Can you find detail in the clouds? I'm seeing none on my calibrated monitor.

Is the image over sharpened perhaps?

Can you get more 3 dimensionality in the rocks. Some of these seem to have lost detail.

What methods did you use?

Great subject!

Asher

The cropping and composition we won't comment on for now, since that is not your point.

Thanks I used RSP and went all the way dark to -3 to get sky then went back to 0 . Opened the raw in PSE3 and put the stream image over the sky. Maybe I should have done just -2 and O for the two . I did not sharpen much and the sky was really blue in mountains. Printed out it loks pretty good I di 4x 6 to test . It was handheld around 3 pm.
I do not mind any suggestions and I am curious about composition you talk about. I do not see how the rocks could be better .I sharpened 225 0.5 0 . This is all new . Also in RSP you get better color so I used the vibrance and curves there . Otherwise it is not as good .Should I just set all to 0 and do -2 and 0 the open in PSE3 and do curves there and saturation ?
Regards
Don

Asher, I redid it .I am limited by PSE3 so it is hard to paint using eraser tool . Is this better ? Thanks
Don

Asher,I am pretty happy with this .After I did it there is a small area halo you call it around tree. I do not think I can go back and do anything because I flattened pic. I have PSE3 and used eraser tool . This pic is a little better exposed so I used it. The left is a little dark but it has contrast and it is not as flat it seems that way . It is nice of you to help.
Thanks
Don

Cem - I'm trying the Merge to HDR and get a message saying there is not enough information in the 3 files to make a useful HDR image - so it won't make one! I used a DNG file as a master and tried saving +2/0/-2 and +3/0/-3 to TIF. Can you tell me what's going wrong?

Thanks - Chuck

Much improved, Don!

You have really done a better job here. How many images does this represent?

Asher

Chuck,

Hi, Always good to have you around!

In order for the HDR to work there has to be data in the histogram in the three regions. If not, it wont work. i've had that response sometimes when I know there's enough data and it just won't accept it.

Maybe Cem has a better answer! Just for now, look at the histograms. Is there data in one of the say above 190 to 250? And is there one with data from say 6-to 70? These are just rough ranges.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

...In order for the HDR to work there has to be data in the histogram in the three regions. If not, it wont work. i've had that response sometimes when I know there's enough data and it just won't accept it.

Maybe Cem has a better answer! Just for now, look at the histograms. Is there data in one of the say above 190 to 250? And is there one with data from say 6-to 70? These are just rough ranges....

Click to expand...

Asher is absolutely right. I get exactly the same message if the RAW histogram does not contain enough bandwidth. The other possibility is to use Photomatix which is more forgiving and has a built in procedure to work on a single RAW file. Certainly worth downloading a trial copy and playing around with.

Mind you, quite recently I have been playing with demo versions of Adobe Lightroom and DxO. It is amazing what can be achieved by especially DxO in such lighting situations. I have processed a set of bracketed RAW files with Merge to HDR, Photomatix and finally processed a single RAW in DxO. The highlight recovery and automatic lighting correction I got from DxO was almost as good as the result of merging multiple RAWs.

But the message is clear. If the detail is not there to start with (ie not enough bandwidth in the histogram), there is not much one can do after all.

Cheers,

Cem

Asher it is two in RSP .One -2 and the other little under 0 .
I appreciate the nice words.That painting with an eraser is hard to get details .
I tried it the way with Gassiunm blur ( spelled ) and it was real dark and not colorful.
I need to get PSC2 ,maybe someday . These were not with tripod and were not in good light hiking in Pisgah Forest NC below Sam Knob.
Thanks,
Don

Cem ,
I appreciate your advice on my pic .I tried to not get a halo and worked on it .
It is nice when experienced photographers as yourself take the time to give advice.
Regards
Don

Sorry Chuck, I have forgotten to welcome you properly in my previous reply.
Good to have you here, I'd like to see some of your bird pictures sometime if you'd fancy sharing them.

Welcome again and I hope you'll enjoy it here

Cheers,

Cem

Hi Don,

Thanks for your kind words. I may be an experienced amateur photographer, but the experience part has more to do with the number of years I've been shooting (some 36 now) than being good at it (LOL).

I haven't used PSE3 extensively myself (just did a quick review when it was first released) but I am aware that it has certain limitations with respect to the full blown PS CS. So I am not sure which route would be the appropriate one for you to take. If you are wondering whether there is room for improvement on this particular image, you can consider sharing the RAW file with us (like in a challenge) and let us have a go at it. Then, based on the results (in case you like them of course) we can discuss how it was achieved and how you can learn using similar techniques in the future.

Cheers,

Cem

I found another way to blend that looks better since I did not have to paint. You use the layer mask and invert to get a negative image and use gaussian blur. I think it looks better .Man I have learned to pp more even if the pic is not my greatest.
Thanks
Don

Don,

It looks better to me, at least the sky portion.
Keep on learning .

Cem

Hi Don,

I'm glad I missed your post before, because now I can see a path of improvement. I was going to mention what I saw as a sort of cloudy artifact, bang in the middle of the image, just an annoying way the light played on the water I guess. This last image does not have that, and is pdg.

The second image, however, the trees on the right (my right) look better, maybe to do with the red berries in the central patch, but they seem to be more 3d than the final, yellower version'

wrt composition, I think I would try cropping about a sixth of the image from the left. The simple way of getting rid of the shadows. It also moves the white cloud, where I think your eye is drawn (on reflection, its the patch of blue sky above that cloud), at the bottom of the distant tree 'V', to a better position, I reckon.

Thanks for sharing the processes.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray West said:

...The second image, however, the trees on the right (my right) look better, maybe to do with the red berries in the central patch, but they seem to be more 3d than the final, yellower version'...

Click to expand...

I agree. The greens and the water are a bit better in the second image.
Cheers,
Cem

Don Ferguson Jr. said:

You use the layer mask and invert to get a negative image and use gaussian blur.

Click to expand...

Yup, much better, no artefacts, no plastic look. The method you used here is known as contrast mask, and we had to use it before the Shadow/Highlight tool came in Photoshop and subsequently every other converter/image editor.

For those having used HDR - special tools or Photoshop doesn't matter -, can you tell me why all examples of this technique look so plastic-like? When I first happened upon this site I was greatly surprised at the specific quality the examples exhibit, plasticy, unnatural, strangely sub-par. Why?

Hi Dierk,

I assume it has got to do with our biological vision of the world. Our eyes/brain cannot resolve all the highlights and shadows of the world around us. When I look at the bright sky, my eyes adjust so that the shadows on the ground will become much darker. Very much like the results we normally get using a camera. So when I see an HDR processed image, I instinctively know/feel that it is wrong and unrealistic. So it gives me this plastic feeling indeed. With all due respect to Don, this is what I thought when I saw his first image in this thread. That is why I wrote I'd lower the intensity of the sky a bit, in order to make it look/feel more realistic.

BTW, there are many discussions to be found on the Net about this particular aspect of HDR processed images. So I guess that there really is something wrong here fundamentally.

Just my $ 0.02

Cem

Cem and Asher - the histograms of the three images collectively cover the whole range from 0-255 (I'm looking at the 'grams without numbers, [is there a switch to see numbers?]). The original image has everything from white stone to blue sky to dark shadows. I can't imagine the range is not there. Is there another critical setting for the save-toTif that I might be missing?

Don Ferguson Jr. said:

Asher it is two in RSP .One -2 and the other little under 0 .
I appreciate the nice words.That painting with an eraser is hard to get details .
I tried it the way with Gassiunm blur ( spelled ) and it was real dark and not colorful.
I need to get PSC2 ,maybe someday . These were not with tripod and were not in good light hiking in Pisgah Forest NC below Sam Knob.
Thanks,
Don

Click to expand...

Would someone please explain merge to HDR. It was referred to as an action in PSCS or PSCS2. I am interested in learning blending and would like to know how to access "merge to HDR".

Bev

Chuck Bragg said:

Cem and Asher - the histograms of the three images collectively cover the whole range from 0-255 (I'm looking at the 'grams without numbers, [is there a switch to see numbers?]). The original image has everything from white stone to blue sky to dark shadows. I can't imagine the range is not there. Is there another critical setting for the save-toTif that I might be missing?

Click to expand...

Hi Chuck,

The images actually all have more than 50% of their data below the luminence level 90. There is very little data in any of them above 200. There is no detail at all in the clouds.

One can reassign some data but when ever one does not have data on the bright areas, one cannot create it from nothing. It also means that the data in the darker areas is less robust.

This processing, BTW, needs to occur in 16 BIT space as the extent of processing can itself cause compromises.

In addition the image might be improved by a tad more magenta to the trees and a tad less to the water and rocks.

Asher

Asher- actually I was talking about *my* images which, of course, you have not seen. However, I Googled this problem and found that according to Adobe you can't Merge to HDR using copies of a single image, even if you change the exposure for each copy. Back to the drawing board.

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331736.html

This is how I remember the scene with a shadow on the other bank. I have included another one that I thought had a nice cloud.I printed these on my Epson and they look sharp at 8x10
I appreciate all the advice .
Thanks
Don

Hi Bev,

Would someone please explain merge to HDR. It was referred to as an action in PSCS or PSCS2. I am interested in learning blending and would like to know how to access "merge to HDR".

Click to expand...

Never done it myself, didn't know it existed, but under cs2 help - type in 'merge to HDR' and you get the info. Its a command under - file - automate. Bit too much to copy verbatim, but hth.

Best wishes,

Ray

Bev,
This is a great tutorial on merge to HDR in PSCS2. It compares it and Photomatix and goes in great detail on both operations.
Regards
Don

http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm

Thank you Ray and Don.

Bev

Chuck Bragg said:

Asher- actually I was talking about *my* images which, of course, you have not seen. However, I Googled this problem and found that according to Adobe you can't Merge to HDR using copies of a single image, even if you change the exposure for each copy. Back to the drawing board.

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331736.html

Click to expand...

My merging is usually by hand.

I try to use the edges of buildings hills and roads to be the circuitous, serpiniginous, junctions between different zones, so the eye is fooled. One can always blend layers derived from the same RAW file this way.

One can also try the Optipix Plugin filter from http://www.ReindeerGraphics.com

or else Photomatix Pro from http://www.hdrsoft.com "If you have ever photographed a high contrast scene, you know that selecting the correct exposure will not avoid blown out highlights and flat shadows. Photomatix Pro offers two ways to solve this problem:

› Exposure Blending: Merge differently exposed photographs into one image with increased dynamic range.
› Tone Mapping: Reveal highlights and shadows details in an HDR image created from multiple exposures. The tone mapped image is ready for printing while showing the whole dynamic range captured.

Photomatix Pro is a stand-alone program that runs on Mac OS X and Windows 98/Me/2000/XP. The Tone Mapping tool is also available separately as a plugin compatible with Photoshop CS2."

So there are a lot of approaches. One size does not fit all. Reindeer Graphics is maybe the most powerful.

Asher

Making the Landscape Work!

Don Ferguson Jr. said:

This is how I remember the scene with a shadow on the other bank. I have included another one that I thought had a nice cloud.I printed these on my Epson and they look sharp at 8x10
I appreciate all the advice .
Thanks
Don

Click to expand...

Yes Don,

That is a nicer cloud in the second picture. I have no qualms about stealing a cloud from one image to repair another!

This is BTW, a challenging picture because the greens are hard to get right and have the water perfect, the rocks real and the sky perfect at the same time.

One has to therefore edit. I like what you have done now and the fact that you find it ptints well is great. Only you can say if it does to you what you had hoped for. If it works then that's that. We have to be careful not to overdo a picture.

I still wonder whether the leaves, especially on the right might not benefit from a little more magenta. however, only you can judge that.

Some large structure projecting into the foreground is a useful feature for the future that night be a tool to use to anchor the boton of a picture like this. The eye is drawn down to the bottom edge of the frame and perhaps needs to get back again somehow. However, this level of complexity is not needed to find the picture, as it is, working perfectly and conveying the beauty and atmosphere you felt on seeing the stream for the first time.

Still, I must point out, it is tough for me at least, to have the bottom of a picture seem to end abuptly. This feeling is not necessarily something most people might share, just how I feel about it. Some plays and movies end like that. It does creat a tension and in that, there may be more questions, uncertainty and potential meanings carried by your picture too. Who says one is correct?

The bottom line is that this picture has to work at least for you to produce and you have, it appears, succeeeded!

Congratulations!

Asher

Asher,
Thanks for replying .The second pic cloud was like that in the original pic .It is a different pic taken later on as vertical. The leaves were real green it was taken in Aug. It is nice for you to give me advice on these edits . I need to work more on how I present pics on the web too. I will try to use your suggestions in future as far as composition .
I hope you and your family have a nice Thanksgiving as well.
Regards
Don