[Paranormalist]

Taken today with the Pentax K10D & 16-45mm lens. Two exposures created from 1 RAW for the sky and land. Then merged together in Photoshop.
Curves adjusted for contrast & unsharp mask.

Exif
1/180 sec, f/8, 16mm, ISO 100, Flash fired.

C&C welcomed.

[allymac123]

Doesn't really do a great deal for me I'm afraid. It looks alright but the composition is a bit flat and lacks any depth. Nothing grabbing you and pulling you in. Could do with being more dynamic. Also there's a huge halo around the building into the sky which is rather unsightly.

Sorry

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by allymac123

Doesn't really do a great deal for me I'm afraid. It looks alright but the composition is a bit flat and lacks any depth. Nothing grabbing you and pulling you in. Could do with being more dynamic. Also there's a huge halo around the building into the sky which is rather unsightly.

Sorry

Couldn't get rid of the halo and dunno really why it's there. How to get rid would be nice or how it appeared would be nicer to know instead of only telling me what's wrong.

[allymac123]

I don't create HDR's using photomatix. So don't know how you would get rid of it.

I hand blend using layers in CS3.

It's there beacuse it is an area of high contrast.


I have heard that if you use 5 or more bracketed exposures these halo's aren't so prominent

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by allymac123

I don't create HDR's using photomatix. So don't know how you would get rid of it.

I hand blend using layers in CS3.

It's there beacuse it is an area of high contrast.


I have heard that if you use 5 or more bracketed exposures these halo's aren't so prominent

As I said I used CS3 not Photomatix. By selecting the lighter sky and deleting it to reveal the darker underneath. Feathered at 250 because halos were more prominent with any less.

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by Paranormalist

As I said I used CS3 not Photomatix. By selecting the lighter sky and deleting it to reveal the darker underneath. Feathered at 250 because halos were more prominent with any less.

I'm sorry but there is no need to be rude.

I'll make sure I never offer constructive cristism on your photo's again. Clearly all you want is "nice shot" which in my experience does nothing to help you improve.

If you feather at 1px (ideally there would be no feathering) then you will not get a halo. Experimentation is the name of the game.

I never delete any parts of my image though. I use layer masks to hide or partially hide certain parts.

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by allymac123

I'm sorry but there is no need to be rude.

I'll make sure I never offer constructive cristism on your photo's again. Clearly all you want is "nice shot" which in my experience does nothing to help you improve.

If you feather at 1px (ideally there would be no feathering) then you will not get a halo. Experimentation is the name of the game.

I never delete any parts of my image though. I use layer masks to hide or partially hide certain parts.

Had a bad day..?

[Liquid101]

I agreee with Ally - it's just a bit flat, and lacking any real focal point or point of interest. The dull light has given you very little useful colour - i'd be tempted to take it mono and go for a little more dramtic contrast to liven it up.

Unless you're very careful with your selction process, you're always going to get a hlao between a dark sky and a everything else. My advice would be to blend the sky a little more carefully using a layer mask - this way you can play about with it in a completely non destructive way.

[pixelpixel]

For me its missing some flower or maybe a daffodil......

IMO its too much grass for me and I would have liked to have seen more of the wheel itself.

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I agreee with Ally - it's just a bit flat, and lacking any real focal point or point of interest. The dull light has given you very little useful colour - i'd be tempted to take it mono and go for a little more dramtic contrast to liven it up.

Unless you're very careful with your selction process, you're always going to get a hlao between a dark sky and a everything else. My advice would be to blend the sky a little more carefully using a layer mask - this way you can play about with it in a completely non destructive way.

Perhaps if I had shot it from an angle that included the side of the building as well then it wouldn't have looked flat like it does. Would have made it more three dimensional. The waterwheel was stuck in a corner though and I was trying to compose it on a rule of thirds point (bottom left). Was a bit of the mark though.
I'll give a B&W conversion a whirl!
Cheers for the layer mask tip also.

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by pixelpixel

For me its missing some flower or maybe a daffodil......

IMO its too much grass for me and I would have liked to have seen more of the wheel itself.

Finding a lead in line was causing me a problem as was a lack of foreground interest. There were daffodils over at the opposite side by a wall though.

I did get down and wet for the perspective which I was hoping would make up a little for the lack of the above.

[Paranormalist]

As suggested by Liquid a B&W conversion. Notice no halo as well (used a layer mask this time).

Liquid, that's the kind of C&C I'm talking about! I always try to be positive when giving feedback because I think it encourages people to keep at it.


Re the B&W conversion - C&C welcomed.

[RobDickinson]

I still dont understand why you'd use more than one converson from the same raw.

Raw is 12 or 14 bit, convert into psd at 16+bit you have all the info in the raw. curves/levels shadows/highlites etc should be all thats needed?

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

I still dont understand why you'd use more than one converson from the same raw.

Raw is 12 or 14 bit, convert into psd at 16+bit you have all the info in the raw. curves/levels shadows/highlites etc should be all thats needed?

Err, wanna run that by me again?!
Because I read it in a magazine & forums etc.
I've only been at it from 8 months.

[insomniak123]

Originally Posted by Paranormalist

As suggested by Liquid a B&W conversion. Notice no halo as well (used a layer mask this time).

Liquid, that's the kind of C&C I'm talking about! I always try to be positive when giving feedback because I think it encourages people to keep at it.


Re the B&W conversion - C&C welcomed.

There's still a halo there mate

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

I still dont understand why you'd use more than one converson from the same raw.

if you shoot raw you can create x amount of different exposures with the 1 image -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 and then create a hdr pic or as Paranormalist has done merge 2 exposures in photoshop.

it's just like taking bracketed images with the camera although if you're merging multiple exposures i think you'll get slightly better results by bracketing images rather than creating x amount of images from 1 RAW file

hope that makes sense

[RobDickinson]

It makes no sense.

You get no extra information in your end result that you would get from just converting a 12(or 14bit) raw to a 16bit psd/tiff.

It is an alternate way of tonemapping and may be your prefered way but it shoulnt be able to give you any better a result than just masaging a single conversion in PS anyhow.

[onefivenine]

This thread's gone a bit pedantic!

Creating a +2 stop exposure from the same single RAW shot isn't going to 'create' image data in shadow areas that you would have captured if you took a separate shot. Likewise a -2 stop exposure saved from the original RAW isn't going to create cloud detail in a blown out sky - you'd need to take another shot at -2 stops to get the detail.

Call it tonemapping, pseudo-HDR, whatever, this it is not real HDR from a single RAW. HDR by definition requires more than one exposure, that's what makes it High Dynamic Range. Saving the same RAW at -2 and +2 doesn't increase the dynamic range - cos you only had one fixed range to start off with.

I think this is what Rob's getting at.

[onefivenine]

Meant to say - I like the B&W version better.
The fine halo is a bit of a niggle though - very precise layer masking with a tiny brush could be the cure for it.

[The Android]

Originally Posted by Paranormalist

Err, wanna run that by me again?!
Because I read it in a magazine & forums etc.
I've only been at it from 8 months.

I think the point that RobDickinson is making is that if you want to do a true HDR picture you would need 2 separate exposures, in your picture 1 for the sky and 1 for the foreground (they don't have to be raw). A similar effect to HDR can be achieved by doing it your way. I take it you have taken your Raw file and adjusted the exposure slider to create the two images from 1 Raw file. If you do it that way I don't think you are actually increasing the amount of information in the picture (or dynamic range) by a great deal. If for example you have blown the highlights in your single raw file then there is no information there to be recovered by reducing the exposure slider.
To inrease the amount of information or dynamic range you really need 2 separate exposures, in your case 2 RAW files, not 2 exposures from 1 if you get what I mean.

Sorry if that's confused you more. It's pretty straight forward until you try to explain it to someone on a forum

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by onefivenine

This thread's gone a bit pedantic!

Creating a +2 stop exposure from the same single RAW shot isn't going to 'create' image data in shadow areas that you would have captured if you took a separate shot. Likewise a -2 stop exposure saved from the original RAW isn't going to create cloud detail in a blown out sky - you'd need to take another shot at -2 stops to get the detail.

Call it tonemapping, pseudo-HDR, whatever, this it is not real HDR from a single RAW. HDR by definition requires more than one exposure, that's what makes it High Dynamic Range. Saving the same RAW at -2 and +2 doesn't increase the dynamic range - cos you only had one fixed range to start off with.

I think this is what Rob's getting at.

Very true, as we've both said it's not real hdr and the end result isn't going to be as good as 3 bracketed images taken of the same subject and like you say saving the same RAW doesn't increase the dynamic range (something I only realised the other week!).

Sometimes using 1 RAW image to create 3 different exposures and merging them into photomatrix, cs3 etc can still produce a good picture even though it's not true hdr

Originally Posted by The Android

It's pretty straight forward until you try to explain it to someone on a forum

Very true!!

[rizingstar]

I can't see where the OP has stated it's an HDR? Most of mine have been from 1 RAW and i aint had that many complaints, such a stigma attatched to the HDR scene it boils me i try not to get that radiation look OTT, but pleasing results in my eyes, i could say these ND stacked beach shots all look the same and are a bit repetitive aswell and get away with the stick that HDR does but i don't .. Oops!

[Strobe]

If I am landscaping, I tend to use automatic exposure bracketing by default now, even if I have no intention of HDR'ing. Laziness I suppose at the end of the day to compensate for not taking more time to get the exposure right in the first place!

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Strobe

If I am landscaping, I tend to use automatic exposure bracketing by default now, even if I have no intention of HDR'ing. Laziness I suppose at the end of the day to compensate for not taking more time to get the exposure right in the first place!

Nothing wrong with that, many people will do the same. myself included. I'm not too hot at pp in photoshop so this procedure saves me a lot of time in photoshop and produces a pleasing image. Als i'm in the process of reading understaing exposure and starting to shoot manual so hopefully in a little while I'll be able to expose my shots correctly or better than what I do now!!

Originally Posted by rizingstar

I can't see where the OP has stated it's an HDR?

he didn't, someone else did

Originally Posted by rizingstar

Most of mine have been from 1 RAW and i aint had that many complaints, such a stigma attatched to the HDR scene it boils me i try not to get that radiation look OTT, but pleasing results in my eyes

Many of mine have been from a single raw file as well and they work well. However, lately I have been using bracketed images as if there are dark areas in the scene i've noticed you get less noise by using 3 seperate images

[rizingstar]

Originally Posted by bubble502

Nothing wrong with that, many people will do the same. myself included. I'm not too hot at pp in photoshop so this procedure saves me a lot of time in photoshop and produces a pleasing image. Als i'm in the process of reading understaing exposure and starting to shoot manual so hopefully in a little while I'll be able to expose my shots correctly or better than what I do now!!



he didn't, someone else did



Many of mine have been from a single raw file as well and they work well. However, lately I have been using bracketed images is there are dark areas in the scene as i've noticed you get less noise by using 3 seperate images

I agree my recent church shots have been 3 and don't think I'll be going back to the 1, I suppose i am in lazy in getting the exposure right, and wonder how most of them would have turned out normal

[Paranormalist]

Originally Posted by rizingstar

I can't see where the OP has stated it's an HDR?

Correctamundo!

[ryart]

Well, going back to the original picture, apart from the halo I like it. Its a lovely assembly of shapes and textures which I think works very well. It isn't one of those images which does the work for the viewer by compositional techniques, instead it leaves the viewer to do the work. Because of that its the sort of picture that is easy to pass-by but repays spending a bit of time looking at. Obviously not an approach for all the time but nice occasionally.

To increase the concentration on the textures it might be interesting to crop into the roof at the top and grass at the bottom to make a square picture. This could work well with the wheel, and would probably give a more abstracted feel. Just a thought, and thanks for sharing it with us as it is.

[Paranormalist]

I think the photo does suit a square crop better.
ryart, thanks.

[ryart]

That's made it a lot stronger. I like it even more now; has quite an oppressive atmosphere for me now.