Peggy's Cove Lighthouse (HDR and not)

Jack'll do

A visit to Nova Scotia would not be complete without the obligatory shot of the lighthouse at Peggy's Cove. The first image is a 5 image HDR produced in Photomatix Pro v. 3.2 using Tone Compression tone mapping. Thought it might be informative to show the single -1 ev image as well for comparison. Both have been tweaked a bit in CS3. I think photomatix did a good job of removing most ghosting artifacts but I did catch a ghost in the lower left walk.

1. HDR


2. Single image

ian408

I love lighthouses. In this instance. I don't know that HDR buys you anything that a couple of layer masks and some level adjustment couldn't do better. In both shots, the lower right corner seems a bit darker than everything. You might be able to make the sky more dramatic using one mask and even out the exposure in the lower right with the other.

Jack'll do

Well I'm not so sure that HDR has to provide an image that is superior to other methods of post production. I view it as one of many techniques in the digital photographer's bag of tricks. As they say "there's always more than one way to skin a cat". As for the darker rocks on the lower right, they are in contact with the water at high tide and during rough seas. I don't know about the shoreline rocks where you live, but here on the east coast they are always darker and stained below the high water mark. As for the sky, I could easily have made it more dramatic in the HDR process but chose not to as I wanted it to accurately reflect the scene as I saw it. In general I tend not to like over processed images whether HDR or not. Thanks for looking.

Eia

I definitely like #2 best! And the scene is great..even with the people!

Jack'll do

That is interesting Eia, as I tend to favor #1. I'd be interested in knowing what is it about the two images that causes you to prefer #2 (don't worry you won't offend me ) I like the increased detail in the lighthouse of #1 and the increased tonal range of colors in the rock in that image.

ian408

Jack'll do wrote:

Well I'm not so sure that HDR has to provide an image that is superior to other methods of post production. I view it as one of many techniques in the digital photographer's bag of tricks. As they say "there's always more than one way to skin a cat". As for the darker rocks on the lower right, they are in contact with the water at high tide and during rough seas. I don't know about the shoreline rocks where you live, but here on the east coast they are always darker and stained below the high water mark. As for the sky, I could easily have made it more dramatic in the HDR process but chose not to as I wanted it to accurately reflect the scene as I saw it. In general I tend not to like over processed images whether HDR or not. Thanks for looking.

No argument from me about HDR being a part of the bag of tricks.

I'm not speaking specifically about the rocks but rather the whole corner of the image. It's almost the first thing my eye was drawn to when I looked at the first image (rather than the subject of the image, the lighthouse). Does that make sense?

kdog

There's more detail in the rocks lighthouse bricks and the HDR version. That's one thing that HDR gives you that layers, masks and brushes will never give you -- micro-contrast -- that gritty detailed look. The computer doesn't mind increasing the contrast on the most minute details, but you sure would if you tried to do that manually. Now whether that's an improvement is in the eye of the beholder. I like to add just a bit of that to bring out details, but not look too weird in most cases. Hate to say this Jack, but the sky actually looks better on my monitor in the second version. I think I would have punched up the sky in the HDR version for a bit of extra drama. In fact, this might be one of the cases where you'd want to blend the HDR'd sky, with the original image. Or manually blend two HDR variants (one for the sky, and the other for the everything else.)

It's a nice shot either way.

Cheers,
-joel

Eia

Jack'll do wrote:

That is interesting Eia, as I tend to favor #1. I'd be interested in knowing what is it about the two images that causes you to prefer #2 (don't worry you won't offend me ) I like the increased detail in the lighthouse of #1 and the increased tonal range of colors in the rock in that image.

On my monitor.... the sky looks better in the 2nd one. I'm usually one to go for the punchier color too, but for some reason I can see plenty of detail in the rocks & grass & people from the 'natural' picture. Overall it seems more pleasant to look at; though I do see a tad more detail in the lighthouse in the HDR picture. What would be fun and interesting is to compare the two images from a print. Overall it is a very lovely picture.

thapamd

What a great lighthouse. I also like the subdued tones and natural look of the 2nd version. Great scene!

richtersl

The HDR version is quite pleasing. I like the details in the rocks that you've managed to bring out. But I do agree that the sky looks better in the second version. In the HDR version the upper left corner looks a but blown out. But that's an easy fix in PS with layers and masking.

Jack'll do

ian408 wrote:

No argument from me about HDR being a part of the bag of tricks.

I'm not speaking specifically about the rocks but rather the whole corner of the image. It's almost the first thing my eye was drawn to when I looked at the first image (rather than the subject of the image, the lighthouse). Does that make sense?

I see what you mean. I have a lot of images of these rocks and there is a considerable difference in different areas.i.e. in coloration/darkness. At first I thought it might be due to their receiving less light (some light being blocked by higher areas yet not enough to cause definite shadows). However the shots were taken around 11AM so the sun was quite high in the sky (though blocked pretty well by cloud cover.). You'll notice that the water is darker on the right as well. Two possible reasons: it is deeper, and also it may be reflecting the blue sky above it in that area while the rocks on the left are influenced by the much lighter cloud cover above them.

As for masking and lightening the left area, I am reluctant because for whatever reason it is what it is. That was the situation in all of the original images and of course more pronounced in the more under exposed ones.

Jack'll do

kdog wrote:

There's more detail in the rocks lighthouse bricks and the HDR version. That's one thing that HDR gives you that layers, masks and brushes will never give you -- micro-contrast -- that gritty detailed look. The computer doesn't mind increasing the contrast on the most minute details, but you sure would if you tried to do that manually. Now whether that's an improvement is in the eye of the beholder. I like to add just a bit of that to bring out details, but not look too weird in most cases. Hate to say this Jack, but the sky actually looks better on my monitor in the second version. I think I would have punched up the sky in the HDR version for a bit of extra drama. In fact, this might be one of the cases where you'd want to blend the HDR'd sky, with the original image. Or manually blend two HDR variants (one for the sky, and the other for the everything else.)

It's a nice shot either way.

Cheers,
-joel

Thanks for taking time to critique joel, I appreciate it. Although overall I prefer the first image, the sky is indeed nicer in the second. The reason is that in the two over exposed images of the 5 image set theres a significant blown area in the upper left which negatively impacts the HDR. I tried redoing the tone mapping of the HDR but the blown area looks worse.
I'll see if I can redo the conversion leaving out those images.

Jack'll do

Eia wrote:

On my monitor.... the sky looks better in the 2nd one. I'm usually one to go for the punchier color too, but for some reason I can see plenty of detail in the rocks & grass & people from the 'natural' picture. Overall it seems more pleasant to look at; though I do see a tad more detail in the lighthouse in the HDR picture. What would be fun and interesting is to compare the two images from a print. Overall it is a very lovely picture.

Thanks for expanding on your original post Eia. I too prefer the sky in the 2nd image.

Jack'll do

I really do appreciate all of you taking the time to explain your reasons for preferring one over the other. It has helped me greatly. I'm going to try a few things by way of a redo and will post the results (if they are an improvement ).

kdog

Jack'll do wrote:

The reason is that in the two under exposed images of the 5 image set theres a significant blown area in the upper left which negatively impacts the HDR. I tried redoing the tone mapping of the HDR but the blown area looks worse.
I'll see if I can redo the conversion leaving out those images.

If the two most underexposed images have the sky blown in places, then won't the rest of them be worse? Not sure about other HDR programs, but Photomatix does horrible things if you don't have at least one good set of pixels for any one area. What kinda works in that situation is to take your most underexposed frame (which should have the minimum amount of blowouts) and use the recover slider in ACR to try to eliminate the blowouts. It's ok to cheat the images a bit like this before you HDR them. And I'm sure it goes without saying to watch your blinkies next time on your most negative shot. No blinkies allowed in that one.

Cheers,
-joel

Jack'll do

kdog wrote:

If the two most underexposed images have the sky blown in places, then won't the rest of them be worse? Not sure about other HDR programs, but Photomatix does horrible things if you don't have at least one good set of pixels for any one area. What kinda works in that situation is to take your most underexposed frame (which should have the minimum amount of blowouts) and use the recover slider in ACR to try to eliminate the blowouts. It's ok to cheat the images a bit like this before you HDR them. And I'm sure it goes without saying to watch your blinkies next time on your most negative shot. No blinkies allowed in that one.

Cheers,
-joel

Oooops! Of course I meant the two most over exposed

kdog

Jack'll do wrote:

Oooops! Of course I meant the two most over exposed

That's not your problem then. Your overexposed shots can be blown all to hell, and in fact should be (as long as they do have a few good pixels of course.)

Start over and watch your histogram as you make changes. That will reveal all.

-joel

PeterD-2009

A great pair of images Jack. I have seen HDR applied but not as sensitively as you have in image 1. I have learnt from this thread and maybe....just maybe.... I shall have a go myself. I had been put off by some of the rather extreme examples of HDR I have seen before where the image just screams HDR.

dlplumer

Eia wrote:

I definitely like #2 best! And the scene is great..even with the people!

+1

I like HDR, but in this case, I prefer the single image shot.