Help with HDR vs OOC for Printing

bgarland

I have put hours into trying different HDR processing options on this image for printing but I am still not satisfied. My last attempt processed the RAW images into 16 bit tiff images, then processed with Photomatix, output as 16 bit tiff, brought back into CS4 for curves/contrast and a pass with Noiseware before exporting the final JPG.

I still see a lot of artifacts in the sky/clouds. Any sugestions on how to do a better job on this? Do artifacts like this even show up in large prints?




The following is the same shot processed in LR2 as RAW out of the 50D camera to adjust the level curves, add some contrast and a little sharpening with a light pass of Noiseware. At this point for printing, this image looks a lot cleaner to me than my attempts at the HDR version.

Which path would you go down with this image? Maybe some images are not good candidates for HDR? Or maybe I just lack the HDR processing skill. :scratch

malch

I really see no reason to go the HDR route. The dynamic range of the scene can easily be accommodated within a single exposure as far as I can see. No point in creating alignment problems, motion issues (cloud and water) etc.

Maybe you can describe what you're hoping to achieve with this image. Do you want super-saturated, a natural look, or something else?

bgarland

malch wrote:

I really see no reason to go the HDR route. The dynamic range of the scene can easily be accommodated within a single exposure as far as I can see. No point in creating alignment problems, motion issues (cloud and water) etc.

Maybe you can describe what you're hoping to achieve with this image. Do you want super-saturated, a natural look, or something else?

I want a natural look and not overly saturated. I thought the HDR would bring out a bit more detail in the snow covered mountain in the background but I don't see much of difference really.

BinaryFx

How many different source images were combined to make the HDR file? There is not much shadow detail, so the source images would likely contain highlight to midtone exposures.

It is probably not so much about extending range, you are likely looking for the local contrast enhancements that are common with many HDR tone mapping results. One option for bringing out detail can be found with the free Adaptive Equalization filter from Reindeer Graphics. Just be sure to use layer masks so that flat areas such as sky are not enhanced, and also to blend the results over the origianl using very low opacity - being subtle is the key with Adaptive Equalization.

http://tinyurl.com/4bygav (scroll down the page to Adaptive Equalization)


Within one HDR application, there are often many different options and tone mapping operators. Two different HDR applications can often create very different looks.

I generally prefer exposure fusion over common HDR tone mapping results.

http://software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI/Main.html


Dan Margulis created a quick workflow titled "the picture postcard workflow" - that can create a look similar to HDR. The final look is up to the user, it is a very flexible approach, it can be over the top or subtle. It is very easy to make many very different looking images with method. This workflow makes striking landscapes. I will post some examples, however the workflow works best with flat images, rather than ones where contrast has been added before the workflow (creating contrast is easy).

http://www.kelbytraining.com/instructors/dan-margulis.html


Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

BinaryFx

bgarland wrote:

The following is the same shot processed in LR2 as RAW out of the 50D camera to adjust the level curves, add some contrast and a little sharpening with a light pass of Noiseware. At this point for printing, this image looks a lot cleaner to me than my attempts at the HDR version.

I have not added sharpening to this image, however most HDR tonemapping seems to apply some sort of local contrast enhancement that is similar to sharpening.

This is just one of the infinate versions possible using the previously mentioned "Picture Postcard Workflow" method. Contrast, Hue/Colour and Saturation are all very flexible using the PPW method!




Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

bgarland

Thanks for your input Stephen. I'll check out the PPW method.

malch

bgarland wrote:

I want a natural look and not overly saturated. I thought the HDR would bring out a bit more detail in the snow covered mountain in the background but I don't see much of difference really.

There are quite a few plugins and tools that you could try including:

* Lucis Arts
* Mediachance Redynamix or DynamicPhotoHDR
* Topaz Adjust
* SNS-HDR (my favorite HDR program)

SNS-HDR will operate on a single exposure or multiple exposures and the Highlight Detail slider definitely helps with those mountains.

However, I'd be inclined to try working on it with native Photoshop; specifically some selective adjustments (via a simple mask) to those mountains, and maybe the background rocks as well.

1. Use curves to boost contrast in the areas of interest.

2. Pull down the blue channel curve specifically to try and hide some of that haze (which has a strong blue tinge).

3. You might even try a warming filter, selectively on those hazy areas.

4. Apply a little high-radius USM too.

Nothing is going to make all of that haze totally disappear. But with some careful work you should be able to ameliorate it quite a bit and lift some of the detail there.

colourbox

malch wrote:

4. Apply a little high-radius USM too.

Since the original is a raw, see if applying Clarity will help, since Clarity is a form of high-radius USM that's been optimized (e.g, color and highlight protection). If you just want it in the sky you could apply Clarity as a gradient mask in Adobe Camera Raw, or import two versions.

Clarity is great for local contrast enhancement.

arodney

colourbox wrote:

Since the original is a raw, see if applying Clarity will help, since Clarity is a form of high-radius USM that's been optimized (e.g, color and highlight protection). If you just want it in the sky you could apply Clarity as a gradient mask in Adobe Camera Raw, or import two versions.

Clarity is great for local contrast enhancement.

I agree. And while its not my image, I really think the original above is pretty damn lovely and some of the additional rendering tweaks I see here (on a color managed browser) look a bit over the top IMHO. But again, not being the image creator, its tough to figure out what more is needed to the top image other than perhaps a bit of clarity or a similar Midtone tweak in Photoshop. Unless the OP wants a more HDR look or special effect. But I think the image is very, very strong and doesn’t need much more.

FWIW, Clarity in LR is based on the work of Mac Holbert and this Photoshop technique is discussed here:
http://photographytodaynet.blogspot.com/2007/09/camera-raw-41-update.html

bgarland

Thanks for all the input on this one. I am not looking to push the HDR too much. I was just looking to get as much detail as possible in the background rock ridges and the snow covered mountain in the distance.

I am thinking I will try redoing the Noiseware noise reduction a little lighter to help protect some of the detail in the distant rock ridges and snow covered mountain in the background and then use PS to layer in an artifact free sky from the original single image.

I appreciate everyone's advise. Gotta love the dgrin community.

malch

One other thought... I would adjust the White Balance and warm the image up a tad. I think you'll find it:

1. Makes the foreground rocks pop without any artificial saturation boost.

2. Reduces the haze around those background rocks and horizon.

3. Generally seems to boost contrast and detail.

I think it's one of those happy tweaks with no downside compromises.