The HDR process (Help?)

DcMoody23

Alright, so I'm very new to HDR and understanding the process, so I have a few different questions that I'm hoping I can get answers to.

The image is just a screenshot of the actual image, so that's why it's so low res . I haven't touched the shot in photoshop yet either fyi, and that's because my questions are based on how the HDR'ing came out.

First, is there any way to get rid of the ghosting? I'm looking specifically at the tree branches for this one. There was a slight wind, and that was enough to throw off the branch location of the bracketed shots.

Second, the clouds came out 'stuttering,' for lack of the appropriate word. Can I reduce this or am I stuck with it?

Third, if you'll look along certain tree branches and underneath the upper left hand cloud you can see a blue that looks very different from the rest of the sky (color wise). Is this something that should happen? Is a tedious photoshopping the only solution?

Fourth, I saved the HDR file as a 16-bit tiff - is saving as 16 bit tiff a good idea if I plan to do some editing in photoshop later on?

Lastly, what is causing me to get that red color in the first branch on the left?That is the only place that the color shows (from what I can see). I'm also getting a little bit of dark blue color, but it doesn't show well (luckily) because it's masked by the tree branches.

Sorry for the lengthiness and laundry list of questions.

ANY help is much appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

P.S. This was done with photomatix pro.

malch

Yes, 16-bit TIFF is definitely the way to go.

The "stuttering clouds", the blue spots, and those red branches (yuk!) look more like Photomatix artifacts than anything else. I can't help much with those.

There also appears to be a green smudge over the smaller tree just right of center frame. That may be lens flare. Did you shoot this with a UV or other filter? Probably should have taken that off.

As for the ghosting of the foliage that was swaying in the wind... I usually stack the blended image with one of the original exposures and then create a mask. Paint the mask to reveal the original exposure of the problem areas while hiding the rest. This should give nice sharp foliage. Of course, you may need to tweak the exposure and/or color of that single exposure to better match the rest of the image. Try it: it's easier to do than it is to explain!

DcMoody23

Ah! That sounds like a genius idea. That may also work with the 'stuttering' clouds as well - I'll try it out.
Thanks for the quick response.

& yes, the green is just flare, but no, I didn't have any filter on at the time. It's important to note that this shot is actually the product of an experiment with lens flare (albeit slightly after I was done the real experimenting) - I liked the looks of it while shooting, and also on the single exposure, but with the added range when using HDR it does seem like an ugly distraction. I'll definitely remove that in PP.

Thanks again!

DeVerm

Photomatix pro can do the de-ghosting. I was impressed how it removed the ghosting around the flag (ensign) here:


ciao!
Nick

BinaryFx

The weird blue in the sky and the red spot on the branch can both be handled the same way.

Once in Photoshop, add a new blank layer set to Color blend mode. Use the clone stamp tool set to sample the lower layers, then pick up the good colour and paint it in over the bad areas. As one is only using the hue and saturation of the image, one does not have to be too careful with the retouching. That being said, you may need to use different size brushes and or vary where you copy the colour from etc. If things still look weird, then you may have to even out the luminosity of these areas (as the color blend retouching ignores luminosity).


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

http://binaryfx.customer.netspace.net.au/ (coming soon!)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

DcMoody23

Oh man!
I was hoping for there to be an easy way out
But what else would I do on a Sunday, right?

Thanks a lot for the help guys.
It's much appreciated.

eoren1

The stuttering and branches are fixable within Photomatix as pointed out. When exporting the files, click on the ghosting section and 'semi-manual...something'. Lasso over the area and right click on it to set it as a section. Click the button to preview. Rightclick over the image and change to a different bracket to see different results. Continue when happy and then tonemap.
Always get a 16 bit tiff when done
The blue and red may be due to not getting the full dynamic range and could be a form of clipping
The green is flare (as mentioned) maybe from a UV filter

DcMoody23

Oh my word, that semi-manual tool is incredible. It completely fixed the branches AND the clouds.
Thank you!

DcMoody23

Alright, not to drag on an answered thread here, but now I have fixed everything, but I can't get rid of that lens flare. I might have to scrap the shot even..
Gah!



I suppose I could just convert it to B&W and darken it up a little, but that isn't really what I want either, and it'd be a shame to put that kind of shot into B&W..

BinaryFx

A very quick reduction of the flare...

I duped the final image that was posted as a new layer. This layer was set to color blend mode and then blurred with a large Gaussian blur filter. A layer mask was then added to hide the blur. I then painted in white with a soft brush to reveal the correction only on the flare area. I then added a large blur to the layer mask to help blend in the correction. Next I burned the tree a bit to darken the tones, again using a layer mask with a large blur on the mask to help blend in the correction. This is similar in approach to my previous post, using color blend mode to get rid of the colour issues, leaving one to only work on the luminosity/tonal issues.

Not perfect, but with more time and effort a better result would be achieved (see crop below).

EDIT: Your posted file has an embedded RGB profile of "Display" - which is not good...your RGB working space in Photoshop should have an idealised RGB space such as say sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. When you post an image to the internet (non colour managed display), one should convert from your chosen working space to sRGB which is the accepted viewing space on the web. The linked image is in 16 bpc mode, again, posted copies of your images only need to to be in 8 bpc. I would suggest that you look into your colour settings in your raw software, your HDR software and in Photoshop.


Hope this helps,

Stephen Marsh

http://binaryfx.customer.netspace.net.au/ (coming soon!)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

DcMoody23

Hey, thanks again for the response.
The reason that the color mode is "display" is because the photos I've used are simply screenshots of the actual image.
Thanks so much for providing a step-by-step and showing a finished result; That seems rather simple and makes complete sense. I tried tons of different things and got the flare to look quite similar to what you've done, but it took me hours and involved lots of painting and unnecessary layers.

As for the 16 bpc mode vs. 8 bpc mode, I can't say that I understand what you mean or how to do it.

Once again, I can't thank you enough. You've been a tremendous help .

paddler4

If you don't like unnatural colors, etc., there is another option: give up on HDR and use exposure blending. In my limited experience, it provides much more natural colors. I use Lightroom Enfuse. After my first time with it, I decided not to bother with HDR. It is simple, and the default settings are usually fine. Check it out here: http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

BinaryFx

DcMoody23 wrote: »

Hey, thanks again for the response.
The reason that the color mode is "display" is because the photos I've used are simply screenshots of the actual image.

OK, I would have duped the original file, resized it and converted it to sRGB, rather than taking a screen dump.

Thanks so much for providing a step-by-step and showing a finished result; That seems rather simple and makes complete sense. I tried tons of different things and got the flare to look quite similar to what you've done, but it took me hours and involved lots of painting and unnecessary layers.

My pleasure and not a problem.

As for the 16 bpc mode vs. 8 bpc mode, I can't say that I understand what you mean or how to do it.

Once again, I can't thank you enough. You've been a tremendous help .

In Photoshop, it is found under the Image/Mode menu.

It is generally recommended to render your raw files in 16 bits per channel (bpc) mode, and to make your Photoshop edits while in 16 bpc mode.

When posting your JPEG images on the internet, you don't need 16 bpc data, it creates higher file sizes without any benefit...so one dupes the file to retain the 16 bpc data, then on the duplicate image reduces the bpc count down to 8 (image/mode/8 bpc).


Hope this makes sense,


Stephen Marsh

http://binaryfx.customer.netspace.net.au/ (coming soon!)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

DcMoody23

Yes, it makes complete sense.

I have never taken any classes, or even so much as talked to another photographer, so everything I do is done blindly..
Especially when it comes to photo editing. I bought Martin Evening's 750 page book in hopes of picking up some basic skills, and to have a reference for the rest, but I find that internet forums generally provide more help being that I can get specifics on what I want/need. Maybe on a rainy day I'll grab it and start learning for myself .

I used a screenshot because I didn't expect any others to actually take the file and edit it for me (it's not a problem at all - I just didn't expect it). So next time I'll be sure to do so.

Thanks.

DavidTO

paddler4 wrote: »

If you don't like unnatural colors, etc., there is another option: give up on HDR and use exposure blending. In my limited experience, it provides much more natural colors. I use Lightroom Enfuse. After my first time with it, I decided not to bother with HDR. It is simple, and the default settings are usually fine. Check it out here: http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

I agree about the unnatural look of HDR and that exposure blending is a more pleasing look. I'd never heard about LR Enfuse, and I'm definitely going to check it out!

paddler4

I'll post one comparison. First, LR Enfuse, default settings:



Now, HDR pro in PS CS5:

DcMoody23

Thanks for posting the images .. The change is minor, but really helps your image pop. I'll definitely look into the software.

However, in defense of HDR, you can achieve much more natural color by playing with the sliders a bit - the 'strength' slider in particular.
And I'm almost 100% convinced that HDR is the way to go for B&W.

I made some adjustments to this shot that have given it a much better look; so I can't justify giving up on HDR just yet. BUT I'm certainly going to try exposure blending - looks to have done wonders with your sky - just what I was looking for. I had to burn and dodge every single cloud just to give it a more natural look.

So I've only been doing photography for about a year now, and I really didn't shoot at all over this harsh Maine winter. I still have plenty to learn, both shooting and editing (Ahh!)

I'm sorry not to have responded to your original.. I wasn't ignoring it; I just didn't see it.

Chris H

Hi, if you're not keen on the unnatural look exposure blending is one way to go, but don't give up on Photomatix, HDR can look natural when the sliders are controlled properly. An article I wrote on the subject:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=190101