Toroweap Revisted

kdog

Here's a shot at Toroweap I took back in 2009 on a camping trip with some Dgrin friends that I just got around to processing. Yeah, I'm horrible at remembering to process all my shots. Back then I was doing mostly HDRs, but wasn't really all that happy with them. So today I tried processing a single-frame of the scene. I probably won't leave it exactly like this, but I think I'm finally on the right track. I think the newer Adobe raw converters are better now too. Would love to hear any feedback.



Here's an HDR from that trip that I did process back then and have shown before.



Thanks for looking.

-joel

Earache

Hey Joel,
My 2cent observations...
I remember being wowed when I saw some of these shots when you posted previously - that still goes!
In terms of the scene, comp, and lighting they are a feast!

I really like the HDR(s). I think the way you have used the technique is the way a lot of viewers prefer HDR, because it subtly improves the DR without the cartoonish effects (tone mapping). As we know, a whole-heck-of-a-lot people won't accept HDR unless they aren't conscious of it.
I like those TM effects generally, but (almost) never in landscapes.
For example; (even though the sun is in a different position) the color gradient above the horizon is much smother in #2 with less of a "hot spot".

Also, in #1, I notice a bit of C/A along the bush and rocks in the upper left corner.

Please post more - these armchair vacations are saving me a lot of money!
Best -

canon400d

Earache wrote: »

Hey Joel,
My 2cent observations...
I remember being wowed when I saw some of these shots when you posted previously - that still goes!
In terms of the scene, comp, and lighting they are a feast!

I really like the HDR(s). I think the way you have used the technique is the way a lot of viewers prefer HDR, because it subtly improves the DR without the cartoonish effects (tone mapping). As we know, a whole-heck-of-a-lot people won't accept HDR unless they aren't conscious of it.
I like those TM effects generally, but (almost) never in landscapes.
For example; (even though the sun is in a different position) the color gradient above the horizon is much smother in #2 with less of a "hot spot".

Also, in #1, I notice a bit of C/A along the bush and rocks in the upper left corner.

Please post more - these armchair vacations are saving me a lot of money!
Best -

That image sure looks good to me Joel. The colouring is ace. I am not really a big lover of HDR because the majority of the ones I have seen are usually over done. I have tried several times to do images in Photomatix 4.1.4 but have never been able to get them just right.
I hope you have a few more like that one to process as I would love to see them.
Bob

pathfinder

Hi Joel,

I like both of these images, I have a number of shots from the very same spot. It was really dark down in that canyon, so I used a 3 stop GND and bracketed exposures as well. Not sure which of these two images I favor the most. I like parts of both of them. If I had to choose, I would favor the HDR version, but then you did a nice job of processing it, and I think you had a more favorable sunrise and sky than in the first image.

As for RAW converter engines, there is no doubt that the process 2012 introduced with LR4, and then in CS6, is head and shoulders better than anything Adobe previously offered in their RAW engines. I have gone back and re-edited RAW shots of mine, from a 10D, or a 20D, from 5-7 years ago, and they are distinctly better than I could achieve back then. I did not like having to re-learn to use LR4 different way of handling RAW files at first, but there is no question LR4 is better than LR3 in handling shadows and highlights.

I suspect the CA mentioned in the upper left of your first image can be corrected with the CA tool in LR 4.

kdog

Earache wrote: »

Hey Joel,
My 2cent observations...
I remember being wowed when I saw some of these shots when you posted previously - that still goes!
In terms of the scene, comp, and lighting they are a feast!

I really like the HDR(s). I think the way you have used the technique is the way a lot of viewers prefer HDR, because it subtly improves the DR without the cartoonish effects (tone mapping). As we know, a whole-heck-of-a-lot people won't accept HDR unless they aren't conscious of it.
I like those TM effects generally, but (almost) never in landscapes.
For example; (even though the sun is in a different position) the color gradient above the horizon is much smother in #2 with less of a "hot spot".

Also, in #1, I notice a bit of C/A along the bush and rocks in the upper left corner.

Please post more - these armchair vacations are saving me a lot of money!
Best -

Thanks, Eric! You hit upon the one thing that HDR seems to do better than I can do manually, and that's dealing with the gradient when shooting into the sun.

You can cancel your next eye doctor appt, judging from that bit of CA you noticed. This was a quick 2 minute processing job. It may be worth spending a bit more time on to get right. I appreciate you checking in.

kdog

canon400d wrote: »

That image sure looks good to me Joel. The colouring is ace. I am not really a big lover of HDR because the majority of the ones I have seen are usually over done. I have tried several times to do images in Photomatix 4.1.4 but have never been able to get them just right.
I hope you have a few more like that one to process as I would love to see them.
Bob

Thanks, Bob! I started using Photomatix years ago and really loved the results. However, I've been quite disappointed in the direction its gone. I rarely get pleasing results from it any more.

kdog

pathfinder wrote: »

Hi Joel,

I like both of these images, I have a number of shots from the very same spot. It was really dark down in that canyon, so I used a 3 stop GND and bracketed exposures as well. Not sure which of these two images I favor the most. I like parts of both of them. If I had to choose, I would favor the HDR version, but then you did a nice job of processing it, and I think you had a more favorable sunrise and sky than in the first image.

As for RAW converter engines, there is no doubt that the process 2012 introduced with LR4, and then in CS6, is head and shoulders better than anything Adobe previously offered in their RAW engines. I have gone back and re-edited RAW shots of mine, from a 10D, or a 20D, from 5-7 years ago, and they are distinctly better than I could achieve back then. I did not like having to re-learn to use LR4 different way of handling RAW files at first, but there is no question LR4 is better than LR3 in handling shadows and highlights.

I suspect the CA mentioned in the upper left of your first image can be corrected with the CA tool in LR 4.

Thanks, Jim. I just processed that quickly the other day in Photoshop CS5 which as you know uses a generation of ACR behind LR4. I just wanted to see how it looked. From the feedback I'm getting I think the shoot is worth importing into LR4 and doing it right now. I too really like the new converter.

Both of those pictures are the same sunrise on 7/18/09. You probably had the right idea using a GND. I still don't use them yet.

Gaby617

I like the first one. Its just such a sight which is probably nowhere near actually being there.