Oregon lighthouse, feedback requested on 4 versions
jeffsullivan
Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
Hi Folks,
This is my first photo post on Dgrin. The Oregon lighthouse photos inspired me to seek your input on some shooting and editing decisions I made recently. I visited the Bandon, OR area in July and took the following photos of the Coquille River lighthouse at dawn. I'd be interested in honest opinions regarding the results, including anything I did to get there (hard filters as well as editing choices and final result).
This first copy is my editing result from my best single shot exposure taken when I arrived on the scene. It's the most natural representation among these shots. It was still very dark out, so the exposure was 6 seconds at f7.1, ISO 200, a compromise in all respects: time/noise, DOF, ISO/noise (must have set it at f/8 for lens sharpness but bumped the setting). I shoot in RAW and used a Cokin graduated ND filter (probably 2 stop #120), but my Canon XTi didn't seem to be picking up the color in the sky as much as I'd like. In editing I used noise reduction, used a slightly warm white balance, maybe a tiny saturation boost. Although I wanted a bit more detail in the foreground rocks and pier remains, I'm not comfortable with the noise there when I lighten dark areas (Photoshop Elements 4). Perhaps I should just dodge the posts, and maybe a bit on the circular tower on the lighthouse?
Larger copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197201070-L-LB
Here's where it gets interesting... the single shot was part of a 3 shot exposure bracking sequence, so I sent the RAW files through Photomatix HDR software in interactive mode with a goal of pulling out the detail but minimizing the "HDR-ness" of the result. I really like the added detail in the foreground rocks. So here's where opinions come in (and they're all valid... offer them up). Does the added detail in the foreground relegate the lighthouse to a secondary role (but does it still work, even if more of a "beach scene" than a lighthouse shot)? Although the HDR effect is fairly visible, do the lines of the shot enable it to work (not be too objectionable)? Is the bright spot in the center too bright, or does that just help draw attention to the center of the shot?
Large Copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197183135-L-LB
So next I decided to see what I could do to restore the sky color. I added a Cokin Sunset #197 filter, which is like a graduated warming filter, darker with more warming on the top. The blue in the water and sky shited slightly towards violet, but that's not implausible for sunrise. I rediscovered f/8, but tried ISO 100 which shifted the exposure time to 13 seconds. Does anyone have advice for the tradeoff between ISO setting noise and long exposure noise? Also, I tend to have the camerra's long exposure noise reduction off, both for the control and so the camera doesn't go out to lunch between shots in the middle of an HDR sequence (or waste precious sunrise/sunset shooting time). It's a pleasant enough result, but I'd still like a bit more detail in the rocks, and I think I'd want a tighter crop to make the lighthouse a more prominent subject.
Lager copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197200940-L-LB
This last one was processed with HDR software as well, but I sometimes run Photomatix in batch mode to preview shots and see which sequences I want to spend more tiem interactively tuning. This one jumped out as the Tone Compressor output, which I believe does Tone Mapping but not details enhancement. Compressor output tends to be very dark and contrasty and the color can go out of whack, but I brought it into Elements to see if I could make the color more plausible and this was the result. It's clearly over the top, but in spite of my prejudice against most over-processed images, I find the contrast and colors strangely hypnotic. This copy has done well in online photo contests. Unfortunately the colors don't transfer well to printers so I'll just have to have it be a secret online obsession for now. Responses that suggest a 12-step program may not be out of line.
Larger copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/photos/197203153-L.jpg
Sometimes I take my best HDR result, edit it as best I can, then blend it with by best single shot edit to further restore natural color and contrast, but in this case rather than #1 and #2, maybe I should try blending the regular HDR #2 with either of the Compressor results in #3 and #4? If I really just need to delete it all and go out and buy PS CS3 to do things right, that's useful feedback too.
Sorry for the length (I hope some will find the detail on tradeoffs to be interesting), and thanks in advance for your feedback. Remember, I've been working with these files too long now and I can't be objective, so don't be kind, be honest!
Jeff
http://www.activesole.blogspot.com/
P.S.- I'm remembering now why I had to bump ISO up and and/or open the aperture in HDR sequences to keep the exposure time under 10 seconds or so: to get a valid sequence and preserve the recommended minimum 1 1/3 exposure spacing for HDR. One stop is twice as long, so for 1.33 stops the longest, brightest exposure should be greater than 2.6 times longer than the middle exposure that you're setting the middle exposure in a 3 shot automatic exposure bracketing sequence by. It's a logarithmic scale, so it's actually more like 3 times longer. Since my XTi only goes to 30 seconds for auto non-bulb exposures, I should have stayed at f/7.1 for the filter-warmed sequence to keep the middle exposure time at 10 seconds or less. It was early.:snore
This is my first photo post on Dgrin. The Oregon lighthouse photos inspired me to seek your input on some shooting and editing decisions I made recently. I visited the Bandon, OR area in July and took the following photos of the Coquille River lighthouse at dawn. I'd be interested in honest opinions regarding the results, including anything I did to get there (hard filters as well as editing choices and final result).
This first copy is my editing result from my best single shot exposure taken when I arrived on the scene. It's the most natural representation among these shots. It was still very dark out, so the exposure was 6 seconds at f7.1, ISO 200, a compromise in all respects: time/noise, DOF, ISO/noise (must have set it at f/8 for lens sharpness but bumped the setting). I shoot in RAW and used a Cokin graduated ND filter (probably 2 stop #120), but my Canon XTi didn't seem to be picking up the color in the sky as much as I'd like. In editing I used noise reduction, used a slightly warm white balance, maybe a tiny saturation boost. Although I wanted a bit more detail in the foreground rocks and pier remains, I'm not comfortable with the noise there when I lighten dark areas (Photoshop Elements 4). Perhaps I should just dodge the posts, and maybe a bit on the circular tower on the lighthouse?
Larger copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197201070-L-LB
Here's where it gets interesting... the single shot was part of a 3 shot exposure bracking sequence, so I sent the RAW files through Photomatix HDR software in interactive mode with a goal of pulling out the detail but minimizing the "HDR-ness" of the result. I really like the added detail in the foreground rocks. So here's where opinions come in (and they're all valid... offer them up). Does the added detail in the foreground relegate the lighthouse to a secondary role (but does it still work, even if more of a "beach scene" than a lighthouse shot)? Although the HDR effect is fairly visible, do the lines of the shot enable it to work (not be too objectionable)? Is the bright spot in the center too bright, or does that just help draw attention to the center of the shot?
Large Copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197183135-L-LB
So next I decided to see what I could do to restore the sky color. I added a Cokin Sunset #197 filter, which is like a graduated warming filter, darker with more warming on the top. The blue in the water and sky shited slightly towards violet, but that's not implausible for sunrise. I rediscovered f/8, but tried ISO 100 which shifted the exposure time to 13 seconds. Does anyone have advice for the tradeoff between ISO setting noise and long exposure noise? Also, I tend to have the camerra's long exposure noise reduction off, both for the control and so the camera doesn't go out to lunch between shots in the middle of an HDR sequence (or waste precious sunrise/sunset shooting time). It's a pleasant enough result, but I'd still like a bit more detail in the rocks, and I think I'd want a tighter crop to make the lighthouse a more prominent subject.
Lager copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197200940-L-LB
This last one was processed with HDR software as well, but I sometimes run Photomatix in batch mode to preview shots and see which sequences I want to spend more tiem interactively tuning. This one jumped out as the Tone Compressor output, which I believe does Tone Mapping but not details enhancement. Compressor output tends to be very dark and contrasty and the color can go out of whack, but I brought it into Elements to see if I could make the color more plausible and this was the result. It's clearly over the top, but in spite of my prejudice against most over-processed images, I find the contrast and colors strangely hypnotic. This copy has done well in online photo contests. Unfortunately the colors don't transfer well to printers so I'll just have to have it be a secret online obsession for now. Responses that suggest a 12-step program may not be out of line.
Larger copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/photos/197203153-L.jpg
Sometimes I take my best HDR result, edit it as best I can, then blend it with by best single shot edit to further restore natural color and contrast, but in this case rather than #1 and #2, maybe I should try blending the regular HDR #2 with either of the Compressor results in #3 and #4? If I really just need to delete it all and go out and buy PS CS3 to do things right, that's useful feedback too.
Sorry for the length (I hope some will find the detail on tradeoffs to be interesting), and thanks in advance for your feedback. Remember, I've been working with these files too long now and I can't be objective, so don't be kind, be honest!
Jeff
http://www.activesole.blogspot.com/
P.S.- I'm remembering now why I had to bump ISO up and and/or open the aperture in HDR sequences to keep the exposure time under 10 seconds or so: to get a valid sequence and preserve the recommended minimum 1 1/3 exposure spacing for HDR. One stop is twice as long, so for 1.33 stops the longest, brightest exposure should be greater than 2.6 times longer than the middle exposure that you're setting the middle exposure in a 3 shot automatic exposure bracketing sequence by. It's a logarithmic scale, so it's actually more like 3 times longer. Since my XTi only goes to 30 seconds for auto non-bulb exposures, I should have stayed at f/7.1 for the filter-warmed sequence to keep the middle exposure time at 10 seconds or less. It was early.:snore
0
Comments
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
I think this is an interesting image. I am partial to the second image. There is certainly lots of potential here for a variety of PP treatments but the more neutral colors seem to work best for me. Realy nice image. Thanks and welcome.
Albert@WhetstoneImagery.com
http://Albert-Dickson.com
I am partial to the second image as well. I wish there was some way to get the detail of the posts in the second image, but the coloration of the thrid image. I think giving up the posts' detail, however, is too much of a sacrifice. It really has a desolate feel.
I have obviously got to get this photomatix software.
If I didn't move the camera much while adding the filter and adjusting the exposure, I may be able to blend the detail of #2 with the color of #4. I could even superimpose these on the original shots with EXIF, save in JPG, then let Panoramio pull the detail from #2, preserving the color and exposure of #4, while doing an auto-registration of the alignment between the two! I've never tried that, but it's plausible. The cloud movement may be an issue since a few minutes likely passed between sequences, but some day I could restore the sky to its best state (use the best copy) in Photoshop, as long as the alignment works out.
Download the Photomatix free trial at HDRsoft.com. It's the full software but you need a paid unlock code to prevent watermarks from being applied to most output types.
There are several interesting aspects to the free trial:
- It'll produce multi-shot averages without watermarks! Essentially a "poor man's HDR," the average can be interesting when a tiny bit of extension to dynamic range is useful. Averaging may average out noise in some circumstances! Averaging can be fantastic for motion effects in waterfalls, ocean waves, and so on. Using aperture priority, the differernt times averaged into the main shot can add an interesting mix of details and abstraction.
- The Tone Compressor output is available without watermarks! (At least in batch mode.) Maybe 80-90% of the time it won't be interesting, but the you might want to do something with the rest.
- Since it doesn't expire in one month, you'll play with it on and off for a while until you find a shot or two that you MUST have the HDR output to successfully salvage or make shine. Then others will see your new results and get their own free trial. It's a brilliant viral marketing strategy, and it's a win-win between HDRsoft and their users. By waiting to buy the license until you actually need it you get the latest version and RAW drivers, but HDRsoft seems very generous with free minor upgrades to users, so unless they do a major version upgrade that's not a big concern.
I posted some HDR examples to this thread over on Google's other site Panoramio. Coincidentally, many of them I produced using the free trial!
Jeff
http://www.activesole.blogspot.com/
I enjoyed reading all the details you included on these versions, although admitedly some of it is over my head (haven't tried any HDR stuff)! I think 1 and 3 are my favorites. In number 2, I do like the water and the lighthouse, but the brighter rocks are a bit much for me, as is something about the sky. Personally, I think I would like a toned down version of #2 the most (the brightness toned down overall and the rocks darkened a bit, but not as much as #s 3 & 4 and a bit of the warmer color added in). That's my .02!
Beautiful shot and welcome to DGrin!
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Elaine, Cool connection to this place, thanks. I really enjoyed the area: fresh blueberries (and pie), amazing beaches (w/shell fossils in the rocks), and of course the wild animal park a few miles south (wish I had my kids along)!
Jeff
Thanks again for the feedback everyone! Sounds like #2 has the edge, maybe toned down a bit towards #1 (I can see why reagrding those contrasty rocks that were also left a little blue given the white balance), but maybe with some color towards #4.
I couldn't blend these different sequences, so from a 3 shot sequence between these two I re-did both a "normal" details enhancement HDR plus a tone compressor colorful version. I wanted to fool the HDR software into re-processing the two results, but for some reason they were off by a few pixels in dimension and shape (a simple resize wouldn't resolve it). So I just copied one and put it over the other in a layer, lightened the transparency of the top one, moved one to get the alignment right (the different sizes left them misaligned, even though they were produced form the same files), then "flattened" the layers into one image. The blend is 60% Tone Compressor (colorful version), 40% Details Enhancer HDR.
Larger copy: http://jeffsullivan.smugmug.com/gallery/3358156#197439837-L-LB
On the screen it seems to do a decent job picking up some of the better qualities of the two techniques. Without further adjustment in Photoshop I suspect that upon printing it turn out a little dark in the shadows and lose some of the color it gained in the sky and water, but I think I'll make a test 4x6 print the next time I order a bunch.
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Mike
Yes, it's being renovated, at least on the exterior. The interior/gift shop was still open.
Jeff
Chris .. Aka.."Tofer"- Toferphotography toferphotography.smugmug.com ~ Canon EOS 7D 18-135 3.5IS / GoPro Hero4 Silver / Rebel XT (350D) ~ Tamron 17-35mm SP AF 2.8 ~ Sigma 28-300 F3.5-6.3 DG Macro // Canon 75-300 zoom // Canon 430ex // - (Motorola Droid) - Lowepro Slingpack ==> Facebook
Aside from that, I would say that #2 is my favorite. I see it as more of an ocean shot than a lighthouse shot, and I like the detail that is brought out in the foreground in #2. I'd say that the only thing that makes me thing HDR about it is the clouds, but perhaps you could just pick the clouds from one shot and copy them in over the HDR?
One other small detail... it looks like the horizon might be a bit tilted, but that might just be me:D
With all that said, it's a beautiful shot! Oregon has some great lighthouses and beautiful beaches. Did you make it to any of the others?
I'm so glad to see that restoration is being done on the lighthouse.. (at last!) Cape Blanco was done a couple of years ago to the South...
Portland, Oregon