UKC

Merging/editing bracketed images

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Andy Hudson 04 Sep 2015
Just looking at best method for merging bracketed images to give a nice result that's not a hyper HDR non realistic look or am I best just editing 1 raw image in either lightroom or PS, or am i still best to to take a set of bracketed images and merge them.

I have played around a bit with masking layers in PS and I also have lightroom and i can export to photomatix but don't really like the results (too non realistic but I may be choosing wrong settings).

What do people on here use and if bracketing how many images do you take and at what exposure settings, I'm talking landscape photography mainly.

any advice welcome
In reply to Andy Hudson:

If you're having to bracket then the dynamic range of the scene is too much for your camera to handle, grads would really help in the field if you're not using them already.

On the very rare occasions that I do an exposure blend I use layer masks in photoshop, usually taking two shots, one for shadows and one for highlights (not bracketed, just using manual exposure settings) which more often than not are in the sky.

As for photomatix, I personally wouldn't touch it with a barge pole
 ScottTalbot 04 Sep 2015
In reply to Andy Hudson:

Whatever program you use, you will have to tweak the settings, they always look bad straight out of the box! Enfuse plugin for Lightroom is supposed to be very good, although I still haven't tried it myself. The latest incarnation of lightroom has a built in HDR setting that is also supposed to be the nuts!
 Sean Kelly 04 Sep 2015
In reply to Nicholas Livesey:

I agree that working with layer masks is a better option than HDR which always looks so unreal. More faff but better result. Just process both or multiple images in raw first then open in PS and tweak in Layer masks. I'm not a real fan of grads as they only work with a level horizon which is seldom true with mountain photography. I gave mine away a few years back as they were so much hassle to dig out of the camera case (Well I had about 64 different filters and you don't just carry them with you. OK for indoors).
In reply to Sean Kelly:

> I'm not a real fan of grads as they only work with a level horizon which is seldom true with mountain photography.

That may well have caused a problem in the past Sean but when I process my shots I apply a grad in Lightroom which has a dedicated shadow slider that eliminates any dark 'tide marks'.

I do agree that they're a faff at times but it suits my approach which is to get everything as good as it can in camera.

Also mentioned above is the HDR function in Lightroom 6 which I haven't played with yet but is supposed to give very natural looking results.

 Jack B 04 Sep 2015
In reply to Andy Hudson:

For my admittedly not very good landscapes I've been using Luminance. It's very versatile and free, not very user friendly but I got some decent results from it. The main thing though is to work out what you want to do with your images, and why. Then you can go through that process. The first step is to understand what your camera is doing when the dynamic range is too large for it, apologies if I'm teaching grandma to suck eggs.

The sensors in your camera has a certain Dynamic Range. That is the ratio between the brightest and the darkest thing it can resolve. It doesn't matter what the actual levels for brightest and darkest are, because you/your camera will adjust the aperture and exposure time to get the right level. The problem arises when the ratio between light and dark is too much for your sensor, then no mater what you do with the exposure settings, some of the picture will be overexposed, i.e. all white, and some will be underexposed, i.e. all black. This is where bracketing comes in. You take several photos at different exposures, so one has detail in the bright areas but lots of underexposed bits, and another has detail in the dark areas, but lots of overexposed bits. When taking the photo, your brackets need to be far apart enough to capture the full dynamic range. How far apart that is depends on the subject material and the camera. Check the photos for over/underexposed areas (some cameras highlight them with flashing areas on the screen), and widen the bracket if you need to.

Now, you have a series of photos of the same scene. For simplicity, I'll talk about black and white, but you'll have three colours in each pixel, not one. Each pixel in each photo is represented by a number between 0 (black) and 255 (white). In each photo, the camera used most or all of it's dynamic range, so the values go from 0 to 255. You want to combine these into a picture with a higher dynamic range, meaning that the pixel values will go from 0 to some number over 255. Combining them is fairly streightforward conceptually, you start with the darkest one, and replace any 255's with higher numbers obtained by adding a constant to the values from the brighter picture. Most image software doesn't do values over 255, so you need something a bit special, HDR specific software will do what I've described in this paragraph as the import step.

You now have a high dynamic range image! Great! But as I said, most software won't work well with levels above 255. Neither will your monitor, or your printer. So you need to squash the image back into that 0-255 range. The simplest way is just to scale it, as happens when you use the levels tool in photoshop/GIMP. If you do that, it won't look HDR'd at all, it will just look like it was taken with a camera that had a higher dynamic range. I usually do this with my HDR images. The downside of scaling it is that colours that were distinct in the individual images get pushed closer together in the final image.

How else can you squash it? Well, there are a variety of techniques, mostly forms of tone mapping. It's worth mentioning that they can also be applied to an image that isn't actually HDR, and indeed when people talk about HDR they are usually (incorrectly IMNSHO) referring to these techniques. They are based around exaggerating the contrast at edges, and smoothly varying colour inside large blocks in order to allow the big changes at the edges. There are many algorithms, and there are religious wars between them. But at the end of the day, the trick to getting good realistic images is to apply them in moderation, if at all. They are based around tricking the human eye/brain into not noticing the smoothly variation inside large blocks of colour, but there is a limit to how far you can trick the eye. Many HDR programs have presets which apply far too much tone mapping for a realistic effect.

So what's the point of this much-longer-than-I-intended post? To get good results, it will help to understand the process. I might stop short of actually recommending Luminance as software, but combined with their quick start guide http://www.hieronymus41.de/luminanceHDR.pdf it is a good place to learn. It doesn't hide the details from the user, and you can quickly gain an understanding of how it all works.
 James Rushforth Global Crag Moderator 04 Sep 2015
In reply to James Rushforth:

The only problem with that James is the initial shot has to be exposed for the highlights resulting in very dark shadow areas. In my experience, unless you are using a decent full frame camera, pulling out shadow detail can introduce a lot of noise...or at least it did with my 7D!
 James Rushforth Global Crag Moderator 04 Sep 2015
In reply to Nicholas Livesey:

It's true...

I have to admit there is a noticeable difference between my G12 and D810 .
In reply to James Rushforth:

Tell me about it! My 6D's lack of noise and dynamic range is gob-smacking compared to what I was working with before!

Getting misty eyed about my old G12 now, I loved that camera
 Marek 05 Sep 2015
In reply to Sean Kelly:

Don't confuse HDR with tone mapping. The latter is just one optional part of an HDR workflow. You can do HDR with a layer masking backend (e.g., hugin with enfuse). Also tone mapping is an art which rewards practice and patience. One technique which seems worth trying is to handle colour and luminance separately. There is no right way in every circumstance. Look at Alexandre Buisse's work and words on Luminous Landscape and his blog.
 d_b 10 Sep 2015
In reply to Marek:

Separating colour and luminance is pretty vital if you want to avoid wacky colour effects. If you want crazy colours you can always put them back in later, but it's best to do it deliberately if you ask me.

I can't stand the photomatix tone mappers myself. Some of the out of the box ones in Picturenaut are fairly nice but they are mostly global.

Contrast enhancement on the luminance channel, recombine with colour channels and feed to global tone mapper works very well in my experience.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...