Caught in a Trap...HDR

[ChrisCW]

I have found myself in somewhat of a depression surrounding my photography and therefore have almost stopped taking pics. The problem is HDR, or possibly more to the point, my lack of ability to PP and the lack of time to PP.

So I end up doing the same thing each time (workflow..) as it gives me the results I 'think' look best. The problem is that whenever I take a single image and then process that image, I cannot achieve the same 'pop' that I get from bracketting my shots and pushing them through Photomatix.

Whilst I like HDR as I think the dynamic range is more what my eye sees, I think the processing it applies (or I apply) is somewhat artifical (with the halo effect etc). So I am trying different things, although I simply do not have time (or money) to learn something completely new.

As a test I have downloaded a plugin for Lightroom called Enfuse, which I think may give a more realistic image than say Photomatix.

I have attached a number of images below that have either been processed as Tonemapped or Exposure Fusion within Photomatix, or have been produced with Lightroom alone with the Fusion plugin.

If you can look at the pics, they maybe slightly different in crop etc, but its the processing I am having issues with (mainly!) and let me know which you think is best and any suggestions as to quick and easy (ish) solutions to my woes it would be appreciated:

Firstly this was my image I posted as a final (originally) This was produced with Photomatix (3 image Tonemapped), then levels/crop/sharpening in Lightroom (LR) and then finally into Irfanfiew for the canvas size adjust (black surround):

1.

Alyn_Caergwrle3 by Chris (aka Seedubs), on Flickr
Original (1)

The second image was produced using Photomatix (2 image Exposure Fusion) then levels/crop/sharpening in Lightroom (LR) and then finally into Irfanfiew for the canvas size adjust (black surround):

2.

2 Picture fuse1 by Chris (aka Seedubs), on Flickr
Test 2

The third image was produced using Photomatix (3 image Exposure Fusion) then levels/crop/sharpening in Lightroom (LR) and then finally into Irfanfiew for the canvas size adjust (black surround):

3.

3 Pic fused1 by Chris (aka Seedubs), on Flickr
Test 3

The fourth image was produced using Photomatix (3 image Tone Mapping) then levels/crop/sharpening in Lightroom (LR) and then finally into Irfanfiew for the canvas size adjust (black surround):

4.

Tonemapped3 by Chris (aka Seedubs), on Flickr
Test 4

The fifth image was produced using only using the Lightroom Enfused plugin and directed exported to Irfanfiew for levels, sharpening and the canvas size adjust (black surround):

5.

EnfusedIrfanView by Chris (aka Seedubs), on Flickr
Test 5

The final sixth image was produced using the Lightroom Enfused plugin, then levels/crop/sharpening in Lightroom (LR) and then finally into Irfanfiew for the canvas size adjust (black surround):

6.

Enfuse1 by Chris (aka Seedubs), on Flickr
Test 6

Any advice or pointers good or bad would be appreicated, or suggestions on better use of Photomatix or LR.......MTIA

 

[Studi0488]

First image for me, the only thing I would do would be to straighten the image, it oops like the left needs to come up ?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Baffled by the No.1 votes. It looks overly diffused as if there are negative clarity values applied, and there is some hideous banding in the skies. The whole tonal range is out of whack!

You all think that's cool?

Upon casual inspection I voted 6, but going in closer reveals some nasties in there too...

Over sharpened, and some really nasty edge effects going on. That noise pattern is just beyond belief... back off on sharpening. If the image isn't sharp enough, it's an issue for you to fix in camera, not post process.

This is what happens when you just keep clicking plug ins... no subtlety. There's no focus on quality here, and this was printed reasonably large it would look like hell.

Same with No.2.

No.3 doesn't even need a large view to see what's wrong with it.. it's a car crash.

No.4.... looks like a 256 colour GIF when you zoom in.

no.5 is the only process that hasn't actually destroyed the image...

So scratch my No.6 vote... I go for 5.

You need to consider your work flow. You're systematically destroying the quality of the image to gain an aesthetic "look". This is because you're running them through plug ins and not taking control of things manually. You are over sharpening too, and that's what's causing that awful noise patterning. Things may look great at 800 pixels across in a forum, but apart from No.5, these are useless if you need to print them. Post processing is just becoming a choice of what plug in to use for people these days, and this is what happens

 

[TheDrift-]

I dunno I quite like number 1, I would just add it as a layer and brush it in where needed and where the picture can stand it,

Similar process just applied selectively can get rid of the banding problems:

Lincolnshire Wolds Sunset by Shaun Wilkinson Photography, on Flickr

 

[Pookeyhead]

Working with 16bit images goes a long way to avoiding that in the first place.

 

[ChrisCW]

Guys many many thanks for the feedback, sometimes you cannot see the wood for the trees and I think I had fallen into a trough.

I think I will go back to basics and see what I can achieve.

Can you tell me what the difference is to using 16bit images, I just assumed that 32 bit images would give me better resolution/ppi/depth?

Just for interest, this was a handheld picture, but still at ISO 100, so noise must have been down to my pp. Settings were Ap Pri, f9, 1/50 sec @ 10mm (10-20mm Sigma). I think some of the ghosting may have been during the bracket blend in Photomatix and other added during pp in LR and again a final sharpen in Irfanview.

Again, many thanks for the feedback, I need the kick in the but to try something new.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Can you tell me what the difference is to using 16bit images, I just assumed that 32 bit images would give me better resolution/ppi/depth?

They do. If you're currently using 32bit images and still getting that level of banding, something is going very wrong. I assumed you were using 8bit files with that level of banding.

 

[ChrisCW]

I think I have identified one problem, at the end of my workflow I currently use Irfanview just to add the black boarder, it then saves to .jpg (never really checked) but this is greatly reduced, i.e. my original from LR is say 100MB, once it has been through Iranfiew it is down to 14MB, now I take it that loss isnt just down to the compression of a jpg.......

And I have checked in LR, I am exporting as 16 bit images. Pookey, thanks for the feedback.

 

[Jimi-the-fish]

Some random thoughts from me. I have done a lot of HDR using both Photomatix and merge to HDR in CS5. I have found myself gradually toning back and now try to go for an almost ' can't tell it's HDR' feel. I use a lot of the smoothing controls in Photomatix and adjust the saturation sliders more than I used to. I find it always looks more processed when finished than the image that shows during adjustment and now allow for this as well. I do sharpen a bit afterwards but as mentioned this is easy to overdo. Hope this helps.

J

 

[Pookeyhead]

From 100mb down to 14MB.. if the pixel resolution is the same, HAS to be JPEG compression and that kind of compression will cause havoc I would imagine.


[edit]

What exactly are you doing in irfanview? Are you just using it to save to a different format, or are you actually resizing the image? You mention canvas size, but I'm not sure if you were referring to adding the black borders, or whether you are actually referring to resizing for these forums. Are these bands appearing prior to using irfanview? If I were you I'd slowly start back tracking along each images production route until I find the culprit.

 

[ChrisCW]

Sorry, but I am away at the moment, but from what I remember it was adding the boarder (canvas increase) and one sharpen then save as.... I will have to check the save as but I know I would have always have selected 100% on quality, but not sure about the size.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It could be irfanview. It's very rare to get banding like that with 16bit files unless you doing some serious messing around with the histogram.