A Different take on Post Processing

On Jul 18, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 18, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.
I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484ff5m7/Summer%20Header-2017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oech6fko/Summer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4ehez4n/2355~57%20Shore%231a.jpg

Here are two comparison examples of a 0 EV exposure compared with two
different HDR renderings from five exposure brackets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti0njqepyzd6v1c/screenshot_105.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0uiev77xa2ovjru/screenshot_106.jpg

....and a another single comparison of a0 EV shot against a 5 exposure bracket
HDR:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gv068hyodc2rjy/screenshot_107.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:46:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 18, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 18, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.
I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484ff5m7/Summer%20Header-2017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oech6fko/Summer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4ehez4n/2355~57%20Shore%231a.jpg

Here are two comparison examples of a 0 EV exposure compared with two
different HDR renderings from five exposure brackets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti0njqepyzd6v1c/screenshot_105.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0uiev77xa2ovjru/screenshot_106.jpg

...and a another single comparison of a0 EV shot against a 5 exposure bracket
HDR:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gv068hyodc2rjy/screenshot_107.jpg

I'm definitely in the pro-HDR camp. If done with the purpose of
correction, and not effect, it can produce perfectly believable
photos. My only objection to this one is that there is a mismatch
between the sky and the non-sky portions. Either the sky is too dark,
or the rest is too light. The others you posted look right - no
terribly obvious HDR at all.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:44:10 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!


HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.

I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484...017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oec...mer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4e...Shore%231a.jpg


Here is an effort of mine from some years ago - before and after.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sd8pa87f2c...after.jpg?dl=0

The lefthand side is the average exposure of the series from which the
HDR image was formed. I was using the Nik HDR software emedded in
Paint Shop Pro. The final image was bright, almost to the point of
being garish, but I preferred it to the much more mundane version I
later produced using Light Room.

The dynamic range was really enormous for that shot.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/18/2017 9:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 18, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 18, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.
I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484ff5m7/Summer%20Header-2017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oech6fko/Summer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4ehez4n/2355~57%20Shore%231a.jpg

Here are two comparison examples of a 0 EV exposure compared with two
different HDR renderings from five exposure brackets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti0njqepyzd6v1c/screenshot_105.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0uiev77xa2ovjru/screenshot_106.jpg

...and a another single comparison of a0 EV shot against a 5 exposure bracket
HDR:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gv068hyodc2rjy/screenshot_107.jpg

According to my understanding, one can get a good HDR image with 3
shots. The reason we take 5 is that Nikon only does an auto increase of
one stop, and a two stop differential is all that is needed.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

According to my understanding, one can get a good HDR image with 3
shots.

or less.

The reason we take 5 is that Nikon only does an auto increase of
one stop, and a two stop differential is all that is needed.

that's user configurable.

On 7/19/2017 10:03 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

According to my understanding, one can get a good HDR image with 3
shots.

or less.

The reason we take 5 is that Nikon only does an auto increase of
one stop, and a two stop differential is all that is needed.

that's user configurable.


So which Nikon has a two stop differential when using auto-bracketing. I
am not talking about manual bracketing.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The reason we take 5 is that Nikon only does an auto increase of
one stop, and a two stop differential is all that is needed.

that's user configurable.

So which Nikon has a two stop differential when using auto-bracketing. I
am not talking about manual bracketing.

many of them, some even more than 2 stops.

rtfm or even rtfs.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d750/spec.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d810/spec.htm
Exposure bracketing
2 to 9 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 EV; 2 to 5 frames in
steps of 2 or 3 EV

set it to 5 frames @ 3v. that should do you just fine.

On Jul 19, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/18/2017 9:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 18, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 18, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.
I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter
header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484ff5m7/Summer%20Header-2017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oech6fko/Summer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4ehez4n/2355~57%20Shore%231a.jpg

Here are two comparison examples of a 0 EV exposure compared with two
different HDR renderings from five exposure brackets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti0njqepyzd6v1c/screenshot_105.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0uiev77xa2ovjru/screenshot_106.jpg

...and a another single comparison of a0 EV shot against a 5 exposure
bracket
HDR:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gv068hyodc2rjy/screenshot_107.jpg
According to my understanding, one can get a good HDR image with 3
shots. The reason we take 5 is that Nikon only does an auto increase of
one stop, and a two stop differential is all that is needed.

The important thing is to establish an increase to the highlight/shadows DR.
The size of the differential is going to be dictated by your intention. My
habit with the Nikon is to shoot a 5 shot bracket with a 1 stop interval.
That ends up as a 4 stop range, -2/-1/0/+1/+2 differential.
Now that I have the Fujifilm X-T2 I have the option to shoot brackets of 2,
3, 5, 7, or 9 frames with intervals of ±1/3 to ±3 stops in 1/3 steps.
However, I find that with the X-T2 the shadow detail recoveryfrom the RAW
files is so good that, these days I have little need to go to HDR unless I
plan to. I suspect you find the D500 to be similar in that respect.

With a single exposure that has detail lost in the shadows, one of the best
tools available is Lightroom. It is a quick and simple technique:
1: Create a virtual copy.
2: In the Develop Modual with the original adjust the *Exposure* slider to
+3.00 and with the virtual copy to -3.00.
3: Select both in the *Film Strip* and right click, select *Photo
Merge*-*HDR*.
4: This will produce a DNG which can be edited/adjusted as a 32-bit RAW file.
The range of the exposure slider will go from the normal -5/+5 to -10/+10.
All other adjustments benefit, and the result is quite subtle.

This is far less of a hassle than doing the similar thing with ACR and PS.
--

Regards,
Savageduck

Bill W:
I'm definitely in the pro-HDR camp...

I repeat: "Hell, there are people out there who still think that
so-called HDR is cool!"

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:43:07 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Bill W:
I'm definitely in the pro-HDR camp...

I repeat: "Hell, there are people out there who still think that
so-called HDR is cool!"

It's a tool. You snipped an essential part of my post, and completely
changed the meaning.