• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

Is it possible to edit a photo with this much light/dark range?

Participant ,
Apr 28, 2013 Apr 28, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This is a "how to" question.  See attached photo of the moon setting at first light "as-shot".  The goal was to keep the moon from overexposing with the idea that the camera was capable of recording sufficient landscape information in the shadows.  I have this scene bracketed quite a ways  but the settings here seem to work best.

3.jpg

Here it is with the mountain brought out of the shadows and temperature adjusted.  The mountain has good depth, but what it takes to do this, messes up the moon (as you can see).

4.jpg

After messing around with the controls I noticed the bleach bypass preset will actually preserve most detail, but at the expense of most color. The orange reflection on the snow gives extraordinary depth to the mountain (especially for predawn). The instant I try to add more color, the moon turns bad.

7.jpg

For illustrative purpose, this is the closest I can get both subjects on the same photo using LR,  graduated filters and some controls cranked.  I run out of control trying to recover the black around the moon, and lowering its saturation.  Obviously this is unacceptable except that it shows that since detail at both extremes got recorded to the same raw file, it should be theoretically possible to make it look like I want.  Or not?  That's the question.

5.jpg

What appears to destroy the moon the most is correcting the temperature to get the orange snow reflection.   Another way of looking at it: since my eyes had no  trouble seeing this scene live, and the camera was able to record this detail, there should be a way to render it.  I don't take a lot of landscapes so I don't know.  Any ideas? or am I out of luck?

Thank you in advance for any input.

Views

15.8K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 28, 2013 Apr 28, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Other than the usual stuff (e.g. -highlights +shadows etc.), and of course locals (maybe with brush instead of gradient), it's hard to tell what's possible without having a crack at the raw - can you post it?

R

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 28, 2013 Apr 28, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for the reply!  Check your messages. 

The lack of  separate black level and tone curve in the tool controls seem to be a problem.  Somehow there seems to be more range in the image than I have control over.  I cannot get it any closer than this ratty attempt:

4.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi George,

I messed with this just long enough to realize I don't have the skill to really do what you would probably like with this photo in Lightroom, i.e.

Vivid contrasty mountain, soft dim moon.

Not only is there a huge range between bright moon and dim mountain, but there is a nasty blue color cast to deal with. All-in-all, just not enough tone and color info to get anything really detailed out of the mountain, without it looking overprocessed.

To people reading along: the mountain is behind a heavy hazy foggy atmosphere (refer back to the original above) - cranked clarity all the way up to 100 and it still wasn't "clear" enough.

If this were my photo, I'd be tempted to do a black and white.

Truth betold, I do actually like the result I came up with, but it's subtle, and probably not what you had in mind:

George's Moon (you may need to context-click and choose "Open Link in New...")

Settings:

Temp 4500

Tint 10

Exposure 1.3

Contrast -50

Highlights -100

Shadows +100

Whites -100

Blacks +100

Clarity +100

Saturation -30

And some tweaking to the point curve(s).

A few subtle locals.

I'm sure I could have improved it further in Lightroom, with enough time and paint, but really I think it's more of a job for Photoshop or NX2, where as you know there are U-points and local tone curves...

Cheers,

Rob

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rob Cole wrote:


there is a nasty blue color cast to deal with

That's probably mainly in the shadows (IOW most of the image). This is a case where histogram-peeping can actually help, because you can see the shadow blue cast there:

blue cast.png

I strongly suspect that neutralizing the black point with split toning can correct most of that.

Just an observation in passing - I don't have the original.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The strong blue shadow cast was confirmed by applying an extreme curve to the version on rob's site (linked above):

moon.jpg

IME shadow casts can ruin an image completely - and be b*stards to nail down. But once you're on to it, a lot of things fall into place.

Nice image, and one worth spending some time on. The glow on the snow-covered peaks has potential for a great shot, if you can keep the moon from blowing out. I think it should be possible.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This wide dynamic range "still life" subject is best shot as an HDR image. Even shooting just three exposures with AEB (±1.5 to ±2.0 EV) would help. Use a sturdy tripod and high enough ISO to keep the longest exposure time low (<1 sec. with 400mm), otherwise the moon will have moved enough to blur slightly. With ±2.0 EV Bracket your exposures with this image would have been 2/3 sec., 1/6 sec., and 1/24 sec.

I assume you're already using a tripod and I see you have PS CS5, so you just need to use' Edit In'> 'Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop.'

Merge to HDR Pro does not apply LR's Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks Basic panel settings, so there's no need to adjust these for the three bracketed imag files. I use my LR defaults and only apply LR adjustments to the reimported 32bit HDR TIFF file.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Have you ever been able to get anything sensible out of HDR? I haven't and have frankly given up on it. All I get are these drab, flat images that are completely devoid of any sign of life:

HDR1b.jpg

(ignore the ghosting, this is just an illustration)

I do much better on my own:

HDR2b.jpg

I think the basic problem with HDR is that it just compresses everything, indiscriminately. So you lose all local contrast.

Are there any tricks I'm unaware of? This is PS CS6, and I tweaked the controls the best I could.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

When you made an HDR, did you save it out as a 32-bit tiff and open the HDR in Camera Raw 7.x? ACR can do a very good job tone mapping HDR.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's a potential trick I was indeed unaware of. I'll take a look. Thanks.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I recommend it: select two or more images with something like two EV between them and use the 'merge to HDR pro' option to send them over to PS. Select the 32 bit option and then save as a TIFF - no need to make any adjustments in PS whatsoever. Back in LR, get to work on tone mapping the 32 bit TIFF using the basic panel. You can get great results, and you have a massive range of tones to play with (instead of +/- 5 EV, you now have +/- 10 EV).

I was never a fan of HDR, but this can produce really nice images with great IQ. Believe 32 bit editing was rolled out in LR 4.1

M

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You were probably using 8bit or 16bit mode with 'Local Adaption' and HDR Pro's toning controls inside PS.

Here's an example of a single image file and an HDR Pro 32bit file created from five 1.3 EV step images, both processed only in LR4.4:

Double-click on image to see Full-Size:

Merge to HDR.jpg

A properly processed HDR image can provide a wider tonal-range and still maintain natural looking contrast. You can overdo it, which is fine for special effects images.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, much better than mine, obviously, but I still think the highlights are a little flat...

But of course we're talking near impossible dynamic ranges here, so compromises have to be weighed against time spent. Who can spend a week on a single image? I used to, but simply can't anymore

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

twenty_one wrote:

The strong blue shadow cast was confirmed by applying an extreme curve to the version on rob's site (linked above):

moon.jpg

You should have seen it before I "corrected" it .

Note: the mountain is engulfed in hazy fog. There is very little (differential) color info in it. There is scant (read: virtually none) glow from the moon on the mountain.

I left some of the color cast to keep it from being just gray.

Consider reconsidering the original. This picture is, in my mind, just barely salvageable. Of course, an expert can re-create color without original differentiation of color, but that's the job, essentially, in this case. Or if color is mostly repressed or whatever, eeking tone from the murky depths...

It's worth noting that there is no clipping in the original photo, on either end. So, although multi-image blended (or HDR) photo could improve quality of result, it won't change the basic problem, which is - the mountain is behind a heavy blanket of fog. Moon-glow on the mountain will need to be artificially created...

I like the edited version of this photo, but I realized fairly quickly that trying to go far from what it was toward something it wasn't was just not doable, not by me in Lightroom anyway, not without making it look heavily over-processed and unnatural, and/or not without several hours of applying paint, and after a while enduring Lr getting bogged down by such paint... - i.e. wrong tool for the job.

In my opinion, the edited version probably looks a fair amount like what it did when standing there (I wasn't there), but no more than that...

Reminder: In my edited version, clarity is set at +100 - y'all know how strong that is, right? (granted, clarity attenuated around the moon, but also another dose of +100 clarity applied with paint across the whole mountain range), read: very little tonal variation to work with...

Rob

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rob Cole wrote:

It's worth noting that there is no clipping in the original photo, on either end. So, although multi-image blended (or HDR) photo could improve quality of result, it won't change the basic problem, which is - the mountain is behind a heavy blanket of fog. Moon-glow on the mountain will need to be artificially created...

Rob, did you look at the raw file in RawDigger or other raw file analyzer. It's impossible to determine raw file clipping using LR because the camera profile and other settings are applied to the raw image file, which changes the actual raw pixel levels. My guess is shooting multiple exposures probably would have yielded a better image file, even if all you did was pick the best exposed image file (ETR).

It's very common to underexpose when using the camera's histogram, since it is reading an in-camera processed JPEG file. The actual  raw file can have 1EV or more additional highlight expansion before actual raw pixel clipping. Geroge, do you have any image files from this shoot that have more exposure (i.e. more than ISO 100, 1/6 sec @ F2.8 )?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2013 Apr 29, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There is no question in my mind that increased exposure would have been better, but that doesn't change the basic problem, or the basic editing job. I understand that evaluating clippage based on jpeg is not accurate, but no: I didn't analyze using RawDigger..., but none of the channels were near clipping as processed by Lightroom through Adobe Standard or Neutral camera profiles, and even if they were near clipping in some more absolute/raw sense (e.g. as revealed by RawDigger), certainly none of the mountain is clipped (at histo-left), nor is the moon (at histo-right).

PS - I used Adobe Standard, since George did. But if I had it to do over again, I'd choose Neutral.

For emphasis: the basic problem is lack of detail in the mountain due to atmosphere, not over-extended dynamic range, and of course: color channel catty-wompous-ness, due to shooting conditions or camera and/or stuff I don't understand...

Rob

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

All right. All these things considered, how about simply splitting the problem in two? First develop for the full image, with all the special tricks necessary for bringing out the mountains, while ignoring the moon (and glare). Then a second development for the moon. Since George has Photoshop, this should be a fairly simple masking job there (but I would still keep the moon in the upper range, close to blow-out).

I'm just throwing this out since I still don't have the original.

BTW I thought I saw a subtle glow on the peaks in George's second example, which is what made the shot "snap" for me. But maybe it was just an artifact from extreme development.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rob Cole wrote:

There is no question in my mind that increased exposure would have been better, but that doesn't change the basic problem, or the basic editing job. I understand that evaluating clippage based on jpeg is not accurate, but no: I didn't analyze using RawDigger..., but none of the channels were near clipping as processed by Lightroom through Adobe Standard or Neutral camera profiles, and even if they were near clipping in some more absolute/raw sense (e.g. as revealed by RawDigger), certainly none of the mountain is clipped (at histo-left), nor is the moon (at histo-right).

PS - I used Adobe Standard, since George did. But if I had it to do over again, I'd choose Neutral.

For emphasis: the basic problem is lack of detail in the mountain due to atmosphere, not over-extended dynamic range, and of course: color channel catty-wompous-ness, due to shooting conditions or camera and/or stuff I don't understand...

Rob

I see not much difference between profiles especially when compared to the fundamental problem.  The camera neutral softens the moon slightly, and Adobe helps the mountain color slightly.  I do have some higher exposures to work with (longer exposures).   I'll post another attempt later today.  When editing something tedious,  I can only trust my eyes for so long before having to rotate to something else.

(A side note:  I finally saw the effect of the noise reduction color detail control.  It was when I was playing with one of the darker shots which had some color noise.  I could never figure out the purpose of this control becuase I could not see that it was ever doing anything!  I still dont see a practical use for it since this photo was way too dark to begin with.)

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rob Cole wrote:


Truth betold, I do actually like the result I came up with, but it's subtle, and probably not what you had in mind:

Thanks. That is actually close to what I had in mind  when I was taking the shot.  But then I got lured into trying to preserve the mountain detail when I saw that.  I was actually surprised to see it coming from just moonlight. I did not notice it in the viewfinder.  In hindsight, I would have shot this differently because of that.  I would have tried to bracket the white balance and ISO in the short time allotted.  The moon sets pretty fast when it gets down there!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here's my bid. Now I'm curious to see how others will interpret it, I'm sure it will be very different...

D4_131150996.jpg

I'm in a sort of purple mood today, so...what the heck. I'll probably hate it tomorrow.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Advisor ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My try:

D4_131150996.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Advisor ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

D4_131150996 hdr.jpg

This is two exports, one at +5 Exposure, HDR blended and the 32 bit tiff edited in LR5 with a couple Radial filter applications, 1 Grad filter on bottom area and some brush work on the sky.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 30, 2013 Apr 30, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here's the D4_131150996.nef raw file histogram using RawDigger. The image is very underexposed, which is causing a "comb" appearance in the Red channel due to the larger steps at this very low exposure level. The image also has very little dynamic range (i.e. low-contrast).

D4_131150996_Histogram.jpg

Here's an expanded view using a log Y-axis scale.

D4_131150996_Histogram_LogYscale.jpg

George can you post the NEF file(s) for images with higher exposure levels? Up to +4 EV higher exposure would be very useful.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
May 01, 2013 May 01, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

trshaner wrote:

George can you post the NEF file(s) for images with higher exposure levels? Up to +4 EV higher exposure would be very useful.

These are in time order and slightly more exposed. Unfortunately the moon was quickly becoming obscured but these still make good examples because the moon is still very bright and there is  increasingly more daylight on the mountain.

1/4 sec www.gwoodard.com/D4_131150998.nef

.4 sec:  www.gwoodard.com/D4_131151006.nef

1/2 sec (more daylight): www.gwoodard.com/D4_131151010.nef 

.8sec --probably not a good example because the moon was very obscured: www.gwoodard.com/D4_131151018.nef

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
May 01, 2013 May 01, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The camera was repositioned in the first three shots, and then the moon moved in the last three images. I tried creating an HDR and the image looks better, but it's impossible to get good imaging of the moon due to the movement.

Based on the HDR results I still think shooting this image with at least three bracketed exposures (-2EV, 0EV, +2EV) creates a more easily corrected image. The primary reason being that the HDR process significantly reduces noise and provides additional dynamic range in the image to accommodate heavy contrast correction. I know it sounds contradictory to use HDR on a moderate dynamic range image, but try it for yourself.

Here's all five images in an HDR with Basic panel adjustments in LR. Ignore the moon –There are no frames where it is in the same position

HDR2_Five_Image_Files.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines