Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

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

Apr 28, 2013 12:02 AM

Tags: #lightroom #hdr #contrast

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.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2013 1:07 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 5:28 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 6:01 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 7:53 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 10:41 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 12:21 PM   in reply to trshaner

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 12:51 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 12:58 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 2:00 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 2:07 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 2:16 PM   in reply to trshaner

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 4:00 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 4:55 PM   in reply to George in Seattle

    The original:

    3.jpg

    Can everybody see the mountain in this one? - Note: its not anywhere near clipped in the blacks.

     

     

     

    George in Seattle wrote:

     

    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

    It's really amazing you were able to get the mountain looking as nice as you did in this shot. Proof that, in Photoshop, or the right tool for the job, it would be salvageable, and then some...

     

     

     

    George in Seattle wrote:

     

    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

     

    Yes, this photo is a challenge both tonally and color-wise...

     

     

     

    George in Seattle wrote:

     

    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

     

    George, this is the result of something discovered by trshaner and others (not me, I was incredulous and had to be beaten over the head with a 2x4 before I would believe it).

     

    * Locals are applied BEFORE globals (in the pipeline). Thus, if you darken to the point of clipping using locals, no amount of global correction will resurrect. Likewise at the other end of the histo...

     

    So, to answser your question: yes, maybe, I think - you can normalize exposure of mountain and moon, but it will be very tricky, since you'll need to blend/match the inbetween, carefully, and in both color and tone, the former (color) being perhaps the greatest challenge. The secret will be to not underexpose anything when dropping exposure, locally, and not over-expose anything when raising exposure, locally. I may give another whack and post it, if successful (if unsuccessful, I'll probably just wander back into the shadows, with my tail between my legs, and keep quiet... (mostly joking).

     

     

     

    George in Seattle wrote:

     

    Thank you in advance for any input.

    You're welcome, to the extent that I actually helped .

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 4:58 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    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 )?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 5:13 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    George in Seattle wrote:

     

    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

     

    George, this is the result of something discovered by trshaner and others (not me, I was incredulous and had to be beaten over the head with a 2x4 before I would believe it).

     

    * Locals are applied BEFORE globals (in the pipeline). Thus, if you darken to the point of clipping using locals, no amount of global correction will resurrect. Likewise at the other end of the histo...

     

    So, to answser your question: yes, maybe, I think - you can normalize exposure of mountain and moon, but it will be very tricky, since you'll need to blend/match the inbetween, carefully, and in both color and tone, the former (color) being perhaps the greatest challenge. The secret will be to not underexpose anything when dropping exposure, locally, and not over-expose anything when raising exposure, locally. I may give another whack and post it, if successful (if unsuccessful, I'll probably just wander back into the shadows, with my tail between my legs, and keep quiet... (mostly joking).

     

    Rob

    The fact that the sky went completely black using the Graduated filter confirms the raw image file is heavily underexposed. As Rob describes using the Locals in the wrong way can create problems. Locals take precedence over Globals and pixels that become clipped in one or more channels are not recoverable using the Global controls.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2013 5:24 PM   in reply to trshaner

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 12:23 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 12:26 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    George...I don't see a link to the priginal raw file anywhere (the image on Rob's website ain't raw). So, I can't really take a whack at it. But, I'm pretty good at this stuff, so if you want me to give it a try, give me a link where I can download a raw version. I'm pretty sure I can wrangle a pretty good version given the base file and histogram...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 5:33 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 5:37 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    My try:

     

    D4_131150996.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 6:26 AM   in reply to c.frans w

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 9:02 AM   in reply to elie-d

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 1:30 PM   in reply to George in Seattle

    Whoa...very weak black level in the one I posted above. It was done with blazing sun outside. Forget that one, here's how it was meant to be:

     

    D4_131150996.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 3:41 PM   in reply to elie-d

    @ elie-d. While this rendition may be a bit more dramatic, the lighting on the snow on the mountains is not realistic since the only lighting for the scene is the moon which is way behind the mountains. The side of the mountain that we can see is in the shadow of the lighting. I have not posted a picture because what I have come up with is pretty much the same as "c.frans w", and "twenty-one". Also I will check the next full moon in my location in Trinidad and Tobago 10 deg north of the equator but I do not think I see quite the deep orange color but somewhat more muted than a sunset would be.

     

    D4_131150996-2.jpg

    Ok my try.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 3:33 AM   in reply to DdeGannes

    I went ahead and took another whack too - you can see it here:

     

    http://www.robcole.com/Rob/Personal/Pictures/Pictures.cfm?rootDir=/Rob /LrForumSupport/photos&openDir=GeorgesMoon&openFile=D4_131150996._v_Co py%201.jpg

     

    (context-click and choose "Open Link in New...")

     

    Basic Settings:

    ------------------

    _gmoon_settings.gif

    Other Settings:

    ------------------

    Curves

    Locals

    HSL

     

    What I like about it:

    * More neutral color.

    * Orangier moon.

    * Accomplishes more so the goal I set out to accomplish (governed by my take on George's vision for this photo), esp. more tonal detail in mountain.

     

    What I don't like about it:

    * I went ahead and changed color balance of mountain w.r.t. sky, and that along with the greater mountain clarification give way to a "what's wrong with this picture" thang in my mind (i.e. where did the atmosphere go, or put another way - where is the mountain w.r.t. the atmosphere). For example in most other's versions, and my first version, the mountain has same general color and haziness as the sky, making it "clear" (pardon the pun) that the mountain is under the same atmosphere as the moon, which ties the two together energetically, and looks more natural, in my opinion.

    * The gray sky is a little, well, gray... not bad I guess, just not much color...

     

    Other notes:

    - first time around, I used channel curves for getting rid of the color cast, which was mostly overkill - 9X% can be remedied simply by cranking up the temperature.

     

    Feel free to comment, if you've a mind to...

     

    PS - Anybody know why the computed temperature is sooooo off? (way too cool).

     

    UPDATE: I peeped pixels and noticed this photo was not so sharp, and had a surprising amount of noise. To combat, I added a fair dose of high-radius sharpening (which makes for "high radius" detail noise), and some noise reduction (more than normal), then added a relatively fine grain to restore a finer texture. Looked great at 1:1, but unfortunately grain size is not tied to output resolution, so the grain was completely lost upon output for web, and the result looked over-clean/over-smooth on the web, thus the change was backed out, to avoid having to maintain virtual copies with different grain size for different output resolutions.

     

    Rob

     

    Message was UPDATED by: Rob Cole

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2013 9:22 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    twenty_one wrote:

     

    Now I'm curious to see how others will interpret it...

     

    D4_131150996.jpg

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

    Be careful what you ask for... .

     

    Looks nice. And is actually pretty close to my 2nd version. A little purpliness can be fun, albeit not 100% natural (to be clear: I realize 100% natural was not your goal). Some detail in the upper half of the moon has been lost - dunno if that was intentional, but I suspect not - in my experience, preservation of detail in the moon was quite a challenge in this photo.

     

    PS - I like this one better than the follow-up. To me, the feel of this photo does not warrant so much blacks, and I prefer to be able to seem more trees in the forest... Granted, I may not see exactly what you see, due to viewing differences between machines across the internet...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 12:37 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I've made a 2nd version also.

    I've tried to keep it as natural as possible (pale moon with details), and overall rather dark.

     

    D4_131150996-2.jpg

    Frans

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 6:31 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Yeah, I lost some detail in the moon. Probably because I made a point of not bringing this into PS, where it's easy to fix (all done in ACR 7.4).

     

    I like frans' pale moon version too (except the too-obvious burning in the lower half of the moon). Just thought I'd do something slightly different.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 12:52 PM   in reply to George in Seattle

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 5:40 PM   in reply to George in Seattle

    I have no advice at all but I enjoy playing with other peoples pics. Though I might have tried a grad filter. Or if the shutter was open long enough with a narrow aperture, I'd waggle my fingers in front of the top half of the lens.D4_131150996.jpg

     

    Edit: I used LR5b though without any of the new features. Ideally, I'd prefer to work this kind of thing through Photoshop. wher it might look better depending how much time I spent.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 5:29 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    twenty_one wrote:

     

    Yeah, I lost some detail in the moon. Probably because I made a point of not bringing this into PS, where it's easy to fix (all done in ACR 7.4).

    If you're up for the challenge, see if you can wring out moon detail in Lightroom too. That's a big part of what this thread was originally about: How to satisfy the needs of the moon, atmosphere, and mountain etc., without resorting to external editor.

     

    I'm not saying that's how you would do it. In fact some people's workflow involves starting in Lightroom, doing the basic raw conversion to tiff, then processing  *every* photo in Photoshop. But in the spirit of the original post, what does it take to do the whole job in Lightroom proper?

     

    PS - Both of my versions were done all in Lightroom (no Photoshop etc) too.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 5:41 PM   in reply to elie-d

    I had told myself I would not offer feedback to anybody who hadn't asked for it, since my social skills are limited, and my tact: less than perfect - often I (unintentionally) offend or aggravate or provoke defensiveness... when providing feedback. But I can't seem to help myself...

     

    elie-d wrote:

     

    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.

    I really like the moon in this one, and the general sense of drama. Obviously you were aiming for artistic effect not naturalness.

     

    To me, if you'd finished the painting of the sky to have a more seamless transition between near moon, away from moon, and into vignette, and cleaned up some of the color and tonal artifacts near the center of the mountain and at the seam with the dark forest area, this photo would be awesome.

     

    Just my opinion, please take it for what it's worth, or forget about it. I know this wasn't intended to be a finished photo for contest submission... - as I said: the moon is awesome and the mountain clear and dramatic, but the photo looks very much unfinished to me, as perhaps should be expected.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2013 10:55 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Thanks Rob. I know that my version was over the top and just a fast and incomplete job. The problem originally expressed by the OP was that he was having difficulty bringing up the mountain without overexposing the moon and my intention was merely to sketch out a possible solution through a combination of working in 32 bit and local adjustments. The addition of 32 bit support in LR4 is a real boon, adding range and flexibility even to the local tools, and a technique I want to explore a lot more.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points