my lazy photographers tonemapping solution

Hi

its a quiet sunday, someone asked me about this again, so I thought I'd put a step by step of my hybrid use of photomatix for tone mapping then further post in photoshop on my blog

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/11/tonemapping-raw-tutorial-for-lazy.html

hope that helps someone

enjoy

Pellicle,

Very nice results obtained with this package. Will the program work with other digital images - specifically; a scanned file in TIFF format?

Thanks,
George

The highlights are still blown out quite badly, though...I don't get it.

And what lens is that? A 10 or 15mm?

ctscanner said:

Pellicle,

Very nice results obtained with this package. Will the program work with other digital images - specifically; a scanned file in TIFF format?

Click to expand...

well it hasn't when I've tried it ... but it depends on a linear dataset, which film does not capture.

I use the package to get my digital files looking more like the 'feel' I like from film

Hi

PVia said:

The highlights are still blown out quite badly, though...I don't get it.

And what lens is that? A 10 or 15mm?

Click to expand...

yes, of course it has ... when I took the shot I was looking straight into the sun. My point is that it recovered that quite elegantly and gave me shadow details absent from the initial file with only a few clicks effort. I have also worked with that file for hours in photoshop with layers and dodge and burn and not got a significantly better result


lens was Tokina 12-24 on Canon 10D

I think the same work is perfectly doable (I mean to the point you've brought it) in Lightroom.

Also, my Sony Alpha 700 camera has a so called Dynamic Range Optimization feature that works equally well. (5 levels of shadow lightening - in simple words...)

As you all already know probably, you have to shoot multiple frames (maybe spaced 1.5 - 2 stops apart) in such extreme contrast scenes to get the best results.

I would'nt shoot that BTW (only as a test maybe); because whether you tame it with HDR tonemapping or not, it would'nt look good/right at all... (It's unnatural; even our eyes can't adapt to such extreme range!)

Regards,
Loris.

Hello Loris

I can't answer that as I don't have light room ... again I would like to state that my purpose here was not to say "this is the only way" or "mine is better than yours" I was just offering people (some of whom may not have better ways) an option to consider ... you know ... giving something to the group.

If you think the same would be as doable as easily why not post the same in your workflow?

Loris Medici said:

As you all already know probably, you have to shoot multiple frames (maybe spaced 1.5 - 2 stops apart) in such extreme contrast scenes to get the best results.

Click to expand...

yes ... and I do dabble with HDR ... mostly however its to clean up noise in shadows and generally get a more even rendition. I happen to like the look of negative film, but colour negative lacks the great tonals of black and white. I use HDR (which the above is not) to get images which improve on what other colour techniques currently lack.

for instance when shooting an interior

I would'nt shoot that BTW (only as a test maybe); because whether you tame it with HDR tonemapping or not, it would'nt look good/right at all...

Click to expand...

well I happened to be walking around the Taj at the time ... I took many "non workers" as it doesn't cost much I don't normally like to publish my best stuff in high res as I feel funny about sharing that with those who may profit from it

FWIW I happen to like the image ... although its not a favourite

Hi pellicle,

pellicle said:

I can't answer that as I don't have light room ...

Click to expand...

I'd suggest that you download the trial version (full features with time limit) and see it for yourself. It's a good program, almost a "must have" for digital photographers... (Especially for catalouge / achive management purposes + it's really simple and useful if you don't intend to do extensive local manipulations.)

pellicle said:

...again I would like to state that my purpose here was not to say "this is the only way" or "mine is better than yours" I was just offering people (some of whom may not have better ways) an option to consider ... you know ... giving something to the group.

Click to expand...

That's not my take at all...

pellicle said:

...If you think the same would be as doable as easily why not post the same in your workflow?

Click to expand...

LR is so easy that you don't need to describe a workflow. (It's very photographer friendly.) You just fiddle with two or three sliders to achive that, basic stuff really. Besides, there are plenty LR related articles published in the web, why should bother to add another one with no extra information?

See an example here:
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/08/29/tone-and-color-in-lightroom.html
(Not mentioned in the article: There are also simple to use curves adjustments in case you need more control...)

Or this:
http://www.layersmagazine.com/improving-landscape-photographs-with-lightroom.html

And this for some info on curves:
http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1187849

pellicle said:

yes ... and I do dabble with HDR ... mostly however its to clean up noise in shadows and generally get a more even rendition. I happen to like the look of negative film, but colour negative lacks the great tonals of black and white. I use HDR (which the above is not) to get images which improve on what other colour techniques currently lack.

for instance when shooting an interior

Click to expand...

That's a pretty well executed shot. OTOH, it looks more like a plastic/3D rendering than a photograph -> not your fault, a problem inherent with most HDR images. (HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE VIEW ALERT!) To me it's better to use it as subtle as it's possible... (I mean as a more viable option than using it "in your face" manner.)

Regards,
Loris.

Hi Loris

Loris Medici said:

That's a pretty well executed shot. OTOH, it looks more like a plastic/3D rendering than a photograph -> not your fault

Click to expand...

thanks ... as you may guess the interior lighting colour temperature was all over the place with not only tungsten (can be coped with) but that nasty fluro low wattage stuff too. I didn't want to destroy the ambience and so turned to HDR for a 'suck it and see' ... I too don't usually aim for the plastic look, but in this case I think it worked well and the client liked it too (most of the point ;-)

thanks for the links, I will follow them and try, out, but I don't really see what it is that LR can do that photoshop can't as I think photoshop has more power with masking than LR ... but I should try it.

Lightroom is very quick & easy/intuitive. Better suited to global work, batch adjustments (very useful for studio settings or where light conditions don't change), it has incredible and effective catalogue/archiving/seach features. Also one important feature is the fact that you can have many different "virtual" copies of the same file (such as: Original, B&W1, B&W2, ... B&W.n, SplitTone1, SplitTone2, ... SplitTone.n, Color1, Color2, ... Color.n, Crop1, Crop2, ... Crop.n and such...) w/o loosing disk space for each copy. LR isn't a replacement for PS, whereas PS isn't a replacement of LR; they complete each other pretty successfully.

Regards,
Loris.