|
|
Post by Peterj on May 31, 2018 3:53:08 GMT
Coffee on my patio I was treated to this Anna's perching near the feeder.
All edits using On1 PR 2018 - this really highlights the power of raw and exposing for highlights.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on May 31, 2018 4:10:25 GMT
All edits using On1 PR 2018 - this really highlights the power of raw and exposing for highlights. Hi Pete, Yes, raw format gives you a lot more flexibility but I normally do the opposite regarding exposure. In this situation, I would normally spot (or at least center-weight) meter the bird, since it is the subject and the most important element in the scene, and then try to recover detail in the highlights. If I expose for highlights which are not the actual subject, then the subject could end up quite dark and under exposed which I would not want. Recovering detail in shadows is normally easier than recovering highlights, but it can introduce unwanted noise if shadows are lightened too much to extract detail. For me, I prefer to have a properly exposed (or as close as possible) subject SOOC and I can live with some blown highlights in the background if unavoidable. I wouldn't like to see noise on the subject. (On my screen when I look at your enlargement I can see some noise on the tail feathers and the whole underside of the bird) Please don't take this as criticism but as a description, especially for newbies, on another approach on setting exposure for a scene. |
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on May 31, 2018 4:44:05 GMT
Coffee on my patio I was treated to this Anna's perching near the feeder. All edits using On1 PR 2018 - this really highlights the power of raw and exposing for highlights.
Pete, excellent results! Great job!
Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your workflow? I believe it will be very helpful for users of this program. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on May 31, 2018 6:38:03 GMT
Hi again Pete, Pete, excellent results! Great job! Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your workflow? I believe it will be very helpful for users of this program. Thanks!
In addition, if you have time, I think it would help people if you can also describe your thinking/reasoning in exposing for highlights rather than the subject of the photo in this case. Imho, the workflow used in capturing an image is just as, if not more than, important as the post processing workflow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 18:44:19 GMT
Pete,
Hummingbirds are so hard to photograph, looks like this one sat still long enough for you!
I agree with you, exposing for the highlights is my preferred option, as trying to recover details from blown out highlights is almost impossible, as there is not much to recover. The same goes for when you have shadows that go black (0, 0, 0), nothing to recover there either. I find that the best possible exposure with a good amount of available image data is one where the highlights and shadows are not clipped, but that is not always possible, so I try to expose for the highlights and try not to blow them out. Personally, I find blown out backgrounds, such a clouds, more detracting to my eye than a dark featureless shadow in the foreground/background.
With regards to noise, as mentioned by Bailey, that is introduced when you bring back details in the shadow areas, there are plenty of options for noise reduction and most of the plug ins or image software programs to a very good job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on May 31, 2018 23:50:49 GMT
No problem Simone  Everyone has their own preferences. I am just posting mine and giving my reasons behind them. What you are alluding to regarding highlight and shadow clipping is when the dynamic range of the scene is greater than the dynamic range of the camera. Yes, it is impossible to recover clipped shadows or highlights because they are pure black or white with no detail at all. I always try to not introduce noise, because no matter what technique you use to try to remove it, it involves softening the image to some extent, depending on the severity of the noise. Just a general tip for anyone struggling to find the correct exposure when in manual mode. Since all digital cameras, no matter which one you have, will try to convert everything in a scene to an 18% grey this is what I do to set the exposure. 1. Set the ISO to the lowest acceptable setting for the lighting. On a sunny day, set it to its lowest setting. 2. Set the aperture and focal length to get the depth of field and composition you want. 3. Spot meter a middle grey in your scene to set the shutter speed. Make sure the shutter speed is fast enough for the purpose of your shot if hand holding. If you can't find a middle grey, then a neutral colour or sunlit grass are good substitutes. By spot metering a middle grey you are maximising your chances of getting a correct exposure and white balance (if set to auto) without clipping SOOC. You should at least get very close. If you have a Highlight Alert option (aka "blinkies") in your camera, I recommend turning it on. Bearing in mind that when you review your shot in camera, what you are seeing is a jpeg representation of the RAW data if shooting in RAW. Because RAW has very much more data than a jpeg, you will normally find that very small highlights (shown by the blinkies) are generally recoverable in the RAW editor. Large blown out highlights cannot be recovered. Hope this helps someone |
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Jun 1, 2018 1:30:39 GMT
Coffee on my patio I was treated to this Anna's perching near the feeder. All edits using On1 PR 2018 - this really highlights the power of raw and exposing for highlights.
Pete, excellent results! Great job!
Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your workflow? I believe it will be very helpful for users of this program. Thanks!
Thanks Sepiana - I generally expose for highlights not blown out and bracket -1, 0, +1 ev so I can choose which exposure provides the most latitude when editing. Many times a simple HDR blend will greatly reduce the noise while providing pleasing results. In this particular case I choose one raw image with which to work (the bracketed sequence was hand held about 300mm so even with IS the sequence wasn't appropriate for merging). Quite frankly I'm not overly impressed with some of the masking I did on this image; I posted to highlight the power of shooting raw in wide dynamic range conditions.
My work flow with images such as this always starts with develop adjusting
1) tone setting (in this order): Blacks -12 - Whites 0
- Shadows 29
- Midtones 14
- Contrast 16
- Exposure .15
- Crop
2) Lens correction automatic 3) Details (in this order): - Color 0, detail 0
- Luminance 43, detail 16
- Sharpening 73, threshold 4
4)Effects - Dynamic contrast applied with a luminosity mask
- Tone enhancer reducing exposure masking out bird
- Tone enhancer to create a custom vignette using a center shape radial
I think all of the above can be obtained with PSE - I just find On1's user interface easier for me.
I'll gladly provide the 3 RAW images for folks
Regards, Pete |
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Jun 1, 2018 3:35:15 GMT
Pete, Hummingbirds are so hard to photograph, looks like this one sat still long enough for you! I agree with you, exposing for the highlights is my preferred option, as trying to recover details from blown out highlights is almost impossible, as there is not much to recover. The same goes for when you have shadows that go black (0, 0, 0), nothing to recover there either. I find that the best possible exposure with a good amount of available image data is one where the highlights and shadows are not clipped, but that is not always possible, so I try to expose for the highlights and try not to blow them out. Personally, I find blown out backgrounds, such a clouds, more detracting to my eye than a dark featureless shadow in the foreground/background. With regards to noise, as mentioned by Bailey, that is introduced when you bring back details in the shadow areas, there are plenty of options for noise reduction and most of the plug ins or image software programs to a very good job. Yes - I also sat long enough to capture a hummer (maybe tired). Here's an example using a simplistic HDR blend from bracketed sequence that highlights the noise cancellation when using multiple exposures. This was captured this morning (5/31 5:56 MST) -2.33, -1.33, -.33 f4 ISO 100. There shouldn't have been much noise, however upon comparing a single image with a 3 image merge I noticed the HDR merge was cleaner overall.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Jun 1, 2018 3:49:06 GMT
... I think all of the above can be obtained with PSE - I just find On1's user interface easier for me.
...
Thank you for posting your workflow. Yes all those edits can be done in ACR/PSE as well. Also, just a quick suggestion/food for thought or whatever fwiw, it's generally accepted that sharpening is the very last bit of editing that should be done. The reason being is that any sharpening algorithm doesn't actually sharpen an image. The algorithm looks for edges in the image and then increases the contrast on each side of the edge according to your sharpening settings to create the illusion of sharpening. Hence, any editing that is done that alters pixels will affect the contrast on each side of the edges in the image and so alter/reduce the apparent sharpening that was previously applied. Whether it is noticeable or not depends on the image, but generally it's safer to do the sharpening last or resharpen if subsequent pixel altering edits have been applied to a previous sharpening. |
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Jun 1, 2018 4:11:49 GMT
Pete, excellent results! Great job!
Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your workflow? I believe it will be very helpful for users of this program. Thanks!
Thanks Sepiana - I generally expose for highlights not blown out and bracket -1, 0, +1 ev so I can choose which exposure provides the most latitude when editing. Many times a simple HDR blend will greatly reduce the noise while providing pleasing results. In this particular case I choose one raw image with which to work (the bracketed sequence was hand held about 300mm so even with IS the sequence wasn't appropriate for merging). Quite frankly I'm not overly impressed with some of the masking I did on this image; I posted to highlight the power of shooting raw in wide dynamic range conditions.
My work flow with images such as this always starts with develop adjusting
1) tone setting (in this order): Blacks -12 - Whites 0
- Shadows 29
- Midtones 14
- Contrast 16
- Exposure .15
- Crop
2) Lens correction automatic 3) Details (in this order): - Color 0, detail 0
- Luminance 43, detail 16
- Sharpening 73, threshold 4
4)Effects - Dynamic contrast applied with a luminosity mask
- Tone enhancer reducing exposure masking out bird
- Tone enhancer to create a custom vignette using a center shape radial
Pete, thanks so much for such a detailed description of your workflow. It definitely paid off! Users of ON1 Photo RAW, take note!
My workflow is rather similar to yours. -- Develop > Effects. Then, I take my file into Elements or Photoshop. Now, if I am already inside Elements or Photoshop, I tend to invoke the Effects module (most of the time).
There is one thing I have to admit though. Sometimes I am not happy with the masking in Photo RAW. May it is just me. I guess I feel more comfortable with masking done in PSE or Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Jun 1, 2018 10:38:55 GMT
Hi again Peter, ... I generally expose for highlights not blown out and bracket -1, 0, +1 ev so I can choose which exposure provides the most latitude when editing. ... ... I'll gladly provide the 3 RAW images for folks If you don't mind, I would be interested in having a play with the 3 RAW files, just out of curiosity to see what can be done with them in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and PSE. The reason being that I am no longer convinced that bracketing exposures by +/- 1EV is really much benefit when shooting RAW. If shooting JPG, then yes certainly bracketing can help end up with a correctly exposed image. In ACR you can adjust exposure by up to +/- 5 stops. So I did a little experiment a few years ago out of curiosity to see how accurate the ACR exposure adjustments are compared to in camera exposure adjustments. What I did is this: 1. Photographed an outdoor scene in bright sunlight using the exposure the camera metered. 2. I then manually set +1EV (+1 stop) and photographed the same scene. 3. I then manually set -1EV (-1 stop) and photographed the same scene. 4. I opened the 3 photos I took in steps 1, 2 and 3 in ACR and adjusted the exposure of the photo in step 1 by +1 stop and compared it with the photo from step 2. Visually they were identical on the screen.5. In ACR I then adjusted the photo in step 1 to -1 stop from the original exposure and compared it with the photo from step 3. Again, visually they were identical on the screen.
So based on my findings then, I have never bothered to bracket exposures by only +/- 1 stop. If I ever need a variation of -1EV to +1EV in an image, I can easily do it in ACR without having to shoot multiple exposures and then having to align them (which should be no problem if a tripod was used, but if not then alignment might take a lot of work) I don't know if the correlation between ACR and in camera exposure adjustments extends beyond 1 stop. It might not be a linear relationship. If I have time and remember some time in the future I might try the same experiment with +/- 2 stops and beyond, but I rarely have to make an exposure adjustment in ACR greater than half a stop, 1 stop maximum. |
|
Everyone has their own preferences. I am just posting mine and giving my reasons behind them.