2019 - P52 - 4th Quarter - David (Rufus) - Merging / using multiple images

[Rufus]

Week 44 - Merging and blending the same image in layers.

This week's exercise was to shoot a single backlit image to see if I could change the exposure on different layers and blend them like an HDR.

My starting point was to expose for the sky with the sun behind the trees.

#91A - The final blended image:



#91B - The original image:

[xpatUSA]

Week 44 - Merging and blending the same image in layers.

This week's exercise was to shoot a single backlit image to see if I could change the [brightness] on different layers and blend them like an HDR.

My starting point was to expose for the sky with the sun behind the trees.

I know next to nothing about using layer blending so no comment about that, but I did wonder what down-sizing algorithm was used for the posted images?

I ask because, when zooming in (a lot), the micro-details are quite quite blocky, giving a rather fuzzy appearance at 100% view on my monitor. I am interested because I get the same effect when shooting natural scenes in Sigma Merrill low-res raw (2336x1568px) ... foliage often gets visibly aliased.

[Rufus]

...but I did wonder what down-sizing algorithm was used for the posted images?

I ask because, when zooming in (a lot), the micro-details are quite quite blocky, giving a rather fuzzy appearance at 100% view on my monitor. I am interested because I get the same effect when shooting natural scenes in Sigma Merrill low-res raw (2336x1568px) ... foliage often gets visibly aliased.

Thanks for looking, Ted, and I will answer your question the best I can. I exported the image from Lightroom using my usual user defined preset which includes the following parameters:

Image sizing:

Resize to fit width and height
W: 1600 H:1200 pixels
Don't enlarge
Resolution: 300 pixels per inch

There was no option to do with anti-aliasing, and no sharpening was performed at export.

The camera settings were 1/125 at f/11 and ISO 125 lens set at 24mm. The camera is always set to use large RAW files.

If what you noticed appears in both images then it is something to do with the exporting /downsizing. If it is not noticeable on the second image then it must be to do with my processing.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for looking, Ted, and I will answer your question the best I can. I exported the image from Lightroom using my usual user defined preset which includes the following parameters:

Image sizing:

Resize to fit width and height
W: 1600 H:1200 pixels
Don't enlarge
Resolution: 300 pixels per inch

There was no option to do with anti-aliasing, and no sharpening was performed at export.

The camera settings were 1/125 at f/11 and ISO 125 lens set at 24mm. The camera is always set to use large RAW files.

If what you noticed appears in both images then it is something to do with the exporting /downsizing. If it is not noticeable on the second image then it must be to do with my processing.

Yes, it was exactly the same on both images, David. I'd guess that the LR export resizing algorithm is not the finest possible - It kind of looks like 'Nearest Neighbor' which can be a bit cranky unless the reduction ratio is a fraction in the series 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc., but you went from 6240px wide to 1600px wide., i.e. 1/3.9

Does LR have method options when re-sizing an image? If so, Lanczos3 might be a bit better. And, if re-sizing downward by a large factor, a bit of smoothing beforehand can help, depending on scene content:

http://kronometric.org/phot/processi...%20methods.htm

I was peeping at 400% and 800% which might elicit cries of horror here ...

[Rufus]

Yes, it was exactly the same on both images, David. I'd guess that the LR export resizing algorithm is not the finest possible - It kind of looks like 'Nearest Neighbor' which can be a bit cranky unless the reduction ratio is a fraction in the series 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc., but you went from 6240px wide to 1600px wide., i.e. 1/3.9

Does LR have method options when re-sizing an image? If so, Lanczos3 might be a bit better. And, if re-sizing downward by a large factor, a bit of smoothing beforehand can help, depending on scene content:

http://kronometric.org/phot/processi...%20methods.htm

I was peeping at 400% and 800% which might elicit cries of horror here ...

I cannot see any method options in Lightroom but Photoshop has several as noted in the link you have provided.

The resizing parameters I use ensures the largest PDI image allowed by my local camera club, and to keep things simple I use that for CiC as well (albeit in the latter case it is via Adobe Portfolio). Resizing in Lightroom provides a nice and straight forward workflow, but maybe it does not provide the best result.

I would never have a need to peep at the magnifications as you have done because I would not not know what I would learn or how I would benefit from doing so!

[Manfred M]

Does LR have method options when re-sizing an image? If so, Lanczos3 might be a bit better. And, if re-sizing downward by a large factor, a bit of smoothing beforehand can help, depending on scene content

Ted - Lightroom does not give specific options in downsizing or upsizing. It is not a particularly sophisticated tool and its target audience is one that is not looking at images down at the pixel peeping level you do. I suspect there are multiple resizing models built in, and depending on the final output, Lightroom will select the appropriate one.

Photoshop, on the other hand, does have a number of different algorithms that the user can choose. The Adobe workflow has always been one where the rough work can be done in a parametric tool and the final detail adjustments would be done in Photoshop. A lot of users find Lightroom is "good enough" for their work; it was primarily designed to be a "mass production" tool for the retail photography world; portrait and wedding photographers.

[Manfred M]

Week 44 - Merging and blending the same image in layers.

This week's exercise was to shoot a single backlit image to see if I could change the exposure on different layers and blend them like an HDR.

An interesting experiment, David.

I wonder how close you can get just in Lightroom working with the Highlights and Shadows slider?

[xpatUSA]

I cannot see any method options in Lightroom but Photoshop has several as noted in the link you have provided.

The resizing parameters I use ensures the largest PDI image allowed by my local camera club, and to keep things simple I use that for CiC as well (albeit in the latter case it is via Adobe Portfolio). Resizing in Lightroom provides a nice and straight forward workflow, but maybe it does not provide the best result.

I would never have a need to peep at the magnifications as you have done because I would not not know what I would learn or how I would benefit from doing so!

I didn't start out at those high magnifications, though, David. I first noticed the aliasing at full size 1600x1200px in the LightBox. Only then did I download and zoom in ... Should have made that more clear.

So, if that re-sizing is what you get from LR with no other options, unlike PS, then perhaps a little Gaussian pre-smoothing would make for less aliasing during the down-size. On the other hand, CiC's post image (as opposed to the LightBox) does look good enough for the purposes of the comparison, i.e. merged versus not ...

Pardon my pedantry!

[Rufus]

An interesting experiment, David.

I wonder how close you can get just in Lightroom working with the Highlights and Shadows slider?

#91-C, below, is a version using Highlights and Shadows sliders but augmented with some Texture, Clarity and adjustments to Blacks and Whites that otherwise would be clipped. Some Vibrance was also added. All these were global adjustments. Highlights and Shadows alone did not seem to work too well, but perhaps that was taking you too literally. This has the shadows pushed right up at 100.

#91-C Lightroom Basic Panel adjustments only



I still tend to favour the blended version.

[Manfred M]

I still tend to favour the blended version.

It's not the final product I was looking at, David, but the starting point. Opening up the shadows to close to 100% drags down the contrast, but opens up the shadow detail tremendously. I often do that in my own work because toning these issues down is far easier than opening them up.

[Rufus]

It's not the final product I was looking at, David, but the starting point. Opening up the shadows to close to 100% drags down the contrast, but opens up the shadow detail tremendously. I often do that in my own work because toning these issues down is far easier than opening them up.

I suspect I am still missing your point, Manfred, so please bear with me.

The starting point (in camera) was to expose for the sky on the basis that the shadows could be brought up, whereas burnt out or clipped whites would be near unrecoverable.

Would you (as starting point in post) set the Shadows slider to 100 and rein it back a little to taste? As you say, the contrast would reduce; so I sought to remedy that in part by adjusting the Blacks and Whites.

I avoided changing the Contrast slider partly because that would have impacted the Blacks and Whites and partly because the objective was to only change the Shadows and Highlights sliders. I avoided changing the Exposure slider for the same reason.

It now occurs to me that you may have meant for me to use the Shadows/Highlights sliders in Lightroom before editing and blending in Photoshop, as before; but I took your suggestion to imply that the adjustments would only be made in Lightroom.

As you can probably tell, I am bit muddled in my thinking on this.

[Manfred M]

I suspect I am still missing your point, Manfred, so please bear with me.

The starting point (in camera) was to expose for the sky on the basis that the shadows could be brought up, whereas burnt out or clipped whites would be near unrecoverable.

Would you (as starting point in post) set the Shadows slider to 100 and rein it back a little to taste? As you say, the contrast would reduce; so I sought to remedy that in part by adjusting the Blacks and Whites.

I avoided changing the Contrast slider partly because that would have impacted the Blacks and Whites and partly because the objective was to only change the Shadows and Highlights sliders. I avoided changing the Exposure slider for the same reason.

It now occurs to me that you may have meant for me to use the Shadows/Highlights sliders in Lightroom before editing and blending in Photoshop, as before; but I took your suggestion to imply that the adjustments would only be made in Lightroom.

As you can probably tell, I am bit muddled in my thinking on this.

Sorry for not being clear enough.

Where I was trying to come from is that in a modern camera, we can have over 14 stops of dynamic range in an image. If we prepare it well in the raw converter, we can extract all the details we want without having to rely on multiple layers of image files, based on a single image. There is no need to prepare multiple exposure images and treat them like an HDRI image.

[Rufus]

Sorry for not being clear enough.

Where I was trying to come from is that in a modern camera, we can have over 14 stops of dynamic range in an image. If we prepare it well in the raw converter, we can extract all the details we want without having to rely on multiple layers of image files, based on a single image. There is no need to prepare multiple exposure images and treat them like an HDRI image.

Thank you for the clarification, and I now understand where you are coming from. My gut feeling is that the approach you are suggesting will work well with plenty of localised dodging and burning which, of course, these examples did not use.

Given the lighting conditions of a strong back light I thought, perhaps naively, that the technique I used would be suitable.

What I struggle to understand is: if the camera can cope with a 14-stop variation in light intensity why ever worry about getting the exposure right since most scenes do not require that dynamic range? (This is only a little tongue-in-cheek. )

[Manfred M]

What I struggle to understand is: if the camera can cope with a 14-stop variation in light intensity why ever worry about getting the exposure right since most scenes do not require that dynamic range? (This is only a little tongue-in-cheek. )

That is in fact a valid argument and one put forth by some proponents of something referred to as ISO-less sensors / cameras.

A camera's ISO, other than the base ISO is really a lot smoke and mirrors. A camera sensor has one ISO. Anything else is taking the signal captured by the sensor and amplifying it. Some people refer to certain cameras with a very high dynamic range as ISO-less. What they propose is to always shoot at the camera's base ISO and then increase the brightness during post-processing and taking advantage of the sensor's ability, rather than use the camera's on-board circuitry to do the same.

I suspect Ted could go into a lot more technical details than I can...

[Rufus]

This fourth quarter has not gone well. I have not been out as much or taking as many photographs. I am not surprised that others seem to have found the going tough as well. A weekly commitment can be difficult to sustain.

I think part of the problem this quarter was the topic I chose (merging and using multiple images). The intention was to gain some experience with HDR, exposure bracketing, focus stacking etc. but suitable subjects or suitable conditions have eluded me. The few I have executed have largely been to try out the technique rather than because the situation demanded it.

Overall the P52 2019 has been a success in that it motivated me to get out and shoot during the first 3 quarters, and I have definitely learned a lot along the way. Thank you to all who have commented on my images and posts during the year. They have been so helpful.

Will I tackle a P52 2020? Possibly, if I simply commit to post one or more images a week without a particular theme. But then why make that a P52 thread? I have a few weeks to decide...

[Geoff F]

I find, David, that it is a good idea to try to get yourself a couple of weeks ahead after the first few weeks of each quarter so you have something of a buffer to cover yourself against the English weather and personal commitments etc. But this year I have fallen behind chiefly due to one of those nasty little winter viruses which has left me with a cough that is made worse by cool damp weather, so I have tended to keep myself dry and warm indoors for the past month.

There has been a lot of wet and windy weather this autumn; but not nice clear photographable windy conditions, just miserable murky gloom.

[Shadowman]

Hi David,

You can still conduct testing/HDR indoors, you just need to create an environment that will provide you with a proper dynamic range, candlelit shadows would suffice.