Still Struggling with Mountain Scenes

[Brownbear]

I'm working on learning how to bracket exposures and combine two images into one image with more finesse than these. In these images I like the pink sky and the mountain tops.

Aperture Priority f9 1/8 S ISO 100 Focal Length 82 mm (Two bracketed images)

#1. Combined two exposures in LR Enfuse

The middle portion of the image just doesn't look right (colours, lightness, tones) and the sky should be a deeper shade of pink.



#2 - Combined using layers in Photoshop CC

The middle portion of the image doesn't look right... (too dark) Like the first image the sky should be a deeper shade of pink.

It is darker than in #1 (as it should be) but too dark. I tried varying opacities with the adjustment brush but lighter didn't work either.



Questions..

1. When I'm bracketing I used +1 and -1 (exposure) as it seems sufficient for sunrise (and is sufficient when seen in the raw images).

2. When combining the exposures in Photoshop CC I want to be able to bring out the layers of lighting on the mountains and trees as I saw this scene at sunrise but for some reason I seem to be totally inept at doing this.

C&C is always appreciated. Thank you.

[ShaneS]

Christina,

Both images look a little flat to me although there is a lot more detail in the first. It looks like there was a trade off between the light pink sky and the foreground detail with the Enfuse edit although I do like that composition better.

My recent sunrise image from Arizona was processed using luminosity masks in Photoshop CS5. I have been playing around with them on other images and I do like the way they work in situations like this and they are pretty easy to implement. Here is a link to one of the sites that helped me to understand the process:

Exposure Blending Using Luminosity Masks

So in the case of my sunrise image I created a luminosity mask for the sky and it also picked up some similar tones in the foreground so I edited the mask to get what I wanted/saw in the image. It was a very good starting point for me and it might help you out too...

[Brownbear]

Thank you Shane. Everything I tried to bring out the lighter exposure looked unreal. Luminosity masks are new to me but I will review and give it a try. Truly appreciated.

Christina,

Both images look a little flat to me although there is a lot more detail in the first. It looks like there was a trade off between the light pink sky and the foreground detail with the Enfuse edit although I do like that composition better.

My recent sunrise image from Arizona was processed using luminosity masks in Photoshop CS5. I have been playing around with them on other images and I do like the way they work in situations like this and they are pretty easy to implement. Here is a link to one of the sites that helped me to understand the process:

Exposure Blending Using Luminosity Masks

So in the case of my sunrise image I created a luminosity mask for the sky and it also picked up some similar tones in the foreground so I edited the mask to get what I wanted/saw in the image. It was a very good starting point for me and it might help you out too...

[Shadowman]

Christina,

Do you feel the scene needs to be bracketed? Can your camera handle the dynamic range of the scene within one shot? When you took the first image did you get highlight or shadow warnings?

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

Yes, this scene definitely needs to be bracketed. I've tried several test shots of this scene before and during sunrise, and there is always clipping at both ends (shadows and highlights) hence I'm trying to learn how to bracket scenes and combine exposures with the hope that one day I will be able to capture the true beauty of this scene.

Thank you.

Christina,

Do you feel the scene needs to be bracketed? Can your camera handle the dynamic range of the scene within one shot? When you took the first image did you get highlight or shadow warnings?

[Shadowman]

Hi John,

Yes, this scene definitely needs to be bracketed. I've tried several test shots of this scene before and during sunrise, and there is always clipping at both ends (shadows and highlights) hence I'm trying to learn how to bracket scenes and combine exposures with the hope that one day I will be able to capture the true beauty of this scene.

Thank you.

I think your camera has auto bracketing, have you tried the other settings ADL or WB bracketing? WB bracketing might get the pinks in the sky you are trying to obtain and ADL might also help you get the warm colors by underexposing a bit.

[Brownbear]

I have yet to try anything else only because bracketing exposures is very new to me... ie; one thing at a time.

With respect to WB I should be able to do that with the raw file, and in the underexposed image the pink sky is strong. It is only when I blend the images that I lose the pink. ie; still learning post processing, too.

Thank you. Appreciated.

I think your camera has auto bracketing, have you tried the other settings ADL or WB bracketing? WB bracketing might get the pinks in the sky you are trying to obtain and ADL might also help you get the warm colors by underexposing a bit.

[Mike Buckley]

I think the first image is quite nice and is probably the best of similar scenes you have captured. It has an amazing seven layers! This scene is so good that you would do well to repeatedly visit it for years to eventually find perfect light in the various seasons.

My overall impression is that you shouldn't be using Enfuse except as a learning process so long as you continue to use such a critical eye when examining the results. Enfuse is an automated process and your expectations exceed anything any automated process is going to consistently produce.

I uncharacteristically decided to post my own version of it. Keep in mind that I have the impression that you and I have different approaches to landscapes: I think you tend to make images more like your memory of the scene and I try to make the image as I want it to be with no regard for how the scene actually was. In that context, I think your shade of pink in the sky is just fine but I adjusted it because you mentioned a desire for a darker tone. (If you want it darker, more saturated or whatever, just adjust it after using Enfuse or custom-making your composite image.)

My primary adjustments:

• lowered the white point
• Miminized the haze in the middle layers (it's impossible to eliminate it without losing considerable detail)
• counting from the bottom, added a little warmth to the second and third layers and a little more to the fourth through sixth layers
• increased the saturation of the sky, which I hope is an adequate substitute for your desire for a darker pink tone

That was done very quickly in no more than two minutes, so don't be very critical.

The one aspect that seems out of whack to me in your and my version is that the pink sky is not reflected in the water. I don't do enough serious landscape photography to know whether or not that is natural.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike. I do think this composition is an improvement from my prior attempts but still not there. Indeed, it is a beautiful scene hence the reason I keep trying. Hopefully it will not take me too many years to capture what I'm hoping to.

Yes, I recently purchased Enfuse hoping it would just magically combine exposures into one perfect image... I've learned that it does not quite work like that so I'm using it as a visual guideline to try and learn to do the same in Photoshop but better.

Thank you so much for showing me an edit. That you could do better with a small jpeg than I can do with a large raw file tells me something. I'm hoping that is not haze and just my brush strokes from trying to lighten the exposure... It was the morning after a heavy rain, and I'm about 1-2 kilometers away from the mountains (guessing but it is not too far) so no haze hopefull.

I especially like how you brought out the pink sky... I think it is too dark to see the colour in the water but when I work on this image I will see if I can see that. Thank you for the helpful tips on processing.

Truly appreciated as always...

I think the first image is quite nice and is probably the best of similar scenes you have captured. It has an amazing seven layers! This scene is so good that you would do well to repeatedly visit it for years to eventually find perfect light in the various seasons.

My overall impression is that you shouldn't be using Enfuse except as a learning process so long as you continue to use such a critical eye when examining the results. Enfuse is an automated process and your expectations exceed anything any automated process is going to consistently produce.

I uncharacteristically decided to post my own version of it. Keep in mind that I have the impression that you and I have different approaches to landscapes: I think you tend to make images more like your memory of the scene and I try to make the image as I want it to be with no regard for how the scene actually was. In that context, I think your shade of pink in the sky is just fine but I adjusted it because you mentioned a desire for a darker tone. (If you want it darker, more saturated or whatever, just adjust it after using Enfuse or custom-making your composite image.)

My primary adjustments:

• lowered the white point
• Miminized the haze in the middle layers (it's impossible to eliminate it without losing considerable detail)
• counting from the bottom, added a little warmth to the second and third layers and a little more to the fourth through sixth layers
• increased the saturation of the sky, which I hope is an adequate substitute for your desire for a darker pink tone

That was done very quickly in no more than two minutes, so don't be very critical.

The one aspect that seems out of whack to me in your and my version is that the pink sky is not reflected in the water. I don't do enough serious landscape photography to know whether or not that is natural.

[FootLoose]

Christina, you said when you combined the two images in PS you adjusted the opacity. Did you use a layer mask to paint the preferred sky back in? Maybe I have misunderstood and that is what you did do, in which case ignore me. But with that horizon I think it would be fairly easy to select the sky paint it back in.

[FrankMi]

Hi Christina, I would love the opportunity to take your two RAW files and play with them. I think you have everything in your hands to create the scene you remember when you were there but it may take a bit of tweaking. I love to play with images like these to see what magic is hidden within.

Haze is moisture in the air so the higher the humidity and longer the distance, the more the haze is evident. Usually haze can be minimized in an image through selective application of contrast but it can't be eliminated entirely in post processing. This is why mountain scenes often look better in the winter when the humidity tends to be at a minimum.

[Mike Buckley]

Haze is moisture in the air so the higher the humidity and longer the distance, the more the haze is evident. Usually haze can be minimized in an image through selective application of contrast but it can't be eliminated entirely in post processing. This is why mountain scenes often look better in the winter when the humidity tends to be at a minimum.

My understanding is that the haze is not the moisture itself. The haze is made up of various types of particles that absorb and/or scatter the light, thus reducing the clarity and visibility. The greater the amount of moisture and distance, the greater the effect the other particles have on the scene and, thus, the greater the amount of haze.

I minimize haze (and sometimes eliminate minimal amounts of it) by selecting the area affected by the haze and applying the following combination of settings:

• slightly increased contrast;
• slightly decreased brightness; and
• slightly increased warmth

EDIT: My starting point is equal amounts of the three adjustments. For a quicker method that also often works, select the affected area and adjust the Curve tool by grabbing the middle of the curve and pulling toward the lower right corner of the graph until the scene is sufficiently correct.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

Good to see you progressing with the mountain scenes and I fully understand the problems regarding haze as I am also fighting that at present. From what I have read up on previously there are a few different reasons and these vary between location, humidity, temperatures differentials, air pollution (solids) and times of day.

The image is a good composition and I like the way you have caught the light on the tops of the mountain.

Fortunately so far I have not had to resort to bracketing as I have only had very minor clipping of the blacks which I know can be easily recovered. What I have started doing now is looking carefully at the R, G and B histograms individually in camera to ensure I get the sky correct but even with that small changes of WB in PP later can cause clipping but so far nothing that can not be recovered.

I'm going to try Mikes haze removal method on the one I have been recently working on before posting now.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

I'm going to try Mikes haze removal method

Uh oh. Now I'm gonna be held accountable. Seriously, I added information to the bottom of the pertinent post that might be helpful.

[Brownbear]

Hi Greg,

I'm not sure and the reason is that my experience to date using masks in Photoshop CC has been by adding an adjustment layer (curves) or a duplicate layer (sharpen) to edit selectively.

With this particular scene I processed the files in LR, exported as PSDs, and opened as combined layer in Photoshop CC (learned from a tutorial I viewed) When I decrease the opacity I can see that the images are in a layer but it is not the same as my usual way, and something about painting things in and out of the image is different, and a source of confusion.

Christina, you said when you combined the two images in PS you adjusted the opacity. Did you use a layer mask to paint the preferred sky back in? Maybe I have misunderstood and that is what you did do, in which case ignore me. But with that horizon I think it would be fairly easy to select the sky paint it back in.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Frank, Mike and Grahame!

Frank,

I just sent you the raw files in a private message, likely too many files - only because I was not 100% sure which exposures went with each other. Thank you kindly for your offer. I'm sure that others will also learn from this.

Mike and Frank,

Thank you for the explanations of haze, minimizing it and tips on processing images with haze.

Grahame,

Thank you as always. It is nice to know that you too, are trying to learn to work with and minimize haze.

I probably could just lighten up the exposures on one of these images (taken before the sky was super bright) but I'm trying to avoid noise at full size, and I also need to learn to do this as I have several other shots (a little later in the morning) where the dynamic range is impossible to photograph without a filter so I hope to learn how to do this, so I can apply the knowledge to other images.

Thank you to everyone for your help and advice.

[FrankMi]

My understanding is that the haze is not the moisture itself. The haze is made up of various types of particles that absorb and/or scatter the light, thus reducing the clarity and visibility. The greater the amount of moisture and distance, the greater the effect the other particles have on the scene and, thus, the greater the amount of haze.

I am always up to learning something new or clarifying what I thought I understood so I appreciate your feedback Mike, and I did some research.

It seems I was using the wrong term. What I found was "Whereas haze often is thought of as a phenomenon of dry air, mist formation is a phenomenon of humid air." So haze is, as you describe it, various types of particles suspended in the air. Sandstorms, smog, smoke, volcanic ash, dust, and what is referred to as 'wet haze' where moisture in the air has particles or gases, like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide particles from coal-burning power plants, attached to it.

I was surprised to learn that tiny hydrocarbon particles, including terpenes from pine trees, are released by plants. The particles react with natural ozone molecules to produce a hazy effect over the mountains. Again, the small size of the particles means that the light scatters blue. The Blue Ridge Mountains are named from this phenomenon but are under increasing attack from man-made pollutants.

So what is the effect of haze? It reduces contrast, increases brightness by reflecting more of the available light, and, depending upon location specific conditions, increases the blue (cool) color tones. As a result, Mike's solution of increasing the contrast, decreasing the brightness, and increasing the warmth (reduce the blue) works. The trick is to get a feel for how much of each is appropriate for your particular image.

Thanks Mike! I learned something new, corrected a misunderstanding, and have a better grasp on how to deal with mountainous photography.

[ajohnw]

Enfuse needs good exposure of what you want to have in the final image Chistina. +/- 1stop is hardly worth bothering with as you should be able to extract that range from a single raw exposure. Actually I suspect that it would be possible to get near to what you are after from the +1 stop shot via 2 conversions from that raw file. Much the same applies how ever you merge the images but life gets more complicated if they are manually blended. With that fractions of each form the final image - not easy to judge the impact each image will have on the final result.. Luminosity masks often need manual work in order to define the areas that will be used in the final image correctly. This method can give total control as it's effectively cutting and pasting parts from images into one image so wysiwyg. Some tuitions may mention using blur on the masks. Often leaves lines round the sections that don't go away when the shot is reduced so need manually touching out before reduction.

Enfuse is relatively easy to use. On this shot you needed one showing the mountain and sky well. The other needed to show the dark areas well - in other words not dark at all. There is some scope for adding some degree of darkness to the final image but it uses differences in a different way to other methods. Take one shot checking the sky is as you want, probably best obtained by putting the sky line around 1/3 - 1/2 up from the bottom for metering. The preview needs to be used to check this. You may need to colour balance this shot using the snow in the foreground. Try setting the exposure in the 2nd shot with no sky in the viewfinder but you may find that you still need to add +ve compensation to get thing right.. In fact you may need to compensate the bright light shot. What I have generally done when worrying about skies in particular is just keep clicking away until the preview shows that they are correct.. At the same time you might want to take a shot showing the dark parts as dark as you would like them to be for say mask work.

If you want to use bracketing as the above involves swinging the camera about or compensating until you see what you are after in the preview take a test shot. Look at it and see which direction it needs to go. Say the sky and mountain was fine and the camera could bracket + and -. There would be no point in under exposing more as the sky is fine so compensate +2 stops and bracket +/-1. On some scenes even that may not be enough. The thing to bear in mind is that there is an easy 5-6 stops in the camera, more difficult 8 and so on. 12 is probable too far really. Most problems are at the dark end and the bright end mustn't be clipped. +/- 1 doesn't make much sense for this sort of work. The aim is to get all parts of the scene in the easy area.

For critical work there aren't any easy options to get the exposure correct unless it's a 4-5 stop or less purely reflective scene which basically means negligible shadow as far as the camera is concerned. The camera metering is likely to make a perfect job of that. Hard to explain this but say it's a sunny well lit sky plus clouds, sun behind you and you can see faintish shadows - the camera will record them rather black or over expose the sky and still record them rather black. It isn't possible to always guess what the metering will do. Must admit the E-M5 makes this aspect easy - blinkies at either end show up in the viewfinder as soon as the shot is taken. It can also shoot to the right using the histogram in the viewfinder. I'm not a fan of that but should try it on this camera as it changes the colouring at either end of the scale if clipped but then comes the question is it luminance or does it show any colour channels clipping. This area is why I feel that people who mess with camera setting to try and meter raw are doing the wrong thing on some cameras.

Maybe you should post the raws. The results might give you an idea what to do but all shots are different. This is an easy site to use for that

http://filebin.net/

I just found that an easy reflected light only shot can go wrong - 2PM sunny and fairly clear and off white dull feathers needed -0.7 EV.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

Thank you as always! You've shared some wonderful pointers on bracketing and in hindsight I think I could've included another bracketed shot where the trees on the mountain were lighter, and I will put some more thought into bracketing keeping in mind all of your tips the next time around.

For now Frank's edits are more than enough for me, otherwise I will end up being overwhelmed with post processing. I have another shot from this day, later in the sunrise, of just the snow covered mountains that I will work on after I finish trying Frank's edit. I also have a shot from earlier in the morning - presunrise - that I didn't need to bracket - with the same problem on the trees on the mountains (haze, lighting) that I will also try to edit once this thread is completed. If I can't manage it I will send you the raw images to help me along, if you wish.

For now here are the screen shots of the processed bracketed images (Lightroom) that I combined using LR Enfuse. Not sharpened simply because the point is to share the exposures and my processing for others to learn from.

Darkened the exposure and vibrancy to bring out the pink light



Also darkened the exposure because the mountainside was too light, and perhaps I shouldn't have done this given the point of bracketing.



Thank you John!

Enfuse needs good exposure of what you want to have in the final image Chistina. +/- 1stop is hardly worth bothering with as you should be able to extract that range from a single raw exposure. Actually I suspect that it would be possible to get near to what you are after from the +1 stop shot via 2 conversions from that raw file. Much the same applies how ever you merge the images but life gets more complicated if they are manually blended. With that fractions of each form the final image - not easy to judge the impact each image will have on the final result.. Luminosity masks often need manual work in order to define the areas that will be used in the final image correctly. This method can give total control as it's effectively cutting and pasting parts from images into one image so wysiwyg. Some tuitions may mention using blur on the masks. Often leaves lines round the sections that don't go away when the shot is reduced so need manually touching out before reduction.

Enfuse is relatively easy to use. On this shot you needed one showing the mountain and sky well. The other needed to show the dark areas well - in other words not dark at all. There is some scope for adding some degree of darkness to the final image but it uses differences in a different way to other methods. Take one shot checking the sky is as you want, probably best obtained by putting the sky line around 1/3 - 1/2 up from the bottom for metering. The preview needs to be used to check this. You may need to colour balance this shot using the snow in the foreground. Try setting the exposure in the 2nd shot with no sky in the viewfinder but you may find that you still need to add +ve compensation to get thing right.. In fact you may need to compensate the bright light shot. What I have generally done when worrying about skies in particular is just keep clicking away until the preview shows that they are correct.. At the same time you might want to take a shot showing the dark parts as dark as you would like them to be for say mask work.

If you want to use bracketing as the above involves swinging the camera about or compensating until you see what you are after in the preview take a test shot. Look at it and see which direction it needs to go. Say the sky and mountain was fine and the camera could bracket + and -. There would be no point in under exposing more as the sky is fine so compensate +2 stops and bracket +/-1. On some scenes even that may not be enough. The thing to bear in mind is that there is an easy 5-6 stops in the camera, more difficult 8 and so on. 12 is probable too far really. Most problems are at the dark end and the bright end mustn't be clipped. +/- 1 doesn't make much sense for this sort of work. The aim is to get all parts of the scene in the easy area.

For critical work there aren't any easy options to get the exposure correct unless it's a 4-5 stop or less purely reflective scene which basically means negligible shadow as far as the camera is concerned. The camera metering is likely to make a perfect job of that. Hard to explain this but say it's a sunny well lit sky plus clouds, sun behind you and you can see faintish shadows - the camera will record them rather black or over expose the sky and still record them rather black. It isn't possible to always guess what the metering will do. Must admit the E-M5 makes this aspect easy - blinkies at either end show up in the viewfinder as soon as the shot is taken. It can also shoot to the right using the histogram in the viewfinder. I'm not a fan of that but should try it on this camera as it changes the colouring at either end of the scale if clipped but then comes the question is it luminance or does it show any colour channels clipping. This area is why I feel that people who mess with camera setting to try and meter raw are doing the wrong thing on some cameras.

Maybe you should post the raws. The results might give you an idea what to do but all shots are different. This is an easy site to use for that

http://filebin.net/

I just found that an easy reflected light only shot can go wrong - 2PM sunny and fairly clear and off white dull feathers needed -0.7 EV.

John
-

[terrib]

Christina, I can't add anything to the discussion on the bracketing issues, but just wanted to say that I really like the composition.