the falls -- take 2

[MatthewWilliams]

went back up to the falls again mid day -- see previous thread ( the falls ) this one was late in the afternoon.... want i wanted to try was take 3 hdr images and stack them for a vertical panorama so basically three shots at three exposures ... the software only stick jpg's and i am not educated enough on raw files to do much PP before putting it all together. Anyway, I think I'm getting close to what i want. I cropped alot off the sides but wasn't sure how much of the shy to eliminate. As always your kind or not so kind words of advice is welcome..

[Manfred M]

First of all, why are you looking at doing HDRI on this scene? It doesn't appear to have a particularly high dynamic range and I see neither blocked up shadow detail nor blown out highlights.

If you do want to go HDR on a scene make sure you shoot at constant aperture and have exposures of -2, 0 and +2 when you bracket.

[MatthewWilliams]

i was hopping to bring out more detail in the shadowy parts, i bracketed it -1.0.+1, .. i used the same exposures for each set.. should i just look at the middle exposed ones and see what i can do with them? I was thinking of downloading the trial version of lightroom and see what i can do with it... -- here's the middle exposure ones

[MatthewWilliams]

comparing the two i see the difference the second is much better

[IzzieK]

I like #1 better Matthew, I just find that the ice on the right hand side is a bit too bright and distracts a bit. I have to expand in lytebox to actually what it is....whether it is a smaller fall or not...I mean...

[Manfred M]

Matthew - Lightroom does not have HDRI functionality, so using the trial version will not do much from you for that standpoint. Likewise -1 0 +1 exposure does not give you enough exposure "spread" to do a decent HDR; normally at least a 2-stop gap on either side of a "proper" exposure is the starting point to give the software enough data to produce an HDR image.

This shot has a decent dynamic range, so the scene already the data you are looking for. You do need the appropriate software and skill to coax it out (I use Photoshop CC 2014) for this type of work. Getting in and brightening up the darker areas (dodging) is all you really need done to this shot.

There are a number of free and paid for HDR programs out there. I have been using Oloneo Photoengine for my HDR work and Photomatix is probably the most popular tool out there. I know both offered trial versions when I was doing HDR a few years ago. Photoshop CC 2014 has this functionality as does Google's Nik suite (HDR Efex Pro 2) and I think trial versions are available here too. I tried a couple of the free ones and was disappointed with them, but have deleted them from my machine so can't remember what I used.

This is a 1 - 2 minute effort in Photoshop:

[bnnrcn]

Hi Matthew, PS CC helps a lot with its 'layers' function . I recommend it. I like your second image and you can improve it with some PP

[Downrigger]

I really appreciate how you're working at this problem, Matthew. I think you are getting closer to what you want from this scene, through hard, thoughtful work. I like your HDR, it's quite strong. It shows an interesting range of hue and luminosity in the rock face not seen in the Manfred's PS version, though I bet Manfred could recover that if he spent more time on it.

Whether it's best to deal with the dynamic range you have here through HDR or PP is an interesting question, one that is above my pay grade. It may come down to preference, personal exploration and artistic license. It may be an apples and oranges thing.

The HDR path may entail more options for creative license than straight PS or LR PP of the middle exposure. And I don't know for instance, whether shadow detail is better preserved in HDR or in PP that brightens the shadows (would wonder if the latter induces more noise, and whether it would be significant).

Anyway - fun to watch your journey with this. Thanks for sharing.

[Manfred M]

The HDR path may entail more options for creative license than straight PS or LR PP of the middle exposure. And I don't know for instance, whether shadow detail is better preserved in HDR or in PP that brightens the shadows (would wonder if the latter induces more noise, and whether it would be significant).

I find that HDR does have its uses, and that is when your camera's sensor cannot capture the dynamic range you are taking. With modern cameras and their 12 - 14+ stops of dynamic range, that can still happen, but not nearly as much as it did even in the recent past where cameras were incapable of capturing as much range as they do today.

The issue with this image is due to what really amounts to "poor light" conditions; i.e. the areas of interest are in shadow. The sky that we see looks pretty blue and we see some fairly harsh shadows on the rocks near the top right. Before heading to the HDR direction, I would first look at visiting this site at a time of day where the light is more suitable for getting a good image and trying to re-shoot then.

The main issue I have with a lot of HDR work is that it tends to kill contrast, and most images that we see tend to be flat and uninteresting. Nothing gets you a great image as much as great light (quality and direction) does. Even if you want to go HDR, good lighting will make make your image look a lot better.

[Barbara Ponder]

I like shot #2. I especially like the angle of the photo.

[MatthewWilliams]

i'm not sure if the sun hits the bottom of the falls this time of year or at all for that matter--- when looking at the falls we are looking almost directly south ... this was taken around noon on sat and i was pressed for time and couldn't stay longer... the other thread i posted was later in the afternoon around 5... I appreciate all of your inputs and suggestions thank you all