Foggy winter morning

[tbob]

I was out predawn on Sunday and decided rather than wait for the sun to come up I would shoot this old barn in the fog. I shot the image to process in HDR ; so I took five shots at one stop intervals . It was a bit of an experiment, no idea if It would really work out.

In processing it was a flop. Just too blue, dull and nondescript. I mucked about a bit but finally gave up.

This morning I looked at it again and by sheer accident pushed on the Auto White Balance button instead of the Reset White Balance icon. To my shock, the program gave something I felt I could use. So I did the other four using Auto WB and then into HDR.

I use Aperture and Aurora HDR, so it may not be a workflow anyone else can use. Just interesting at how the program could salvage the image.


As shot, the middle image of five



with Auto WB



Final blended HDR

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, looks like it's coming along.

[IzzieK]

Your software...does it have a similar NEF viewer like ACR in Photoshop? If I have a yucky blue image like in ACR, if I press the Shift button down and click on Exposure, it gives me a viewable option at least then I change the Temperature forward or backwards to test my brain on how original can I get the colours of the WB...I am using a PC not a Mac. And oh btw, if I have a Mac I will eat more cheese...

[Donald]

These programmes we use nowadays are amazing things. When you think of the work that must have gone on somewhere, by somebody to design something that would make that adjustment at the click on an icon. Just incredible.

And it allows you to turn out a really, really nice image. I can feel the serenity and calmness of the moment.

[John 2]

Just shows how much information is carried by RAW files. I don't normally like auto correction options but out of interest, I tried to manually correct the blue cast in your first image but couldn't get anywhere near the second image. Clearly worth while here. The HDR version finishes it off nicely although I wondered why HDR for what was essentially flat lighting. No matter, it worked.

[tbob]

Your software...does it have a similar NEF viewer like ACR in Photoshop? If I have a yucky blue image like in ACR, if I press the Shift button down and click on Exposure, it gives me a viewable option at least then I change the Temperature forward or backwards to test my brain on how original can I get the colours of the WB...I am using a PC not a Mac. And oh btw, if I have a Mac I will eat more cheese...

Aperture (the program) does have an NEF Vewer, I cannot compare it to Photoshop as I don't have it. However it does a very good job for what i want. The White Balance is adjustable by sliders for Temperature and TInt. I had used Auto rarely. Obviously a more powerful tool than I thought.

[tbob]

These programmes we use nowadays are amazing things. When you think of the work that must have gone on somewhere, by somebody to design something that would make that adjustment at the click on an icon. Just incredible.

And it allows you to turn out a really, really nice image. I can feel the serenity and calmness of the moment.

Yes, and all that work and brain power thrown away. Apple has abandoned Aperture and gone with a horrid and useless thing called Photos. I cannot understand the corporate mindset at all.

The image ended up a bit bright for my taste, This is a single shot, taken a bit latter, I processed which is more where I think it should be. The fog is a more evident and it is overall more moody and evocative of the morning. Not to say I don't think the first is alright . I may go back and play with one of the shots in the first series and see what I can make.

[tbob]

Just shows how much information is carried by RAW files. I don't normally like auto correction options but out of interest, I tried to manually correct the blue cast in your first image but couldn't get anywhere near the second image. Clearly worth while here. The HDR version finishes it off nicely although I wondered why HDR for what was essentially flat lighting. No matter, it worked.

The HDR was a pure experiment. I suspect you are right about the utility of HDR in such flat light. The intent was to see if I could pull more barn detail and not lose the fog. I have may better tools than HDR for that

The autocorrect went to levels I would never have thought to use. The original is at 4992 K, auto correct went to 50,000 (fifty thousand) I then backed it off to 48,000. I was mucking around at the sub 10,000 level by myself. I doubt you thought to go to 40,000 plus when playing with it. I agree, it is amazing how much information is buried in the RAW file.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Trevor. I like the HDR treatment as it looks natural. The composition of your last image is very nice but I prefer the PP work of the other image. But it is personal preference, I like images with structure and contrast more

[tbob]

Hi Trevor. I like the HDR treatment as it looks natural. The composition of your last image is very nice but I prefer the PP work of the other image. But it is personal preference, I like images with structure and contrast more

I flipped back and forth between the two. I am having a hard time deciding. Probably that is why I am so inconsistent in my processing; never really sure of a fixed endpoint but go by my feel at the time The two have a different feel but both seem to work depending on my mood

[Wavelength]

Beautiful image, finally;;;great work

[SamRothstein]

I definitely like what you've accomplished with the HDR.

[Brownbear]

Just to say that I especially adore this one. For the foggy feel but also for the foreground - the snow and grass/shrubbery is special to me.

[Jeff Blakemore]

Hi Trevor, I really like the second one. Just enough white in the foreground for some good contrast but not distracting. The first shot had a little too much white IMO. With the barn more prevalent in size and position, I think it gives a much stronger composition as well. Excellent job catching the feeling with that fog.

I think this image would convert to B&W very well too.