Silk Market - problems with unrealistic red sky

[arith]

Can anybody tell me why the sky turns red, this is recoloured and 9.5 ev span as reported but I couldn't get more than a silhouette, didn't check the actual span.

Is it boring, too flat maybe, maybe I should have taken more care over focusing ect ect.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Steve,

Is it boring, too flat maybe, maybe I should have taken more care over focusing ect ect.

I think the main problem is the composition, there's a picture on the left and another to the right, but together - too much, the eye goes out of frame one way or the other.

Another problem I see is what I suspect was too high a threshold on sharpening, the contrasty bits are sharp, but the low contrast bits are not; lampost, brickwork, some of the cobbles, etc.

I almost dare not mention the CA, but it is really only visible when viewed bigger in a separate tab.

I see a pink cloud in the sky, but I don't understand your comments in the first sentence about that and silhouettes.
I note it was shot at about 18:30, only an hour away from sunset, might that explain the cloud colour?

I assume from the EXIF lens angle (18mm) and view, plus the three images in sequence, this was a pano 'stitch up' rather than HDR?

Hope that helps,

[arith]

Cor, it was midday where does it say 1830. I had problems with the composition since on the other side was a plate glass window, however. You can still see CA even though I tried to brush over it. It is hard in it.

It is midday and very bright except here where you can see the tungsten light. Sharpness, I'm always making mistakes. I set focus at 3 metres so that there would be light dof but actually it ended up at f5.6 so probably not a good idea.

Can't do pano with my monopod and this had at most a 4 pixel shift.

[Dave Humphries]

Cor, it was midday where does it say 1830

Possibly I was looking at the Edit time in Elements 7

[arith]

And here is another that turned red. I don't know what is going on but white balance is impossible since picturenaut ignors the colour profile.

[Colin Southern]

Well Steve,

If it were me, I'd have probably just shot a single, correctly exposed frame, and then white-balanced it and revealed the shadow detail using the fill light control. As they stand, both have weird hue shifts, and the 2nd has come out grossly over-saturated

[David]

Hi Steve - What version of Picturenaut were you using and what tone-mapping operator? The current version is 3.0. It has a colour balance button which can be activated. I have understood, perhaps wrongly, that if you don't activate this option then the software will use the colours as they are with no attempt to match from one image to the next. That could lead to some hue shifts. Perhaps I need to experiment with that button. Also you can adjust the individual channels when you tone-map. So, I suppose if you saw a colour cast you could correct that way.

Cheers

David

[arith]

I use version 3 but I just tried what you said and it was the same; I always try to correct white balance using channels but it is uncorrectable and I have to recolour, sometimes that means I get a cast. But cheers David.

Colin, I tried your method but I would like some definition in the main part; it is essentially showing two sides of Nottingham, I like the light and the only other choice was including a café and lovely double glazed window in the old building.

[proseak]

Steve, did you import RAW into Picturenaut? I've had similar results from time to time, and found that sometimes using 16-bit Tiffs solves it...I have no idea what cuses it, though

[arith]

And as for the castle; I tried the single image and although there is not much of a reason to do HDR the entrance looked a complete and utter mess after noise was removed and if you didn't remove it sharpening was impossible. However, by losing a little dynamic range I converted to tiff and HDR'd tiff images with correct colour balance and abracadabra.

[David]

Hi Steve - Are you saying in the last post that if you go to TIFF then it works? If so, as Peter has hinted, there may be something wrong with RAW conversion in Picturenaut. I wonder if it is worth un-installing Picturenaut and then re-installing from a fresh download. I have not had a problem re RAW files, but software does get corrupted from time to time.

David

[arith]

Yes, no probs with tiff and it is a lot quicker. Oh yes, in the real version I corrected the blue haze with a multiplication layer. At first I wanted greatest detail then I thought I can fore-go a bit. Essentially I wanted to see the black gate and you still can.

Now I'm saving at jpeg 10, since I delete tiff files that means I don't expect to print it.

[arith]

[arith]

Hi Steve - Are you saying in the last post that if you go to TIFF then it works? If so, as Peter has hinted, there may be something wrong with RAW conversion in Picturenaut. I wonder if it is worth un-installing Picturenaut and then re-installing from a fresh download. I have not had a problem re RAW files, but software does get corrupted from time to time.

David

It is not installed; but I tried it and unfortunately it is just the same although it seemed to run quicker. It could be like a rainbow effect caused by the lens, although not visible at normal exposures. Strange how the sky can be seperated into bands of white, red and then blue; and yet on a single image it is light blue to darker blue.

[arith]

Example:

RAW processed on Picturenaut new download#



TIFF image but PSE still didn't recognise the profile



As you can see I've worked on the second but quite a lot of distortion.

[arith]

I'll assume nobody knows beyond paying loads of dosh for everything. It has been a while and I think this is probably too hard. I thought it was interesting how there is strange colours in a bit but mostly it is alright.

[Clactonian]

And here is another that turned red. I don't know what is going on but white balance is impossible since picturenaut ignors the colour profile.

The image looks over-saturated on my screen Steve. What p.p have you done if any?

[arith]

Cor, that's not the latest. I have to get rid of the rainbow that is evident in this and instead of doing the clever thing and just giving up, I carry on and get this. But a little thought and using tiff I don't even have to go to loads of bother even though photoshop still doesn't recognise a colour profile (of the generated HDRI).

The later ones are better, and I think it is the lens causing the rainbow; anyway it doesn't matter because nobody else seems to know.

[arith]

I think I know what is causing bits to turn red; I have observed the red is where the bottom image is blown. The red cast of course then makes it difficult to select the correct white balance.

I'm used to blowing unimportant bits in an image such as clouds and I suppose I better stop doing it in HDRI's.

Just wondered why there was apparent CA in most of my recent HDRI's, but not in any of the frames used for making it and in one inparticular where I went to the trouble to deliberately blow a sky so that I could get everything in 3 frames. cheers