Not sure about this processing

[Thornton]

This is a pseudo HDR shot and the thing that strikes me is that it looks maybe a bit undersaturated, or maybe it is just that most HDR are rather the opposite. Any thoughts?

[Manfred M]

Most HDR shots tend to be a bit flat, so adding a bit of mid-tone contrast often helps. When I looked at the histogram, I found a bit of a black point adjustment would be useful as well.

[William W]

This is a pseudo HDR shot and the thing that strikes me is that it looks maybe a bit undersaturated, or maybe it is just that most HDR are rather the opposite. Any thoughts?

What does "pseudo HDR" mean?

The image looks a "flat" to my eye; that would be altered by increasing the Saturation and/or the Mid Tone Contrast.

The "flatness" is a function of the lighting. It occurs to me it was captured near the middle of the day in generally overcast weather conditions - i.e. typically "flat lighting".

Why do you use CWA metering? EXIF reveals that you used CWA Metering for this image and also of the Church interior.

WW

[Geoff F]

For me, most auto HDR images are considerably overdone. This is a good muted pastel shade winter scene.

If you want to try a little extra processing then, yes, you could have a go at slightly increasing the contrast. Many options are available ranging from Curves to careful use of the Dehaze control, if you have that available.

[Thornton]

Thanks for the replies. The shot was taken quite a long while ago in pretty poor photographic conditions, very gloomy weather. I used to use centre weighted a lot in those days but normally use evaluative nowadays. I thought I’d have a go at re-processing it. By pseudo HDR I mean that I’ve made 3 conversions from the same raw file and then combined them using an HDR tool. The colours at the time of capture were not very saturated and there was little contrast. I could probably have produced a punchier conversion but it would not have reflected the conditions at the time. I feel that I used to oversaturate my processed photos in the past

[Shadowman]

Nice enough scene, could we see what the original looked like?

[Thornton]

Nice enough scene, could we see what the original looked like?

Thanks John. Not sure what you mean by the original. This was a very gloomy-looking raw shot. I didn’t think it was possible to upload a raw file here, though I’m more than happy to upload it and allow others to manipulate it if it’s possible.

T

[Shadowman]

Thanks John. Not sure what you mean by the original. This was a very gloomy-looking raw shot. I didn’t think it was possible to upload a raw file here, though I’m more than happy to upload it and allow others to manipulate it if it’s possible.

T

Not the RAW file, just the shot before you started the processing.

[Thornton]

Not the RAW file, just the shot before you started the processing.

Thanks for the clarification. In fact I made 3 TIFFs, -1, 0, +1. I converted them with DPP simply to be able to take advantage of the lens correction it offers. It seems, though, that I might not need to create the three exposures at all, so I will try playing with just one tomorrow (the light is too poor now to be using my computer, nearly dark outside. If my neighbour’s tree doesn’t fall on my house in the night, I’ll be back here tomorrow: getting very stormy now).

[DanK]

I don't see what you gain by doing this, rather than just editing the single image.

The best way to edit depends on what you want. Increasing the black point and increasing mid-tone contrast will make the image less flat, but it will also increase saturation if you use a normal blend mode, which I am guessing Manfred did. An alternative is to use a luminosity blend mode for these adjustments. The colors will still look more intense simply because of the greater contrast, but it is less extreme than a normal blend mode. Here's an example to compare with your original and Manfred's edit:

[xpatUSA]

In fact I made 3 TIFFs, -1, 0, +1.

I don't see what you gain by doing this, rather than just editing the single image.

It is a known technique in a fusion app that I use:

"Autobracket: TuFuse Pro can fuse each input image with a lighter and/or darker version of itself. When the "darken" or "brighten" sliders are set to non-zero values, then darker and/or brighter versions of each input image are created and fused with the original image(s). This can be useful to boost shadows and/or constrain highlights in a single image. For example, fusing a single image with a brighter version of itself will produce a final image with brightened shadow regions."

I'm just pointing out that the technique itself is known and has the stated benefits, while being well aware that similar benefits can be gotten by other means (curves or more advanced stuff).

[xpatUSA]

This is a pseudo HDR shot and the thing that strikes me is that it looks maybe a bit undersaturated, or maybe it is just that most HDR are rather the opposite. Any thoughts?

I downloaded the image and decomposed it into 3 layers of hue, saturation and lightness.

The saturation is indeed low everywhere except on the sunlit slope.

But the larger problem seems to be with the hues which have big gaps and quite large peaks in the hue histogram, implying that something odd may have occurred during the "faux HDR" combining of the three 'exposures'. A lot of posterization in the hue layer too ...

[Cantab]

I don't see what you gain by doing this, rather than just editing the single image.

The best way to edit depends on what you want. Increasing the black point and increasing mid-tone contrast will make the image less flat, but it will also increase saturation if you use a normal blend mode, which I am guessing Manfred did. An alternative is to use a luminosity blend mode for these adjustments. The colors will still look more intense simply because of the greater contrast, but it is less extreme than a normal blend mode. Here's an example to compare with your original and Manfred's edit:

Dan's edit works for me; it has more life but is not oversaturated.

[DanK]

Ted, I know the technique. It just seems a roundabout method to me, and one with less control than local edits of a single capture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

Ted, I know the technique.

Sorry Dan, I misunderstood.

It just seems a roundabout method to me, and one with less control than local edits of a single capture.

Indeed, in the world of post-processing, there are a great many ways to skin the cat!

[Thornton]

Thanks for the replies, plenty to think about. Here is a processing of a similar image from the same shoot, one I processed several years ago (I can’t find the exact image at present but the processing was similar, a single shot). I was trying to get away from this approach a bit because I felt I’d overdone it. Personally I find that Dan’s version is closer to what I want than Manfred’s. I’ll have another go this afternoon but try using a single exposure approach and that tip about luminosity.

[Thornton]

I just tried this cheap and cheerful edit using the Google Photos tools on my iPad, warming and boosting contrast. I think it is closer to what I want though the clouds maybe look a bit brown.

[Rufus]

I have enjoyed looking at this scene.

I can see why you felt the first version was a bit under-saturated and Manfred's a bit over the top.

In post #16 you have lost the interesting feature in the distance provided by the brighter lighting on the right hand side of the valley, so that is not as good IMHO. In your latest version (post #17) the river bed and rocks have a pleasing look, although also a little brown, as does the grass etc on the far side of the river bed. Perhaps a slight overall adjustment would deal with these as well as your reservations about the sky, otherwise local adjustments?

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for the replies, plenty to think about. Here is a processing of a similar image from the same shoot, one I processed several years ago (I can’t find the exact image at present but the processing was similar, a single shot). I was trying to get away from this approach a bit because I felt I’d overdone it. Personally I find that Dan’s version is closer to what I want than Manfred’s.

RE: post #16; as I mentioned to Dan earlier, there's more than one way to skin the cat.

Here's a simple Haze Reduction followed by slightly increased Contrast By Detail Levels (wavelets) - no other processing - app used was RawTherapee 5.5.



I'm impressed by the increase in fore- and mid-ground clarity - look at that water! A bit more cloud drama also but not too much change in the hills.

[Thornton]

Thanks for the replies. I've come up with this version now.



(I won't say how I produced it because I'm sure most of you will laugh, suffice to say that I am determined to get to grips at some stage with masking, now that I have photo editors which can handle layer masks. OTOH with my new laptop my "round the houses" approach is remarkably quick. DPP can apply lens correction in about a second that used to take about half a minute on my old machine).