User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 9:47:10 PM EDT
[#1]
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR
For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 9:49:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 9:54:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All my pics are 200 to 400 iso, with -2, 0 , 2 exposures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 Bear in mind most cameras already do Psuedo HDR at the sensor level with multiple ISOs getting multiple parts of the gamma curve So if you have a camera that already has 14 stops dynamic it's probably not going to look good If you have an old camera with 9 stops then HDR would make things pop Also, remember that HDR only really looks striking in a high contrast scene, like looking through a tunnel or out a window |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 10:14:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yikes really? What camera? Bear in mind most cameras already do Psuedo HDR at the sensor level with multiple ISOs getting multiple parts of the gamma curve So if you have a camera that already has 14 stops dynamic it's probably not going to look good If you have an old camera with 9 stops then HDR would make things pop Also, remember that HDR only really looks striking in a high contrast scene, like looking through a tunnel or out a window Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 Bear in mind most cameras already do Psuedo HDR at the sensor level with multiple ISOs getting multiple parts of the gamma curve So if you have a camera that already has 14 stops dynamic it's probably not going to look good If you have an old camera with 9 stops then HDR would make things pop Also, remember that HDR only really looks striking in a high contrast scene, like looking through a tunnel or out a window Wait, so HDR wouldn't look good in sunset scenes? Ot sunrise? Edit : Remember, I am doing AEB in AV mode with 3 shots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 10:25:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Canon EOS 80D. Wait, so HDR wouldn't look good in sunset scenes? Ot sunrise? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 Bear in mind most cameras already do Psuedo HDR at the sensor level with multiple ISOs getting multiple parts of the gamma curve So if you have a camera that already has 14 stops dynamic it's probably not going to look good If you have an old camera with 9 stops then HDR would make things pop Also, remember that HDR only really looks striking in a high contrast scene, like looking through a tunnel or out a window Wait, so HDR wouldn't look good in sunset scenes? Ot sunrise? I just know personally that the HDR photos that make people go wow are usually indoors with windows. I remember the first time I saw an HDR photo like that I was shocked. In a low contrast setting it just causes excess micro-contrast and vomit of colors. Oh wait wait wait! Your using three shots? Just pick two of the three, never use all three of that's what you mean (forgive if that's not what you mean, but some people do HDR with 3) Also the 80d has a very good dynamic range as is, that may be the issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 10:43:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well sunset IS a high contrast scene so HDR could work there. I just know personally that the HDR photos that make people go wow are usually indoors with windows. I remember the first time I saw an HDR photo like that I was shocked. In a low contrast setting it just causes excess micro-contrast and vomit of colors. Oh wait wait wait! Your using three shots? Just pick two of the three, never use all three of that's what you mean (forgive if that's not what you mean, but some people do HDR with 3) Also the 80d has a very good dynamic range as is, that may be the issue Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 Bear in mind most cameras already do Psuedo HDR at the sensor level with multiple ISOs getting multiple parts of the gamma curve So if you have a camera that already has 14 stops dynamic it's probably not going to look good If you have an old camera with 9 stops then HDR would make things pop Also, remember that HDR only really looks striking in a high contrast scene, like looking through a tunnel or out a window Wait, so HDR wouldn't look good in sunset scenes? Ot sunrise? I just know personally that the HDR photos that make people go wow are usually indoors with windows. I remember the first time I saw an HDR photo like that I was shocked. In a low contrast setting it just causes excess micro-contrast and vomit of colors. Oh wait wait wait! Your using three shots? Just pick two of the three, never use all three of that's what you mean (forgive if that's not what you mean, but some people do HDR with 3) Also the 80d has a very good dynamic range as is, that may be the issue Yeah, its 3 shots. 2 under exposure, 0 exposure and 2 over exposure. I have never seen just two be used. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147049294@N03/33784692330/ This is an example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 10:52:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whattt? Lol Yeah, its 3 shots. 2 under exposure, 0 exposure and 2 over exposure. I have never seen just two be used. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147049294@N03/33784692330/ This is an example. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The trick to HDR is to make it look like it's not HDR For me this means keeping exposures very close. For example iso 200 mixed with iso 400 Not 200 and 1600 Bear in mind most cameras already do Psuedo HDR at the sensor level with multiple ISOs getting multiple parts of the gamma curve So if you have a camera that already has 14 stops dynamic it's probably not going to look good If you have an old camera with 9 stops then HDR would make things pop Also, remember that HDR only really looks striking in a high contrast scene, like looking through a tunnel or out a window Wait, so HDR wouldn't look good in sunset scenes? Ot sunrise? I just know personally that the HDR photos that make people go wow are usually indoors with windows. I remember the first time I saw an HDR photo like that I was shocked. In a low contrast setting it just causes excess micro-contrast and vomit of colors. Oh wait wait wait! Your using three shots? Just pick two of the three, never use all three of that's what you mean (forgive if that's not what you mean, but some people do HDR with 3) Also the 80d has a very good dynamic range as is, that may be the issue Yeah, its 3 shots. 2 under exposure, 0 exposure and 2 over exposure. I have never seen just two be used. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147049294@N03/33784692330/ This is an example. Yea when I learned photography we used 2 photos not 3. Though we also mixed them manually, there were no HDR programs back then. Just realize the technical limitations of the camera sensor. If you want both highlights and shadows in exposure, your going to have wacky chroma data at very least and probably some odd luma data in microcontrasted areas Also if all else fails you could do the same iso but one at f1.8 and one at f2.0 etc Going from f1.8 to f2.8 is the same exposure difference as going from iso 200 to iso 400 So a .4 aperture difference would be just %40 the amount of HDR-ness (Obviously requires a fast hand and a still subject like slow-moving Sky) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 11:19:25 PM EDT
[#8]
I too prefer more mild than wild when it comes to HDR. Never heard of the software package you use, but I was impressed with photomatix pro from hdrsoft. https://www.hdrsoft.com/ I sprung the pro but they have a download where you can try before you buy. Another mention that produced similar result is the free nik collection from Google. Takes a little work to figure out how to use it.
 Attached FileETA: Sounds like photomatix is the one you looked at already. They have presets that have the cartoony look too, I just don't use them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2017 11:55:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Kik Effects. /thread
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 12:18:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kik Effects. /thread 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 12:20:12 AM EDT
[#11]
Damn you iPhone.
Hey baby, wanna text? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 12:46:25 AM EDT
[#12]
B&H's Youtube channel has several presentations on various HDR topics. I skimmed a couple and just remember there is a shit ton of info there if you want to check it out.
Good HDR is pretty rare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 1:51:11 AM EDT
[#13]
I can help you with the HDR stuff but I'm a bit tied up now. I'll come back later and post some stuff about HDR.
Edit: Judging from that sunset picture you posted, HDR isn't really what you need. The effect you're looking for can be accomplished by using ETTR and some post processing. Use your histogram to verify exposure, you want big peaks to the right but not completely blown out. I usually end up in the +1 to +2 range depending on the scene in question. YMMV. Once you've gotten that in RAW, bring it back to lightroom or photoshop. You'll be messing with the exposure, contrast, highlight, shadow, white, black sliders. Straight outta the gate, highlights -100, shadows +100. Exposure may want to come down a little. Then alt+drag the white up until it pops, then back it off slightly. Alt+drag the black down until it pops, then back it off slightly. That should get you in the neighborhood of what you're going for, in a single shot. Toss on a bit of clarity, up the vibrance, down the saturation a touch...and you'll have done that sunset picture you posted above, but better, in a single image. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 1:54:03 AM EDT
[#14]
Adobe has a fairly decent guide here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 12:56:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can help you with the HDR stuff but I'm a bit tied up now. I'll come back later and post some stuff about HDR. Edit: Judging from that sunset picture you posted, HDR isn't really what you need. The effect you're looking for can be accomplished by using ETTR and some post processing. Use your histogram to verify exposure, you want big peaks to the right but not completely blown out. I usually end up in the +1 to +2 range depending on the scene in question. YMMV. Once you've gotten that in RAW, bring it back to lightroom or photoshop. You'll be messing with the exposure, contrast, highlight, shadow, white, black sliders. Straight outta the gate, highlights -100, shadows +100. Exposure may want to come down a little. Then alt+drag the white up until it pops, then back it off slightly. Alt+drag the black down until it pops, then back it off slightly. That should get you in the neighborhood of what you're going for, in a single shot. Toss on a bit of clarity, up the vibrance, down the saturation a touch...and you'll have done that sunset picture you posted above, but better, in a single image. With what you're saying, will that help the issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 2:06:52 PM EDT
[#16]
If you have lightroom try their native hdr program or download nik for free. If you are interested in nik check youtube for tutorials. Lots of good ones that show how to use it and get natural looks. You can use anything from 2 to 6 pictures or more. Nik allows you tons of control in the process and it can make a very nice product.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 2:15:48 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have posted this question before, but the problem I run into is when I take that single photo, the picture will give the correct colors to either the ground or the sky, but not both. Depends on where I focus and the camera adjusts for exposure. With what you're saying, will that help the issue? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can help you with the HDR stuff but I'm a bit tied up now. I'll come back later and post some stuff about HDR. Edit: Judging from that sunset picture you posted, HDR isn't really what you need. The effect you're looking for can be accomplished by using ETTR and some post processing. Use your histogram to verify exposure, you want big peaks to the right but not completely blown out. I usually end up in the +1 to +2 range depending on the scene in question. YMMV. Once you've gotten that in RAW, bring it back to lightroom or photoshop. You'll be messing with the exposure, contrast, highlight, shadow, white, black sliders. Straight outta the gate, highlights -100, shadows +100. Exposure may want to come down a little. Then alt+drag the white up until it pops, then back it off slightly. Alt+drag the black down until it pops, then back it off slightly. That should get you in the neighborhood of what you're going for, in a single shot. Toss on a bit of clarity, up the vibrance, down the saturation a touch...and you'll have done that sunset picture you posted above, but better, in a single image. With what you're saying, will that help the issue? If that photo is a single image you caught everything you need. I'm assuming you want to lighten the foreground and that would be accomplished with the suggested lightroom adjustments. With a sunset/sunrise you are probably not going to get the exposure you want unless the composition calls for a dark foreground. You can sometimes adjust the exposure looking at the histogram. You are trying to avoid blown highlights or underexposed areas. If you can do this the picture may not look great in camera but all the data is there and can be adjusted during processing. In the past the most common method would have been to use a graduated filter. Essentially its an hdr photo created with a manual filter. Back to your question. You may be misunderstanding a little. Its not the colors that are off during your exposure. It's the luminance or brightness. The colors are there in the data and can be recovered, except in the over or under exposed areas. In those areas its just blacks and whites. This is a little simplistic in the explanation. No those lightroom adjustments wont help if the data is gone, the camera just recorded white or black. This is exactly what hdr is for. Understanding exposure is a great book that may help you. Last thing, with hdr it is best to focus and then turn the camera to manual focus. You dont want the focus changing between shots. Also put your camera in shutter priority mode and lock the iso. The only thing you want changing between shots is the shutter speed. If apeture changes it can change depth of field between shots. Ideally shoot at your base iso. This will probably only work on a tripod. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 9:20:35 PM EDT
[#18]
my suggestion is just to stop doing HDR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 1:47:36 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my suggestion is just to stop doing HDR |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 10:28:21 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can help you with the HDR stuff but I'm a bit tied up now. I'll come back later and post some stuff about HDR. Edit: Judging from that sunset picture you posted, HDR isn't really what you need. The effect you're looking for can be accomplished by using ETTR and some post processing. Use your histogram to verify exposure, you want big peaks to the right but not completely blown out. I usually end up in the +1 to +2 range depending on the scene in question. YMMV. Once you've gotten that in RAW, bring it back to lightroom or photoshop. You'll be messing with the exposure, contrast, highlight, shadow, white, black sliders. Straight outta the gate, highlights -100, shadows +100. Exposure may want to come down a little. Then alt+drag the white up until it pops, then back it off slightly. Alt+drag the black down until it pops, then back it off slightly. That should get you in the neighborhood of what you're going for, in a single shot. Toss on a bit of clarity, up the vibrance, down the saturation a touch...and you'll have done that sunset picture you posted above, but better, in a single image. I also created 2 other HDR photos, one using EASYHDR and the other using Lightroom's HDR program. I have posted the three photos, with a spoiler tag of which photo is which.  #1 by Robert Mc, on Flickr
 #2 by Robert Mc, on Flickr
 #3 by Robert Mc, on Flickr
Click To View Spoiler |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 12:07:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I second this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
my suggestion is just to stop doing HDR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 12:08:59 PM EDT
[#22]
can you post up the original of that photo?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 12:37:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
can you post up the original of that photo? Ill post all 3 at the different exposures if you want later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 1:49:59 PM EDT
[#24]
I dont understand the hate for hdr. Of course it can be over done but so can any processing. It allows you to take photos that you otherwise wouldnt be able to. Would anyone ever choose a camera with less dynamic range, if all other factors were equivalent?
Humble suggestion, if you take that photo again shift the composition to the left. You will get all of the trees in the frame and the road may work as a leading line. You could also try getting closer to the ground. See what you think about this. If you dont like me messing with your photo let me know and I will pull it.  free image uploadingcertificity.com
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 2:15:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont understand the hate for hdr. Of course it can be over done but so can any processing. It allows you to take photos that you otherwise wouldnt be able to. Would anyone ever choose a camera with less dynamic range, if all other factors were equivalent? Humble suggestion, if you take that photo again shift the composition to the left. You will get all of the trees in the frame and the road may work as a leading line. You could also try getting closer to the ground. See what you think about this. If you dont like me messing with your photo let me know and I will pull it. https://s24.postimg.org/rfo3li8lx/33386646573_9226297be2_b-_Edit-_Edit.jpgfree image uploadingcertificity.com In a pic like that though, I find it too saturated. But that is my taste. I think the sky is slightly better than mine, but the ground is too green. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 3:12:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont understand the hate for hdr. Of course it can be over done but so can any processing. It allows you to take photos that you otherwise wouldnt be able to. Would anyone ever choose a camera with less dynamic range, if all other factors were equivalent? Humble suggestion, if you take that photo again shift the composition to the left. You will get all of the trees in the frame and the road may work as a leading line. You could also try getting closer to the ground. See what you think about this. If you dont like me messing with your photo let me know and I will pull it. https://s24.postimg.org/rfo3li8lx/33386646573_9226297be2_b-_Edit-_Edit.jpgfree image uploadingcertificity.com IMO HDR kills whats interesting about a good photo. That is the balance between light and shadow. Even a mildly processes HDR look way too processed and mundane. Same goes for that whole highlight to -100 and shadow to +100. That shits got to stop. Highlight and shadow are powerful tools, but the over use of them that is so prevalent today is a downright tragedy. I see these HDR photos and ones with shadow and highlight pulled to the extreme ends and all I can do is shake my head. Contrast is lost and with it, any depth and interest that might have been there to start with. A photo taken with the proper exposure, in the proper light at the right time are way more interesting to me. YMMV. Something like this is, to me at least, a far more interesting photo. It's as close as I can remember to an actual representation of what I saw when I stepped out the front door a couple of weeks ago. Now, I did crop this, as I shot it vertical for some reason leaving a half mile of sky up top, but you get the idea. It was also under exposed about 3 stops as the purpose was to see just ho far I can push this D750. I would have normally shot it maybe a stop under on the sky, so I was pushing the processing.  Attached FileThe cool thing about photography is that we can have these sort of discussions on difference of opinion. But, I hold fast in my opinion. The uncool part of photography is HDR and flat out irresponsible use of the shadow slider. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 5:18:13 PM EDT
[#27]
I've just been using the feature built into Lightroom.
HDR isn't a big enough deal to me to delve into other packages.  Sunset 20170220 by FredMan, on Flickr
 GVE VORTAC HDR by FredMan, on Flickr
 Mauna Kea Cloud Cap by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 9:02:52 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 9:41:12 PM EDT
[#29]
ok, here's your middle image with a 3 minute tweak... and none of it was highlight -100/shadow +100
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 9:45:10 PM EDT
[#30]
HDR does have one thing going for it, when used properly.
It comes closer to replicating what the eye can see. I process nearly 100% of my pictures following the ETTR rule to boost the dynamic range a bit beyond what would ordinarily be available. 
A few recent pictures that benefited greatly from this method of processing. Is it right for everyone, of course not. But, it is the closest I've been able to get to being able to show you what my eyes were seeing when I took the picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 10:15:03 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ok, here's your middle image with a 3 minute tweak... and none of it was highlight -100/shadow +100
http://i.imgur.com/Y8HnyaO.jpg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2017 10:32:05 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 3:28:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HDR does have one thing going for it, when used properly. It comes closer to replicating what the eye can see. I process nearly 100% of my pictures following the ETTR rule to boost the dynamic range a bit beyond what would ordinarily be available. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/-DSC0206-187761.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/-DSC0492-191665.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/-DSC0491-191664.jpg A few recent pictures that benefited greatly from this method of processing. Is it right for everyone, of course not. But, it is the closest I've been able to get to being able to show you what my eyes were seeing when I took the picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 3:31:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats your guide for doing ETTR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:01:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Check the archives, it's there somewhere. I'll find a link later if you haven't found it yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whats your guide for doing ETTR? The search function is a bit wonky, but that is what I found. The details on what to take prior to LR is good, but not in LR. Unless there is another thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:11:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have lightroom try their native hdr program or download nik for free. If you are interested in nik check youtube for tutorials. Lots of good ones that show how to use it and get natural looks. You can use anything from 2 to 6 pictures or more. Nik allows you tons of control in the process and it can make a very nice product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 11:03:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I shoot a bit underexposed when shooting a subject with a bright sky to avoid losing all detail in the sky, then I play with Shadows and Highlights until I get it where it needs to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 11:04:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_121/1804564_Let-s-talk-about-exposure---reasons-to-overexpose-your-images-and-why-high-ISO-isn-t-bad--new-pics.html The search function is a bit wonky, but that is what I found. The details on what to take prior to LR is good, but not in LR. Unless there is another thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 11:09:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well between this thread and that one I'd say the subject has been well covered. Do you have specific questions? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_121/1804564_Let-s-talk-about-exposure---reasons-to-overexpose-your-images-and-why-high-ISO-isn-t-bad--new-pics.html The search function is a bit wonky, but that is what I found. The details on what to take prior to LR is good, but not in LR. Unless there is another thread? In LR, when you are adjusting the picture, what is the order that you hit the sliders? I noticed above you mentioned highlights and shadows at 100 / -100, but I wasn't sure if that was for ETTR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 11:13:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. In LR, when you are adjusting the picture, what is the order that you hit the sliders? I noticed above you mentioned highlights and shadows at 100 / -100, but I wasn't sure if that was for ETTR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 11:48:37 PM EDT
[#41]
OK. This should cover my thought processes here I hope.
Let's start with a SOOC image. 
I have an import preset that does things like lens corrections, and throws a basic ETTR correction on minus a few things that I prefer to adjust manually. 
And here's the final result 
The -100 and +100 on the shadows and highlights are done by feel. Some pictures need less. Same with the white/black sliders and the clarity, contrast, etc. I sometimes tweak them hard, sometimes not at all. Just depends on what the picture wants. The exposure is another one that may require some, lots, or none at all. In this example, the picture was overexposed by well.. over 2 stops and still lost no detail at all in the sky . This is why we shoot raw.
I chose this example to highlight just how far you can take the ETTR and not lose information, mainly to counterpoint the above poster that said underexposing the sky is the right thing to do. It isn't exactly the best example of ETTR, but you can see the workflow anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 6:26:16 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. This should cover my thought processes here I hope. Let's start with a SOOC image. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/sooc-194132.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/SOOC-infos-194129.png I have an import preset that does things like lens corrections, and throws a basic ETTR correction on minus a few things that I prefer to adjust manually. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/sooc-plus-dd-194131.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/sooc-plus-dd-info-194130.png And here's the final result https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/final-image-194128.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/final-image-info-194127.png The -100 and +100 on the shadows and highlights are done by feel. Some pictures need less. Same with the white/black sliders and the clarity, contrast, etc. I sometimes tweak them hard, sometimes not at all. Just depends on what the picture wants. The exposure is another one that may require some, lots, or none at all. In this example, the picture was overexposed by well.. over 2 stops and still lost no detail at all in the sky . This is why we shoot raw.
I chose this example to highlight just how far you can take the ETTR and not lose information, mainly to counterpoint the above poster that said underexposing the sky is the right thing to do. It isn't exactly the best example of ETTR, but you can see the workflow anyway. Now, what happens if you have a picture that is still too dark (histogram is far left), even with +1, do you increase the exposure another stop or dive into bracketing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 6:31:12 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. Now, what happens if you have a picture that is still too dark (histogram is far left), even with +1, do you increase the exposure another stop or dive into bracketing? You saw my thread in the archives, the ISO 100 file was uglier than the ISO 1600 file (or whatever they were, I forget now) because of the push. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:50:12 PM EDT
[#44]
@Zack3g
 HDR.LR.IMG_21 by Robert Mc, on Flickr
Thanks for your help. I found Lightroom's HDR to be the best as it allows me to fully control the highlights, shadows etc after the merging of the files. Frankly, this photo above is more realistic of what I saw when I took the picture originally. Only question I have, is how do I get the blue sky to pop out a little more? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:57:31 PM EDT
[#45]
You can try the hsl tab. At the top left of the tab is a little button. Hold it over the sky and hold the left mouse button while you move the mouse up and down. The tab will choose the color it is held over and moving the mouse will increase the hue saturation or luminance depending on which one you have open.
You can also try the camera calibration tab. Go all the way to the bottom and move the blue slider to the right. You can also use the brush. Paint the blue areas in the sky and then you can selectively adjust with exposure, saturation, vibrance, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:06:06 PM EDT
[#46]
here's some ETTR action from today
before: 
after (with crop, but not a single local adjustment) 
that's a male Mountain Bluebird, by the way |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:09:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can try the hsl tab. At the top left of the tab is a little button. Hold it over the sky and hold the left mouse button while you move the mouse up and down. The tab will choose the color it is held over and moving the mouse will increase the hue saturation or luminance depending on which one you have open. You can also try the camera calibration tab. Go all the way to the bottom and move the blue slider to the right. You can also use the brush. Paint the blue areas in the sky and then you can selectively adjust with exposure, saturation, vibrance, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:09:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
here's some ETTR action from today before: http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Gatordonald/Arfjunk/_MG_1352-3_zpsabtdknto.jpg after (with crop, but not a single local adjustment) http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Gatordonald/Arfjunk/_MG_1352-2_zpsvnjkrh5b.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:14:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the over exposure at? (f/8 rather than f/11) ETA: I should add that I had to underexpose -2.3 in LR to get to this end result, but that's after jacking shadows and dumping highlights. When I say a full stop underexposed, it's a full stop under how the scene would meter if *not* using ETTL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:41:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Seems like yall are enjoying some ETTR. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
