RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photo Processing Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Double Processing a RAW file. (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8889)

JRMDC 01-09-2009 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ween
EDIT: Also, Nic's shot of that dude looks good, but the steam one has an overprocessed cast to my eyes...

Agree; will give it a better look on a different computer, but for now I agree. There is a difference between bringing out detail and changing the entire tone of a shot and I think sometimes people go over the line.

The person shot, it doesn't seem like the basic light level has changed. That may be because the background hasn't been altered, only the head detail. The head still looks like it is in shadow, as it is. So it makes sense to the viewer, even though the head is a lot lighter than before, as I recall - this shot was seen in this forum on its way to RP acceptance!

The steam shot, it has the look of a shot that was dark and was lightened too much. There are large parts of the background that look like they are in sun yet the sky is clouded and there are no shadows on the ground. The characteristics of the image are not internally consistent.

TheRoadForeman 01-09-2009 09:30 PM

Let's turn this whole discussion around some to NOT include post-processing in this as much. Anybody ever use a split-grad ND??

-- Kevin

alan-crotty 01-09-2009 09:41 PM

Split Grad?
 
Essential piece of kit.

Alan

TheRoadForeman 01-09-2009 09:53 PM

If I am following this posting correctly, the split-grad could eliminate some of this post processing.

-- Kevin

JimThias 01-09-2009 10:22 PM

An ND filter would work sometimes, but you're likely to run into problems if you are shooting at track level as the train is approaching, making the front of the train appear above the horizon line where the tinting starts. Thus, it would work best for those perspectives where you are above the train and you can get a good horizon-dividing line between the sky and the ground (and train).

travsirocz 01-09-2009 10:41 PM

It's easier to add a ND filter in PS.
They do work great in landscape shots but action shooting I am not a fan. They work better when the whole scene is lit well but you still want to take the sky down a notch. Also when shooting something like my shot in the beginning of this post, I was already fighting to keep my shutter speed up and a ND filter will take me down even more. But I do use them when I can.

TheRoadForeman 01-09-2009 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
An ND filter would work sometimes, but you're likely to run into problems if you are shooting at track level as the train is approaching, making the front of the train appear above the horizon line where the tinting starts. Thus, it would work best for those perspectives where you are above the train and you can get a good horizon-dividing line between the sky and the ground (and train).

Actually, if you would use the Cokin system, one would simply adjust for this by moving the glass filter up or down on the sliding mount. Also, if the hard transition edge is a problem, simply use a "soft" edge ND version as opposed to the hard transition ones. I've done this with great success many times.

-- Kevin

JimThias 01-09-2009 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
Actually, if you would use the Cokin system, one would simply adjust for this by moving the glass filter up or down on the sliding mount. Also, if the hard transition edge is a problem, simply use a "soft" edge ND version as opposed to the hard transition ones. I've done this with great success many times.

-- Kevin

I guess you're not visualizing what I was explaining. If you're on the same level (or even below) the train and you want to use the ND grad filter to darken a bright sky to get a better exposure on the train, if the front of the loco is too close to and above the horizon, you're going to end up either darkening the loco or having some exposed sky that comes out too bright.


For instance, here is a shot where it could work:

[photoid=266517]

The top of the train is just at or below the horizon line, so there would be no concern of having the darker part of the ND grad filter over the train.



Here, it wouldn't work:

[photoid=266509]

If the sky was blown out and you tried to use an ND grad filter to control it, then you'd also darken the front of the train. Not good.

An ND grad filter is a good tool to use, but it's not always applicable when shooting trains.

TheRoadForeman 01-09-2009 11:52 PM

This is true, Jim, but, I can't think of a reason to use these filters if the subject was as close as the subjects that you provided. My point is, regarding the original posting by Travis. In this case, my suggestion would work very well if it was used properly. I'm trying to show that most of these HDR or "double processing" pics can be done without software, other than sharpening and the usual tweaks of light and dark ( within reason ), nothing more, nothing less thank you!

-- Kevin

travsirocz 01-09-2009 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
This is true, Jim, but, I can't think of a reason to use these filters if the subject was as close as the subjects that you provided. My point is, regarding the original posting by Travis. In this case, my suggestion would work very well if it was used properly. I'm trying to show that most of these HDR or "double processing" pics can be done without software, other than sharpening and the usual tweaks of light and dark ( within reason ), nothing more, nothing less thank you!

-- Kevin

It wouldn't work with my photo in this post very well either because the clouds on top portion of the photo match the bottom. It is just the bright sky in the center.

TheRoadForeman 01-09-2009 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
It's easier to add a ND filter in PS.
They do work great in landscape shots but action shooting I am not a fan. They work better when the whole scene is lit well but you still want to take the sky down a notch. Also when shooting something like my shot in the beginning of this post, I was already fighting to keep my shutter speed up and a ND filter will take me down even more. But I do use them when I can.

Not necessarily. The subject at the time of capture was coming at you, not along the framing of the photo. A half a stop less ( maybe more ) would not affect this shot if good shooting discipline was used. It was in your case Travis, others, maybe not so much.

-- Kevin

travsirocz 01-09-2009 11:57 PM

Also please view this post and see if you can add to it.
http://forums.railpictures.net/showt...9954#post79954

JimThias 01-10-2009 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
This is true, Jim, but, I can't think of a reason to use these filters if the subject was as close as the subjects that you provided.

I was just providing two examples of where an ND grad filter would and wouldn't work as a better illustration of my explanation. Not saying you'd use them in those examples. ;)

travsirocz 01-10-2009 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMTRailfan
Shot in Sept., but added to the DB Jan 5th. Nice photo, but the rails look over sharpened or something.

I completly missed the over sharpened rails somehow. Thanks

travsirocz 01-10-2009 12:04 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is the original jpeg not raw right out of the camera.
[photoid=266044]

TheRoadForeman 01-10-2009 12:07 AM

Listen, Travis, I think that you did a great job getting a balance of the photo in question. I was just pointing out that ther CAN be other ways to execute certain scenarios regarding large dynamic ranges of light.

-- Kevin

travsirocz 01-10-2009 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
Listen, Travis, I think that you did a great job getting a balance of the photo in question. I was just pointing out that ther CAN be other ways to execute certain scenarios regarding large dynamic ranges of light.

-- Kevin

I'm listening but don't here anything? I even turned my speakers up? :lol:

I was just saying it wouldn't be the best for the shot of mine in this thread. I used a ND or polarizer shooting in wyoming (flat ground to sky contact) especially midday and it worked very nice.

The one problem I run into is that most of my shots that I could use this technique are just run into by chance. The clouds, sky, sun, and train just come together and then change just as fast. I just can't get the filter on and alighned fast enough a lot of the time. Then to add to it I try to take multiple shots as the train rolls by and the filter would kill many shots. It is easier to post process most of them for me.

You do bring up a great point about how many photographers don't use any filters anymore compared to the film days. I really do try to capture the image the best I can at the camera.

Christopher Muller 01-10-2009 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
Here is the original jpeg not raw right out of the camera.

Thats pretty impressive that you were able to salvage that much color from the original. You did an awesome job balancing the photo, but I don't think I could conciously call that photo not-manipulated, but to each their own as we all have different tastes. Perhaps I should try doing that before casting my opinion.

JimThias 01-10-2009 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
Here is the original jpeg not raw right out of the camera.
http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...achmentid=3628


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...ilies/uhoh.gif

travsirocz 01-10-2009 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

You lost me???? Your impressed!

quiksmith10 01-10-2009 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

I'm sure the sky in the RAW image looked similar to what was actually seen but the other half, no way. I bet everything on the ground was very visible with the human eye. The camera, not so much. No matter which way you slice it, you would have to heavily edit the bottom half to get what your eye actually saw. Sometimes you have to heavily underexpose the image to get a realistic end result. Note, I'm not saying Travis' accepted image looks realistic. Just merely saying this in response to the original RAW file.

travsirocz 01-10-2009 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
I completly missed the over sharpened rails somehow. Thanks

Actually you can start to see the jaggies in the rail in the original jpeg above. My in camera sharpening is set low. Could be a monitor illusion?

JimThias 01-10-2009 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiksmith10
I'm sure the sky in the RAW image looked similar to what was actually seen but the other half, no way. I bet everything on the ground was very visible with the human eye. The camera, not so much. No matter which way you slice it, you would have to heavily edit the bottom half to get what your eye actually saw. Sometimes you have to heavily underexpose the image to get a realistic end result. Note, I'm not saying Travis' accepted image looks realistic. Just merely saying this in response to the original RAW file.

Oh, I know. I'm going to take a wack at processing it when I get some time. I'm sure my edit will come out quite different from T's result. :D

JRMDC 01-10-2009 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
I'm trying to show that most of these HDR or "double processing" pics can be done without software, other than sharpening and the usual tweaks of light and dark ( within reason ), nothing more, nothing less thank you!

Sure, you can show it, but so what? Does it matter whether it can be done without software? Is that a more "pure" version of photography? It sounds like an uninteresting debate, to me.

travsirocz 01-10-2009 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Oh, I know. I'm going to take a wack at processing it when I get some time. I'm sure my edit will come out quite different from T's result. :D

It has to be capable of getting on rpnet also. :-D I think that is fair.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.