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)

travsirocz 01-08-2009 06:30 PM

Double Processing a RAW file.
 
[photoid=266044]

This is my first double processed image ever. I think it turned out well but could be better. I have PS CS3 and just keep learning and learning more things with it. Sometimes it takes me awhile to try new things because I get so use to processing the photo the same ways. This image was pretty easy to do since the sky and land was a pretty clean split. I just used a soft tip paint brush to blend the two together. I really need to start to use masks much more and more layers.

Do any of you have expierence with double processing images? Do you have any tips on blend the light and dark areas together?

Anyone else interested in the technique, here is an easy to follow guide.
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/double_process_raw.fci

quiksmith10 01-08-2009 06:51 PM

Thanks for sharing that. I'm going to have to give that a try. You're right, you always learn something new with PS. It's amazing the amount of thing the product can do.

I will usually use a wand a select the sky and then either keep the original selection or select the inverse. I then feather the selection to blend the two "halves" together.

JRMDC 01-08-2009 06:56 PM

Didn't we all agree that this would be referred to as "pseudo-HDR"? Get with the program!

And didn't we all agree that you would no longer be allowed to fish for views? :) This is a September shot and you feel like reliving your joy today?????

EMTRailfan 01-08-2009 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Didn't we all agree that this would be referred to as "pseudo-HDR"? Get with the program!

And didn't we all agree that you would no longer be allowed to fish for views? :) This is a September shot and you feel like reliving your joy today?????

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

JRMDC 01-08-2009 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMTRailfan
Shot in Sept., but added to the DB Jan 5th.

oops, missed that, saw the 3000+ views and didn't realize it was new, it must have been ToY while I was out of town.

Cinderpath 01-08-2009 07:17 PM

Well I guess I can share some secrets- I've been doing this for quite some time, but I have used this handy little plug-in and found it faster and easier.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/DRI



Cheers-

travsirocz 01-08-2009 07:28 PM

[quote=JRMDC]Didn't we all agree that this would be referred to as "pseudo-HDR"? Get with the program!

And didn't we all agree that you would no longer be allowed to fish for views? QUOTE]

Yes it is pseudo-HDR. I think I did a good job at not getting the over done HDR look or the shadow highlight tool look, or not?

Once a fisherman always a fisherman. Don't worry, not many come to this side of the forums.

travsirocz 01-08-2009 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinderpath
Well I guess I can share some secrets- I've been doing this for quite some time, but I have used this handy little plug-in and found it faster and easier.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/DRI



Cheers-

Intrested, but I would like to hear more about it from you. Do you have any examples of your own? Why is this program better then just doing it in PS? Thanks.

quiksmith10 01-08-2009 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Didn't we all agree that this would be referred to as "pseudo-HDR"? Get with the program!

You can use it as a "pseudo-HDR" tool if you want too or you can use it to bring your dark and light areas into a bit of a better perspective. Trust me, I am not a fan of the overdone HDR look, as in the example photo given in that website.

JRMDC 01-08-2009 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiksmith10
You can use it as a "pseudo-HDR" tool if you want too or you can use it to bring your dark and light areas into a bit of a better perspective.

Is there a difference? :)

quiksmith10 01-08-2009 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Is there a difference? :)

Just depends on how much you use it. ;)

travsirocz 01-08-2009 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Is there a difference? :)

There is a difference I think. I am not darkening the highlight and bringing out the shadows in the image as you do with lets say the shadow highlight tool on a single image. I am taking a RAW file, which has much more data then like a jpeg, and I am properly exposing the highlights in one (sky) and then the darker part of the image (the rest) and combinding them. So I am using the sky from one raw file and the rest from the other raw image. I suppose if I start bringing more highlights out of the darker part of the image then it would start getting more of the HDR look. I guess the point I am getting at is this really isn't the same as "pseudo-HDR" but close.

travsirocz 01-08-2009 09:05 PM

Here is my over done one that I need to work on. I shouldn't even show it here.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...1&key=59252591

JimThias 01-08-2009 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
[photoid=266044]

This is my first double processed image ever. I think it turned out well but could be better. I have PS CS3 and just keep learning and learning more things with it. Sometimes it takes me awhile to try new things because I get so use to processing the photo the same ways. This image was pretty easy to do since the sky and land was a pretty clean split. I just used a soft tip paint brush to blend the two together. I really need to start to use masks much more and more layers.

Do any of you have expierence with double processing images? Do you have any tips on blend the light and dark areas together?

Anyone else interested in the technique, here is an easy to follow guide.
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/double_process_raw.fci


Ah-HA! So that's the secret to your nuclear fallout picture. I wondered how you arrived at that bizarre tone.

:lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
I think I did a good job at not getting the over done HDR look or the shadow highlight tool look, or not?

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. It looks way overdone to me. Then again, my eyes may be more trained to noticing stuff like this.

travsirocz 01-08-2009 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Ah-HA! So that's the secret to your nuclear fallout picture. I wondered how you arrived at that bizarre tone.

:lol:



Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. It looks way overdone to me. Then again, my eyes may be more trained to noticing stuff like this.

What kinda of tone? The sky? Could be brighter and oranger. Early morning with crazy clouds with spot lights coming through. I should have brought the light rays out more to match what I saw.

JimThias 01-08-2009 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
What kinda of tone? The sky? Could be brighter and oranger. Early morning with crazy clouds with spot lights coming through. I should have brought the light rays out more to match what I saw.

There is an evil orange/yellow tone about the entire image that resembles a scene from the movie The Day After.

travsirocz 01-08-2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
There is an evil orange/yellow tone about the entire image that resembles a scene from the movie The Day After.

The air in Nebraska is different then the smoggy Michigan air from Rock City. :lol:

It was yellowie out that but your right it should be toned down some more.

Cinderpath 01-08-2009 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
Intrested, but I would like to hear more about it from you. Do you have any examples of your own? Why is this program better then just doing it in PS? Thanks.

I am short on time, but click on the link that says:

"Full description and samples"

And it will totally make sense. It is better because it automatically smoothens the transitions between say sky and foreground. For $15 its cheap. Some of my examples can be seen in the previous issues of Locomotive Magazine by Kalmbach; I do the RAW conversions and Photoshop work on it. I am not at home, where my RR pictures are stored.

JRMDC 01-08-2009 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
I am taking a RAW file, which has much more data then like a jpeg, and I am properly exposing the highlights in one (sky) and then the darker part of the image (the rest) and combinding them. So I am using the sky from one raw file and the rest from the other raw image.

This is exactly how I define pseudo-HDR, except you mis-wrote when you said "one raw file" and "the other raw image" as you are using only one raw image. You meant "one processed version" and "the other processed version".

Quote:

I suppose if I start bringing more highlights out of the darker part of the image then it would start getting more of the HDR look. I guess the point I am getting at is this really isn't the same as "pseudo-HDR" but close.
To me pseudo-HDR is a process, so its definition does not depend on outcome. I don't follow what distinction you are drawing in the sentence beginning with "I suppose".

If you take the same file, one exposed image, process it twice, and combine them, you are doing pseudo-HDR. You do HDR if you do multiple identically framed exposures and combine them.

travsirocz 01-08-2009 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
This is exactly how I define pseudo-HDR, except you mis-wrote when you said "one raw file" and "the other raw image" as you are using only one raw image. You meant "one processed version" and "the other processed version".



To me pseudo-HDR is a process, so its definition does not depend on outcome. I don't follow what distinction you are drawing in the sentence beginning with "I suppose".

If you take the same file, one exposed image, process it twice, and combine them, you are doing pseudo-HDR. You do HDR if you do multiple identically framed exposures and combine them.

I know. I just meant I did it on a lower level in which it doesn't have the over done HDR look. I pretty much just HDRed the sky only and nothing else in the image. If I were to do a fulll scale HDR to it I may have opened up some of the shadows more and toned down the head lights, etc. But you are right.

travsirocz 01-09-2009 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinderpath
I am short on time, but click on the link that says:

"Full description and samples"

And it will totally make sense. It is better because it automatically smoothens the transitions between say sky and foreground. For $15 its cheap. Some of my examples can be seen in the previous issues of Locomotive Magazine by Kalmbach; I do the RAW conversions and Photoshop work on it. I am not at home, where my RR pictures are stored.

Any tips? I have been trying the program with little success. It either over or under does it, so far. It does get good reviews from the Canon forums. If you have a Nikon you can't get in.

Cinderpath 01-09-2009 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz
Any tips? I have been trying the program with little success. It either over or under does it, so far. It does get good reviews from the Canon forums. If you have a Nikon you can't get in.


My experience has been rather than create one processed RAW as extreme highlights (sky), and one extreme shadows, I basically process one as "normal" as possible, and the one for a somewhat darker sky, (but not extreme) remember, if it is created from two extremes, it too will look unnatural. This seems to make a much more gentle transition. The greater the extremes in this stuff, the harder it is to get it natural looking. Another note, go easy on the saturation in the RAW conversion process; this can always be added later in Photoshop, that way if it is over done, it can easily be modified. Additionally when doing saturation increases, if a global saturation increase is made, go back in afterward and knock down the red and yellow saturation channels, this will make the orange cast less harsh.

ottergoose 01-09-2009 06:21 PM

With regards to pseudo HDR (using one image), I've had good luck with TuFuse (http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm), which has been brought up on the forums before. It's a bit awkward to use, but once you've got it setup, it's pretty slick. When you also install Dcraw (http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/), the software will put together a TIFF HDR based off of your original RAW photo. The command I use is:

tufuse -a 8 -b 1.5 -o output.tif IMG_0100.CR2

Maybe I'll put together a little tutorial on it and post it or something... it's really slick. I've used it on these images:

[photoid=253329]

[photoid=251207]

Christopher Muller 01-09-2009 06:38 PM

I'm not going to comment on either photo, I can't... not without seeing the original photo... Travis?

Ween 01-09-2009 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Muller
I'm not going to comment on either photo, I can't... not without seeing the original photo... Travis?

Good call, but my initial reaction was "too fakey looking." But, people seem to eat up that fake look, so what do I know!

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

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]


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:54 PM.

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