Anyone else using the Expo Disk for interiors?

Started Jun 22, 2007 | Discussions
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Anyone else using the Expo Disk for interiors?
Jun 22, 2007

I've had several Expo Disks for a couple of years now and started using them instead of flash for interiors. I use them in conjunction with producing HDR images. I've had good feedback from customers using this approach. I've long thought that flash overpowers interior shots and doesn't render them realistically as the eye would see it. For decades we've all been subjected to interior shots rendered with a blast of daylight flash. This totally obliterates any natural lighting and doesn't render the interior with a realistic look (as if you were actually there). Once flashed, the natural shadows produced by table lamps and such are lost. Unfortunately, we've all become accustomed to the flashed look. I intend to change all that for my immediate audience.

Even though I own 4 flashes (3 Canon and 1 Nikon) I much prefer the natural lighting look to interiors than a flashed one. Admittedly, HDR is in it's infancy and has a long way to go. However, I've got customers begging for more of the same so I'm inclined to oblige.

What are your thoughts?

-- hide signature --

Doug Walker

millsart
Senior MemberPosts: 2,771
Like?
you've apparently only seen poorly done flash work then
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 22, 2007

If you think lighting an interior is simply a blast of flash that ruins any sublte details then you've not seen well lite interiors.

HDR can work well but it still can't match the quality and asthetics of well placed lighting.

Light can create and revel texture, shape, and form. It can lead the eye to certain features and hide others. It can set the mood. Its a tool and like any tool its results really come down to the user.

What does HDR interirors have to do with using an expo disc though ? Expodisc is simply a tool for setting a WB, though for interiors which often have mixed lighting, I don't see how an expodisc would really be that useful even, especially if your trying to balance natural windowlight and tungsten for example.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Re: you've apparently only seen poorly done flash work then
In reply to millsart, Jun 22, 2007

millsart wrote:

If you think lighting an interior is simply a blast of flash that
ruins any sublte details then you've not seen well lite interiors.

HDR can work well but it still can't match the quality and
asthetics of well placed lighting.

Light can create and revel texture, shape, and form. It can lead
the eye to certain features and hide others. It can set the mood.
Its a tool and like any tool its results really come down to the
user.

What does HDR interirors have to do with using an expo disc though
? Expodisc is simply a tool for setting a WB, though for
interiors which often have mixed lighting, I don't see how an
expodisc would really be that useful even, especially if your
trying to balance natural windowlight and tungsten for example.

I've been around photography for over 25 yrs. and have seen hundreds of interiors that used flash. I've done hundreds of interiors with flash myself. All are inferior to non-flash HDR images in my opinion and the opinion of my customers which counts the most (since they pay the bills).

If you think "well light interiors" are only obtainable with flash then you are not informed. Obviously, you have not tried or investigated HDR done right. I'd suggest you investigate HDR before you hastily post your uninformed response.

The Expo Disk has everything do with interior lighting done right. You should do your homework before posting.

-- hide signature --

Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chuck Gardner
Forum ProPosts: 10,381
Like?
Ever seen Architectural Digest?
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 23, 2007

Yes HDR is a good idea, but supporting your advocacy of HDR and Expodisk with the blanket indictment of the use of flash because you have apparently "blasted interiors with flash" for years before discovering the wonders of ambient light is a bit like advocating gun control after finally shooting off all your toes.

Why do you assume that everyone lighting interiors has only "blasted" them with a flash and overpowered the ambient light or that its impossible to obtain realistic results with flash? I've subscribed to Architectural Digest for many years and seen thousands of interiors which have been lit with a seamless mix of ambient, flash and daylight. I've even shot a few that way on occasion.

The root word of ambience is ambient so the most logical lighting strategy for architecture and interior design is to exploit the ambient light first then supplement it as necessary with light additional light sources the same as the ambient interior sources or flash gelled to match the ambient interior light. When applied with skill it it is impossible to tell what the dominant light source was, ambient or the gelled flash, because they are balanced so well.

I agree wholeheartedly that HDR is indeed a wonderful thing, but its not a new thing. Blended exposures have been around in various forms as long as Photoshop has had layers and masks. Also, HDR alone will only work effectively if the lighting of the space has been well designed. One of the main reasons gelled flash is often used to supplement the existing lighting is to hide its flaws or accent the space in ways the ambient light doesn't for the purpose of making the photographic rendering more appealing. Sometime you need to fake it to make it look real. That's certainly the premise underlying HDR and when it is overdone it doesn't look realistic, but rather surrealistic and likely to be perceived as "fake" because it looks better than what we would normally perceive. The same thing occurs perceptually when digital images are oversharpened.

OTOH I don't think the ExpoDisk is the Holy Grail of white balance, or that using it to set a single custom WB for a room with multiple types of lighting is a good approach technically because it will result in an average WB which will not reproduce any of light sources correctly. A better approach would be to make separate exposures balanced perfectly for each light source then blend them together with masks.

CG

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Strom
Senior MemberPosts: 2,982
Like?
Re: Ever seen Architectural Digest?
In reply to Chuck Gardner, Jun 23, 2007

Chuck Gardner wrote:
... A better approach would be to make separate

exposures balanced perfectly for each light source then blend them
together with masks.

CG

That is the way I shoot interiors. Get a good WB with the natural (ambient) light then use strobes or hot lights to fill the shadows and add pop (lift) to the image.

I bracket my shots to get good shadow, midtones and highlight detail then composite in P-shop for expanded DR.

Use a stable tripod and remote shutter release to ensure multiple image registration.

Robert
--
http://www.streamlinestudio.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kenyee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,509Gear list
Like?
any HDR sample?
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 23, 2007

I'm curious what you mean by better?

And I have seen properly lit flash interiors that are great. You just have to color balance the flashes properly to keep it subtle enough and highlight the right areas...

 kenyee's gear list:kenyee's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Re: Ever seen Architectural Digest?
In reply to Chuck Gardner, Jun 23, 2007

Chuck Gardner wrote:

Yes HDR is a good idea, but supporting your advocacy of HDR and
Expodisk with the blanket indictment of the use of flash because
you have apparently "blasted interiors with flash" for years
before discovering the wonders of ambient light is a bit like
advocating gun control after finally shooting off all your toes.

Why do you assume that everyone lighting interiors has only
"blasted" them with a flash and overpowered the ambient light or
that its impossible to obtain realistic results with flash? I've
subscribed to Architectural Digest for many years and seen
thousands of interiors which have been lit with a seamless mix of
ambient, flash and daylight. I've even shot a few that way on
occasion.

The root word of ambience is ambient so the most logical lighting
strategy for architecture and interior design is to exploit the
ambient light first then supplement it as necessary with light
additional light sources the same as the ambient interior sources
or flash gelled to match the ambient interior light. When applied
with skill it it is impossible to tell what the dominant light
source was, ambient or the gelled flash, because they are balanced
so well.

I agree wholeheartedly that HDR is indeed a wonderful thing, but
its not a new thing. Blended exposures have been around in various
forms as long as Photoshop has had layers and masks. Also, HDR
alone will only work effectively if the lighting of the space has
been well designed. One of the main reasons gelled flash is often
used to supplement the existing lighting is to hide its flaws or
accent the space in ways the ambient light doesn't for the purpose
of making the photographic rendering more appealing. Sometime you
need to fake it to make it look real. That's certainly the premise
underlying HDR and when it is overdone it doesn't look realistic,
but rather surrealistic and likely to be perceived as "fake"
because it looks better than what we would normally perceive. The
same thing occurs perceptually when digital images are
oversharpened.

OTOH I don't think the ExpoDisk is the Holy Grail of white balance,
or that using it to set a single custom WB for a room with multiple
types of lighting is a good approach technically because it will
result in an average WB which will not reproduce any of light
sources correctly. A better approach would be to make separate
exposures balanced perfectly for each light source then blend them
together with masks.

CG

Your photo makes my case. I guess you too are victim of seeing too many strobed images. Did you not notice the harsh shadows caused by your strobe or the blown highlights in the window or the underexposed table in the room to the right with the roses? This is not normal to what the eye sees and this is what I'm talking about.

I never said that the ExpoDisk was the Holy Grail of white balance. The ExpoDisk is nothing more than a quick tool to get better natural light white balance than most all dslr's are capable of today. While your approach to achieving proper white balance for multiple color temperatures by shooting multiple exposures for each color temperature is interesting, it is impractical in that it would take a huge amount of time in post processing and would skyrocket the cost beyond what my customers would pay. To do a true HDR exposure using that method would require multiple exposures for each color temperature resulting in many dozens of images. I'm currently using about 16 exposures in 1/2 stop increments for each view so it could conceivably require 48-64 exposures just for one view. Trying to nail down the absolute perfect color balance when there is a mixture of daylight, incandescent and florescent would be a daunting task at best and the result would not be worth the time spent. Besides, much of that work can be done in Photoshop by proper selections and use of white balance tools.

Many of the residential interiors I shoot are log cabins and have very large great rooms. So large that it would take many strobes and a lighting crew if one was going to light it that way. My latest shoot was a 4 story 4,000 sq. ft. log cabin with elevator, 6 bedrooms, 6 baths, 3 - 1/2 baths, theater room, 2 wet bars, recreation room, 6ft. wide refrigerator/freezer in the kitchen, wrap around decks on each floor, exterior 6 person hot tub, etc. The great room's ceiling is 3 stories high with one wall primarily all glass. This makes for a lighting nightmare. These log cabins have wood interior walls that adds to the white balance problem. The only way to do this job at a cost the customer was willing to pay was to go natural lighting. HDR fit that bill perfectly. White balance was a huge problem. The ExpoDisk served it's purpose in providing better white balance than the dslr I was using. I walked off with 1,021 exposures that produced about 50 images.

HDR is just a tool and is in it's infancy compared to how long strobes have been around. HDR has great potential but does take an adjustment to your regular post processing and a bit of a learning curve. You should at least attempt HDR using some of the better tools available today before dismissing it so quickly.
--
Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NorthyYorky
Regular MemberPosts: 129
Like?
Re: Ever seen Architectural Digest?
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 23, 2007

Hi Doug,

That job sounds fascinating - do you have a link to the pictures?

Thanks,

NY

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
millsart
Senior MemberPosts: 2,771
Like?
So your needs/clients needs must apply to everyone ?
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 23, 2007

Your photo makes my case. I guess you too are victim of seeing too
many strobed images. Did you not notice the harsh shadows caused by
your strobe or the blown highlights in the window or the
underexposed table in the room to the right with the roses? This is
not normal to what the eye sees and this is what I'm talking about.

If Chuck's a victim, then so must be nearly every art director and designer and decorator in the business.

While your approach to achieving proper white balance for
multiple color temperatures by shooting multiple exposures for each
color temperature is interesting, it is impractical in that it
would take a huge amount of time in post processing and would
skyrocket the cost beyond what my customers would pay.

Impractical for you but does that mean its impractical for everyone ? Do YOUR clients budget match the budget of everyones client ?

Many of the residential interiors I shoot are log cabins and have
very large great rooms. So large that it would take many strobes
and a lighting crew if one was going to light it that way.

Again, so because YOU have limited resources may mean its the best solution for YOU but that hardly means you know more than the rest of the industry.

You should at least attempt HDR using some of the better
tools available today before dismissing it so quickly.

Maybe you should do the same with some of the better tools out there before dismissing using strobes ???

I'm sorry but if your judging a popular workflow of the whole industry based upon what I'm guessing is very limited experience with a few speedlights your making yourself look a bit foolish.

A good interior shoot can require half a day of setup, ND's placed outside on all the windows, way more than 3 speedlights.

Sorry but your argument comes off sounding like those guys who say you don't need a make up artist or stylist (because they dont have one/never used one) for a portrait shoot anymore because you can do it all in photoshop. You can use PS as a tool and enhance, but its not a replacement. At the same time, yes HDR can be a good tool, and it can work well to suppliment exisiting methods but its not the holy grail of interiors.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Re: So your needs/clients needs must apply to everyone ?
In reply to millsart, Jun 26, 2007

millsart wrote:

Your photo makes my case. I guess you too are victim of seeing too
many strobed images. Did you not notice the harsh shadows caused by
your strobe or the blown highlights in the window or the
underexposed table in the room to the right with the roses? This is
not normal to what the eye sees and this is what I'm talking about.

If Chuck's a victim, then so must be nearly every art director and
designer and decorator in the business.

While your approach to achieving proper white balance for
multiple color temperatures by shooting multiple exposures for each
color temperature is interesting, it is impractical in that it
would take a huge amount of time in post processing and would
skyrocket the cost beyond what my customers would pay.

Impractical for you but does that mean its impractical for everyone
? Do YOUR clients budget match the budget of everyones client ?

Many of the residential interiors I shoot are log cabins and have
very large great rooms. So large that it would take many strobes
and a lighting crew if one was going to light it that way.

Again, so because YOU have limited resources may mean its the best
solution for YOU but that hardly means you know more than the rest
of the industry.

You should at least attempt HDR using some of the better
tools available today before dismissing it so quickly.

Maybe you should do the same with some of the better tools out
there before dismissing using strobes ???

I'm sorry but if your judging a popular workflow of the whole
industry based upon what I'm guessing is very limited experience
with a few speedlights your making yourself look a bit foolish.

A good interior shoot can require half a day of setup, ND's
placed outside on all the windows, way more than 3 speedlights.

Sorry but your argument comes off sounding like those guys who say
you don't need a make up artist or stylist (because they dont have
one/never used one) for a portrait shoot anymore because you can do
it all in photoshop. You can use PS as a tool and enhance, but
its not a replacement. At the same time, yes HDR can be a good
tool, and it can work well to suppliment exisiting methods but its
not the holy grail of interiors.

I'm sorry that you took such offense to my post. As I said, flashed interiors have been around for over 3/4 of a century. Most (my estimate of over 80%) are comfortable with flashed interiors since that's all they've seen in their entire lifetime. HDR brings a new dimension to interior photography that most (and that, unfortunately, includes many pros) that just do not want to accept because it's contradictory to the way they've been shooting interiors. I understand this since many pros have many thousands of $$ invested in strobes, umbrellas and a lighting crew and aren't inclined to accept any new technique that would require a new learned approach to interior photography. However, HDR won't be denied and as time goes on HDR will mature into a technique that most informed pros will eventually embrace for interiors. I've used HDR for the last 100 interiors and have not received one single complaint. In fact, I've had nothing but positive feedback. Adobe would not have included HDR in their latest version of Photoshop if they did not believe it is worthwhile. However, I don't use PS for HDR.

HDR is just a tool. None of my tone mapped HDR images are finished. I still have to post process in Photoshop to achieve the desired results. But, without HDR, the results would not be acceptable. There is no single frame (either jpg or raw) that can compete with a true bracketed HDR conversion for dynamic range that resembles what the eye would see.

After spending the last 1 1/2 yrs. with HDR and the last 20 yrs. with flashed interiors I'm a BIG advocate of HDR and I'm not going back.

In the meantime, flame on.

-- hide signature --

Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Re: any HDR sample?
In reply to kenyee, Jun 26, 2007

Ok, I've got to conform to the copyright that I gave my customers but here's some that made it to the editing floor:

Here's another:

and another:

kenyee wrote:

I'm curious what you mean by better?

And I have seen properly lit flash interiors that are great. You
just have to color balance the flashes properly to keep it subtle
enough and highlight the right areas...

The number of images involved in the HDR is suggested in the file name.

-- hide signature --

Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TimFeak
Regular MemberPosts: 355
Like?
Lets stop the confrontation and start learing from eachothers different
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 26, 2007

approaches.

I am very interested in this thread because for the past 2 years I have been taking interiors with the multiple exposure layer masking technique. I tried HRD in photo shop and some other programmes and found the images very unreal looking and extreemly time consuming.

So I have settled on a manual approach but I am trying to up my game and am getting increasingly frustrated with this approach so am starting to use strobes again.

I remember when first using stobes the effect looked really plastic and I certainly have had some great results with multi exposures but I think that you probably have to be prepared to use a combination of approaches.

I would love to see some examples of peoples work showing the different approaches.

Tim Feak

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Edwards
Junior MemberPosts: 32
Like?
I agree
In reply to TimFeak, Jun 26, 2007

I agree that this is an interesting thread, and that more of us would benefit from
facts and figures rather than flames.

I have been shooting real estate interiors for several years, using a combination
of flash, ambient, and Photoshop blending (but no HDR). It would seem to me
each of us may have different opinions and experiences based on our clients and
their budgets.

I would love to shoot Architectural Digest quality, but my skill level is not there nor would my realtor clients pay for it. As an example, I may be allowed 1.5 to 2 hours

on site to shoot 10-12 interiors (these are not virtual tours, but better quality stills to market upper priced homes.) On the other hand, some of you may have the time and budget to spend several hours preparing and lighting one shot.

So in addition to showing samples, and discussing equipment, some information

about time and type of client could help us put these divergent opinions in context.

Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
UKphotographers
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,954
Like?
Re: any HDR sample?
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 26, 2007

Your sample photos look good Doug, and the reality of the situation is that your customers would see those interiors in the exact way that you have portrayed them. Which can't be a bad thing.

HDR is a great way to accomodate a larger tonal range than is possible in a single capture, but sometimes it is easier and equally effective to just add some fill with flash to balance up the contrast range rather than spend the time later in PP. Although, I don't think that Chuck's example quite hit the mark in promoting the use of flash in this respect.

The possibilities provided by alternative methods of capture can only be understood by those who know the difference between what is achieved and what could be achieved. HDR is one of those things which needs to be properly understood, and then used accordingly to provide the best possible result in whatever situation is faced.

There is a continual sliding scale between a technical interior shot and a creative interior shot which the photographer interprets to best suit his client. Only the client and the location predicts, so it's difficult to be objective without being immediately faced with the problem and options.

I'm interested in why you are emphatic about the colour balance of your exposures. Surely this can be adjusted later? Or have you discovered some other reason? I have to admit that shooting RAW and post processing does lead to laziness, and even the light meters and color meters are getting used less today.

After colour correcting thousands of images, I advocate using a single colour balance unless in extreme circumstances where the colour balance is obviously wide of the mark (5000 K is what I use. It works well in my workflow of D2X, CaptureOne and CS3).

I look forward to your explaination, It might bring on the revival of my colormeter.

Ian.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kenyee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,509Gear list
Like?
wow, 10-12 shots for each HDR?
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 27, 2007

That's impressive. I always thought you only needed to bracket 3-5 images

BTW, for strobe inspiration of real estate interiors:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53533693@N00/
but you do need quite a few strobes to even out all the lighting...

 kenyee's gear list:kenyee's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Re: any HDR sample?
In reply to UKphotographers, Jun 27, 2007

I have to admit that proper white balance for "in camera" images remains very elusive and I haven't discovered the perfect technique yet (I'm not sure there is one). Most of my shots have mixed color temperatures with daylight, incandescent and florescent. This is problematic in a production environment. Couple that with the fact that my Canon 10D seems prone to provide an over abundance of yellow in a mixed environment and I end up with images that need a good post processing technique. Still, if the images out of the camera have a proper color balance or close to it they always turn out better in post with less work.

I have much work to do in the area of white balance and I'll try your suggestion of 5000k. The most challenging shot for me is a room lit with only incandescent lighting, yellow wood walls, yellow wood floor and yellow wood ceiling (typical log cabin stuff). Even the incandescent wb setting on my 10D can't get that one right but the ExpoDisc usually does. I may have to upgrade my camera body. Which other body might provide better wb is a question I don't have an answer to yet.

I live and work in a rural environment where the fees that can be charged aren't as much as they might be in a larger metropolitan area. To make this work productive I have to reduce my costs. My on site equipment now consists of a carbon fiber tripod, 3 way geared head, bubble level mounted in the hot shoe, 90 angle finder, 12-24 lens and ExpoDisc. This minimalistic combo works very well and allows a room to be shot quickly. I used to use several wireless flashes but my customers prefer the "natural" look so I'm sticking with what they want. To provide that almost always requires HDR.
--
Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
Re: wow, 10-12 shots for each HDR?
In reply to kenyee, Jun 27, 2007

kenyee wrote:

That's impressive. I always thought you only needed to bracket 3-5
images

BTW, for strobe inspiration of real estate interiors:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53533693@N00/
but you do need quite a few strobes to even out all the lighting...

I started out using 4-5 shots for HDR but quickly discovered that more images gives better results and captures more of the subtleties of natural light. For interiors that have globe type lights you can get detail out of the light if you have enough exposures. It's not uncommon for me to shoot a 10 stop range in 1/2 stop increments. I can review which ones go to HDR later.

I'd be willing to bet that camera bodies of the future will have a larger built-in bracketing range. Just specify how many stops and whether to change shutter speed, aperture or both. HDR must have a constant aperture.
--
Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Walker
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,119
Like?
My technique
In reply to Dave Edwards, Jun 27, 2007

Dave Edwards wrote:

I agree that this is an interesting thread, and that more of us
would benefit from
facts and figures rather than flames.

I have been shooting real estate interiors for several years, using
a combination
of flash, ambient, and Photoshop blending (but no HDR). It would
seem to me
each of us may have different opinions and experiences based on our
clients and
their budgets.

I would love to shoot Architectural Digest quality, but my skill
level is not there nor would my realtor clients pay for it. As an
example, I may be allowed 1.5 to 2 hours
on site to shoot 10-12 interiors (these are not virtual tours, but
better quality stills to market upper priced homes.) On the other
hand, some of you may have the time and budget to spend several
hours preparing and lighting one shot.

So in addition to showing samples, and discussing equipment, some
information
about time and type of client could help us put these divergent
opinions in context.

Thanks.

I have a similar market with similar requirements. I've gone to HDR because of the reduced on site time and the results that can be achieved. However, post processing has increased. This is fine in view of the fact that my customers prefer HDR images even though they don't know what it is and don't really care as long as the results are good. Since going to HDR my business has increased. I experimented with HDR a great deal before actually using it on a job. I was a little apprehensive about what my clients would think even though I thought the results were good. That was about a year and half ago. Now my clients are requesting "that natural look".

Here's my technique for HDR:
Equipment:
1. Tripod
2. 3 way geared head
3. Bubble level mounted in hot shoe
4. Wide angle lens
5. Angle finder
6. ExpoDisc or some way to obtain proper white balance

On site technique:
1. Set the tripod to about 4 ft. or so.
2. Level the camera
3. Set up the white balance
a. Set the camera to Auto and the wb to AWB
b. Cover the lens with the ExpoDisc and take a shot

c. Set the camera to Custom wb and choose the shot you just took as the white balance. Check with your manual on how to do this.
4. Set the camera to manual and aperture to f13 or so
5. Take one shot at the shutter speed recommended by the camera

6. Shoot 4-5 stops under and 4-5 stops over in 1/2 stop increments changing only the shutter speed. HDR requires a constant aperture.
Repeat steps 3-6 for the next area.

HDR processing:
1. Use whatever HDR software tool you prefer. I use Photomatrix.

2. Open the images in Photomatrix. After Photomatrix loads the images it will display a HDR image. Don't be dismayed, it will look awful. (I use 2 monitors and have Photomatrix on one and FastStone viewer on the other. This makes it much easier to choose which images to send to your HDR program.

a. Apply a tone map. The tone map window will appear and here's where it gets a little tricky. You'll have to play around with the tone mapping settings until you get an image that looks correct or close to it. Be patient, there is a steep learning curve here and this is where most over process their HDR images. Photomatrix allows your settings to be saved and has a default setting as well if you get lost. There is an optional "Tone Compressor" method in the window but I haven't been able to get any decent image using it.
b. Click OK in the tone map window and save the tone mapped image

Post processing the HDR image:

I have found that most all Tone Mapped HDR images require post processing. Depending on your image, post process may take different avenues. You may have developed your own way of post processing. Here's what I generally do:
1. Open the tone mapped image in Photoshop.

2. If the image appears too dark you may want to download and use this action: http://www.digerati-imaging.com/photoshopactions/lightenimage.zip . That action uses a masking technique so highlights are not lightened.
3. Apply Levels.

a. In Levels choose Options. In Options check Snap to Neutral Midtones. Set both the Shadows and Highlights in this window to 0.10%. Experiment with levels until your image looks correct.

4. After applying levels, you might want to create a new snapshot in the History tab. This will provide a comparison as you experiment with other post processing.
5. Use the Shadow/Highlight tool if necessary.
6. Remove any wires or other unwanted items from the image.

7. I use an iCorrect plug-in that offers point and click color correction that generally does a good job of color correcting an image very quickly. See http://www.pictocolor.com .
8. If resizing for the web you may want to sharpen using "smart sharpen"

9. If necessary, apply some local area contrast. This is done by using the Unsharp Mask tool set to 20/20. Play around with this setting to suit.

-- hide signature --

Doug Walker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter Berressem
Forum ProPosts: 10,647
Like?
a tad out of topic...a suggestion
In reply to Doug Walker, Jun 27, 2007

Judged by this image

you may add a lens correction tool to your digital workbench.
DxO, PTLens et al

-- hide signature --

cheers, Peter

Germany

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Edwards
Junior MemberPosts: 32
Like?
Re: DxO and lens correction
In reply to Peter Berressem, Jun 27, 2007

I've found DxO very useful, not only for lens corrections, but overall enhancements.

For (just) $149, two thumbs up.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads