Dramatic Tone filter vs. Lightroom [image comparison]

I had a recent order for a large print (24x32") as part of a multi-print installation in a client's home. They wanted an image that they had seen that I had posted on Facebook that was a conversion to B&W of the in-camera (E-M5) color Dramatic Tone filter JPEG. While the image looked perfectly adequate at web-resolution, it clearly wasn't going to cut it for a print, much less a large-scale print.

So, I went into the RAW file to see what I could do in Lightroom to re-create the overall look and feel of the filter while minimizing the excessive grain/noise and a few other weird things the filter did (a few dark patches on ground and clouds). Comparison results below, with the OOC file posted at the end.

It took more work than I thought, but I am pleased with the results. I am confident the final large print will look great, even given that it is up-rezzed to 300 pixels per inch from 138 pixels per inch (original file cropped slightly) at that print size.

One extra observation: I likely wouldn't have seen that composition and the correspondence between the clouds shapes and the hill shape if I had not had the Dramatic Tone filter turned on in the E-M5 at the time. Just one of the many advantages of Live View through the EVF!

B&W JPEG conversion of the in-camera Dramatic Tone filter:

Re-worked RAW file in Lightroom:

original out-of-the camera RAW file:

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Love, love, love the composition and mood! But for some reason prefer more dramatic look from in camera filter, feel that part of initial attractiveness is gone in Lightroom version. Have you looked into Nik's Silver Efex?

Very nice image. I much prefer the lightroom pic, the dramatic tone filter looks over processed to me.

Great ! Thanks for sharing with us. A more technical question : what software/technique are you using to up sample from 130 dpi to 300 ?

TIA for your answer.

--
rrr_hhh

Very, very nice. The LR version is almost exactly the same as the in-camera version. Have you tried entering a negative value into Highlight to try to reduce some of the bright cloud near the horizon?

Very nice image and composition.
I think you can get a even better B&W result with nik silver efex (get more structure in the clouds), compared to the dramatic tone conversion.

Thanks! I should have mentioned that I did not try to completely duplicate the Dramatic Tone version and purposely kept the contrast a little more reduced. The LR version included a -1 EV gradient filter on the sky, along with an overall -100 Highlight value.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Very, very nice...!

Would you like sharing what exactly you did. I have been looking a long time to recreate the filter through LR, but never really accomplished it...

Txs 4 sharing!

--
Cheers,
Marc
http://www.digifotofreak.nl

Here are the basics for that image.

Overall:

• Exposure and Blacks to suit image
• Highlights: -100
• Shadows: +85
• Clarity: +75
• Tone Curve: Medium Contrast
• boosted Yellow, Orange, and Green substantially in B&W Mix conversion

Gradient filter on sky:

• Exposure: -1.00
• Clarity: +50
• Contrast: +50

Mask on hillside:

• Contrast: +50
• Clarity: +50
  

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

The original image looks good, though it's underexposed it can be easily fixed. The black clouds and white ground, harsh contrast, b&w conversion on the other images -- look ugly, can't understand why anybody would like it.

Thanks for the input.

It's not underexposed according to the histogram if you want to preserve highlight detail in the sky/clouds.

Somebody not only liked it, but is paying a lot of $ for the print. Apparently other people on the thread like it too. Tastes vary though - you don't have to agree.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

I think the dark part on the right hand side of the hill, and the way it's more or less parallel to the hill's silhouette and the line in the cloud, reinforces the image's strength on the filter version. The LR version is much lighter in that part, which means there're only 2 lines going from lower left to upper right, instead of 3.

Good point. In my experience, the Dramatic Filter in general tends to add some dark patchy "blobs" to images (you can see another one at the far left of the hillside, and several in the clouds), and in this case it does seem to accentuate that line that you mention. I did purposely not try to replicate the extreme contrast of the filter version, but perhaps that area suffered for it.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Good taste is something that can't be acquired so it is understandable why you can't understand why people like it.

shooting raw, or at least raw+jpeg, is so valuable. Whether one likes the original version or the LR version better, it beyond argument that you couldn't have done nearly as much with the jpeg as with the raw file.

--
OM-D for sale; see classifieds forum.

Thanks. That was my intention: I liked the "drama" in the Dramatic Tone filter, but it was a little over-the-top and overcooked in my eyes, at least for a larger print.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

I am not suggesting washing out the clouds, rather lifting up the shadows -- it will produce a more cheerful look.

I perfectly understand this, the buyer is always right I'm not talking about it. Unfortunately, I noticed people too often like the gimmicks because it requires a good taste to appreciate subtle and unimposing image, while most prefer in-your-face photography with garrish colors, over the edge contrast, strong tone mapping, sharpening, etc. So I must say, I very much dislike dramatic tone, or excessive tone mapping -- it might appeal to many people, but it looks unsavory to me. I guess, just like everything else it follows 90/10 principle.

I just meant the unprocessed RAW file is correctly exposed. A processed version would need exactly what you say.

In this case, yeah.

I'm with you there. Or at least 90% there.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Thanks.

Yours was one of several mentions of Nik Silver Efex. I might have to look into it, though I don't do much B&W these days - funny, since in my "full-frame" (film) days, I worked almost exclusively in B&W.

Can you elaborate on your experience with the Nik software and/or provide some before/after samples to show what it can do?

As far as the "structure" in the clouds, I should probably mention that some of it is "false" structure created by the extra grain and/or dark blobs from the Dramatic Filter.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Update: the MetalPrints arrived today from Bay Photo.

The 24x32" photo was up-rezzed in Lightroom to 300 pixels per inch from the 138 pixels per inch native 16MB file from the E-M5 (minus slight cropping). Even at a viewing distance of 12 inches, things look very sharp and detailed. At a reasonable viewing distance of 3 to 5 feet it's great.

Also noted: the processing does not look overly contrasty in the print - the tonal transitions are very smooth and the scene has a natural feel.

While the MetalPrints are very pricey, they are a nice way to present work and don't require any framing or glazing. I ordered the "White Satin" finish ("smooth, very even and soft appearance. Great for portraits, weddings and if surface reflection is a concern.") rather than the glossy.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally