PIX 2015
Ellen Anon

Ellen Anon

Lives in United States United States
Works as a photographer/writer/educator
Has a website at www.ellenanon.com
Joined on Aug 17, 2011


Total: 49, showing: 41 – 49
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tinternaut: Nice article. I've had some limited success using a grad ND (and await the opportunity to practice this more) and I've experimented with Photomatix but really, I prefer to wait for the best of the light and capture as much data as possible (and sometimes that means taking Aperture's burn brush to the sky and the occasional bit of dodging).

I agree with you that its' best, when possible, is to wait for the best light and capture as much information as possible in camera. My approach is to take the time to capture the best image possible in camera, then optimize it in the post processing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

CARREGAL70: Nice article - thankyou! I have a Sony Nex 5n coming. Can the HDR and DR functions on this camera supplant post editing in PS Elements 9. In other words does it make ND filters and post editing obsolete?

Could you explain the effects of other graduated colour filters such as Cokin graduated mauve, blue and sunset. I realise this is a subject for another article but thankyou again for this one.

I've not had a chance to try the particular camera you mention but as a general rule when features like this are available in camera they may mean less post processing work.. However the caveat is that the camera will make its best guess as to how you want the image to look, but it may not always get it right. After all, it's using algorithms programmed into it for scenes that seem similar to what you're viewing through the camera, but sometimes it may misunderstand or you may prefer a slightly different interpretation.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Not sure but can this be done in Photoshop CS5 - Image > Adjustment > Shadow/ Highlight Tool.
Kindly comment......

As you know there are always numerous ways to accomplish a task when using Photoshop. The Shadow/Highlight tool can be used, but it tends to sacrifice mid tone contrast in order to gain visibility of detail in the shadows and highlights. If you use S/H, I recommend decreasing the tonal width as far as possible that will let you still modify the lights and darks as much as needed. Sometimes this adjustment works well as a starting point. Thanks for asking about it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 09:00 UTC
In reply to:

canondigi: Can anyone comment on the use of the digital split ND filter in LR3? I've tried to use it but it's not very easy to get good results....

You can adjust the angle as well as the distance for the transition from light to dark using the tool in LR, but again, it must follow a linear path, which is less than ideal in many situations. Nk's approach is more flexible I think.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 02:47 UTC
In reply to:

canuck dave: Thanks Ellen Anon. Some good info here.
But with some of the negative 'input' posted here it makes one wonder why folks should go to the effort of trying to help one another.

Thanks Dave. I agree it would be nice if people were perhaps a bit more polite, but discussion is good and it's OK for people to have differing opinions. One of the nice things about digital processing is that there are so many ways to go about doing something and you never know where you're going to pick up a tip that will serve you well. I'm glad you found some of the info helpful. That's my goal.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

Z (is real): (My name is Zalman Stern. I work on Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom.)

Both Camera Raw and Lightroom have a gradient tool built-in, which is not shown in the article. (It is separate from the brushing tool.) Significantly, local corrections (gradient or brushed) within Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom work on results within the raw processing pipeline and thus are different than layer blending after raw conversion in Photoshop or via Nik's plug-ins (which also work on converted images).

As always, there are many ways to work on a photo, but the built-in gradient tool using the Exposure channel is the simplest and fastest way to simulate an ND grad filter. The same applies to most other full featured raw conversion programs.

Nik makes great products and if one prefers their approach, then one should use their software. However, the easy no extra plug-ins solution works great too and should be covered in a general audience article such as this.

Zalman, BAB, and Amanda, thanks for the comments. Indeed there are always lots of ways to get to an end result in a digital darkroom and you have mentioned a couple other good approaches. We added coverage about the Gradient Filters that Zalman mentioned, but as I said in the article, the issue is that they require a linear path which is often not what you have in a real world situation. BAB, before the days of HDR programs I always taught people to process images that way when they encountered these issues. The challenge lies in accurately creating the layer mask which can be time consuming. But again, the more approaches that you know, the more tools you have in your arsenal. Then you can select the best one for you to use to optimize your image to get the look that YOU want.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 02:41 UTC
In reply to:

increments: I don't think Aperture (without a plugin) does have an adjustment brush that would mimic a ND filter.

If I'm wrong please correct me because it would be very useful!

Thanks for responding Paul, and you are absolutely correct. Aperture 3 has an entire series of adjustment brushes and is a major improvement over what was available in Aperture 2.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 02:35 UTC
In reply to:

krebss: Why is HDR always resumed to Photomatix? Yes it's the most used software for HDR but it's far from being the best for natural results (unless your really master it) and ease to use. I use DPHDR and can get very realistic or dramatic results very easily depending on my mood. And there are many others.

I've stopped using Photomatix exactly because of the look of the image above. No other HDR software give this ugly look.

Also, in the Pros, you say "may not need any further work" well, in most case I disagree. I can't remember any image I didn't improved in post processing after the tone-mapping.

There are many programs that do HDR and I tried to give examples from three popular ones - not just Photomatix. Each HDR program gives slightly different results and has different advantages and disadvantages. Some find one easier to use than another or you may prefer the look of one or another.. I find that when I use the Nik HDR Efex Pro I often don't need any further processing because it includes a Curves adjustment as well as Saturation, etc that can be globally or locally applied.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

jdhill66: Another situation where this technique is helpful is casual flash photography where near portions are too hot and far portions are too dark.

Good point, although ideally with a flash you can set the camera exposure for the ambient light and then adjust the flash ( reduce it's output) to properly light the subject. However sme built in flashes don't let you reduce their output readily ( although you can trick it by putting a piece of tissue in front of it to decrease the output.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2011 at 18:08 UTC
Total: 49, showing: 41 – 49
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »