HDr with LR/Enfuse

Started Aug 25, 2009 | Discussions
UtahManSir Veteran Member • Posts: 4,659
Re: HDr with LR/Enfuse

Thanks for the write up, will have to try it!

Cheers,

Lloyd
--

You don't have to like me, you just have to do what I tell you to do. I'm a Physical Therapist!

http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/

OP headmj Contributing Member • Posts: 609
Another photo reporcessed from 10/2006

The photo below is from October 2006 and my K100D. I reprocessed the raw file into 2 tif files. The first to hold the sky and far mountain. The second to get the exposure of the trees and the creek in the forground correct. I then blended them using the default ENfuse settings. The output tif was then processed in PS for contrast and saturation. The whole process took about 20 minutes! I have been playing with this file for almost 3 years and I got a pretty decent output in that short a time. This is too cool! Save those raw files you never know when a new tool will solve your problem.

Mike

jonathan68 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

Hi

That's a great unprocessed image from Enfuse.

Enfuse, default settings

I'm not so fond of the over the top HDR of the other two images though. I'd attempt to increase the contrast of the unprocessed image, or apply some manual dodge and burn to increase its punchiness, shadow and highlight detail while maintaining a natural look.

Do you have one of the originals pre enfuse to compare with?

Here is one of my own attempts using Photomatix...

http://www.dublincameraclub.ie/joomla/index.php?option=com_g2bridge&view=gallery&Itemid=58&g2_itemId=779&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

I always try to avoid making the image overtly HDR. I'll definitely give Enfuse a go... cheers

jonathan68 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

... Found another version of my photo that displays directly...

jonathan68 wrote:

Hi

That's a great unprocessed image from Enfuse.

I'm not so fond of the over the top HDR of the other two images though. I'd attempt to increase the contrast of the unprocessed image, or apply some manual dodge and burn to increase its punchiness, shadow and highlight detail while maintaining a natural look.

Do you have one of the originals pre enfuse to compare with?

Here is one of my own attempts using Photomatix...

http://www.dublincameraclub.ie/joomla/index.php?option=com_g2bridge&view=gallery&Itemid=58&g2_itemId=779&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

I always try to avoid making the image overtly HDR. I'll definitely give Enfuse a go... cheers

OP headmj Contributing Member • Posts: 609
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

Jonathan,

Stunning photo.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjhphoto/
GMT -5

Model Mike Veteran Member • Posts: 3,848
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

jonathan68 wrote:

Hi

Do you have one of the originals pre enfuse to compare with?

These are the first, middle and last exposures (out ot 9)

I'd attempt to increase the contrast of the unprocessed image, or apply some manual dodge and burn to increase its punchiness, shadow and highlight detail while maintaining a natural look.

Thank you for this great tip, and for sharing your beautiful image.

I have used the dodge/burn techique before to increase local contrast, but had sort of forgotten about it, in favour of using the "extreme USM" method. Here's my quick attempt using dodge/burn to increase foreground detail (before & after). I'm sure a lot more could be done with a bit more practice:

Enfused, no PP:

Enfused, with dodge/burn in Photoshop:

Cheers
--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

jonathan68 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

Thanks for the compliment.

I think one needs to be careful if a natural look is what's being looked for.

In the post-processed image I think the foreground looks overcooked. It is too bright for the sky, like a spotlight is shining on it. I'd darken it down, but leaving some highlight detail using curves. The closer into the foreground, the darker you can make it, but be subtle

Model Mike Veteran Member • Posts: 3,848
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

jonathan68 wrote:

Thanks for the compliment.

In the post-processed image I think the foreground looks overcooked. It is too bright for the sky, like a spotlight is shining on it. I'd darken it down, but leaving some highlight detail using curves. The closer into the foreground, the darker you can make it, but be subtle

Thanks for the feedback Jonathan.

-- hide signature --
OP headmj Contributing Member • Posts: 609
Re: Photomatix v. Enfuse compared

jonathan68 wrote:

Thanks for the compliment.

I think one needs to be careful if a natural look is what's being looked for.

A natural presentation is what I look for and you are correct that most HDR tends to produce a somewhat unnatural effect in a lot of landscapes.

In the post-processed image I think the foreground looks overcooked. It is too bright for the sky, like a spotlight is shining on it. I'd darken it down, but leaving some highlight detail using curves. The closer into the foreground, the darker you can make it, but be subtle

Henrik Melander Contributing Member • Posts: 543
Re: HDr with LR/Enfuse

Finaly came through and donated so I could produce som bigger images

Just like I wanted them, no blown colours

OP headmj Contributing Member • Posts: 609
Re: HDr with LR/Enfuse

Really lovely Henrik! How many source images did you use? What selections did you make in the options?

Mike

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads