Too bright, too dark, Just Right

On the other hand, this Edinburgh shot was taken on a dull day and required a bit of tweaking to match what my eye was seeing.

Dukes Quarries shot on the HDR1 setting. Would be interested in whether people find this 'natural'.




Non HDR shots showed either totally blown highlights/sky, or correct highlights and sky amidst blackness!

Although film shots (Ektar 100) fared a lot better.




If these shots are looking dark I will know I can't trust the monitor on this Mac...

Green doesn't do so well when over-exposed. It gets a distinct yellow-green look. So I think the first shot has the upper trees going into that territory and a bit less exposure might have been helpful. This would bring it more into line with the second shot.

In bright sunlight you can just use the 'Sunny 16' Rule.
A greycard (mid-grey) should be around 117R 117G 117B

This is just off a 'Sunny 16' shot straight from the
JPG.

The granite flags average about the same as the greycard.
The white isn't burnt out and the ivy leaf which reads
2/3 stop darker than the greycard with a Pentax Digital
Spotmeter looks a lot darker. The shadow of my head is
reading 3 stops below the greycard, but is almost black.

Grass is usually 1/2 to 1 stop below a greycard.




When converted to B&W the leaf looks a lot darker.




So shots in bright sunlight should look dark.


'

Here's a shot that I took on holiday in Thailand. I was using a PL-Cir filter to compensate for the very strong overhead sunlight, hence the blue sky. Since it's hard to gauge without shadows as a reference point, I have to rely upon how I memorised the scene. Some of you might think it's a wee bit over-exposed - others might think it's about right. For sure, I don't think anyone can accuse me of under-exposing this shot!!

Edit: you might have noticed the blemish just between the 2 sets of clouds on the upper-left hand side. I've yet to get around to editing the photos that were taken on hol's, since I'm back to working double-shifts this week. As soon as I get some free time, and my mind's fresh, it'll be on my to-do list!!

To me, the first absolutely! This represents the scene in a manner that would be experienced by the viewer in person - I believe the eyes take in a scene like this in a type of scanning fashion, automatically compensating and making the exposure and contrast adjustments in a kind of 'continuous HDR' process.

The Second, not really, because the shadow areas are 'unnaturally' dark and would have been compensated for by this 'continuous HDR' process by the viewer in person.

It is my view (and I'm not trying to defend my Cannizarro shots here as meeting any kind of realism ideal :wink, that the photographic medium is incapable rendering scenes like these (and my Cannizaro shots) on a single frame. I know John been saying my shots are no challenge to the camera, but I have to contend this.

Granted, Johns own shot here probably is within the DR of the camera, but my scenes contain considerable and very bright areas of sky, as well as the deep shadows that everyone has been saying must be portrayed almost fully black! Thats very challenging I think, and why I chose the HDR approach. When I tried the alternative working with just the mid range DNG I am really struggling with the quality at both ends of the scale.

That first Dukes Quarries HDR shot is the first HDR that has (knowingly) fooled my eyes into looking natural. If those leaves have gone a bit yellow my brain just says they are fresh spring foliage.

I love the richness of that second shot - film has done you proud there. There is even lots of detail in those apparently blocked up shadows, I've extracted just a bit of that for the sceptics (Nigel ) but there is a LOT more there. Trouble is that throwing too much light into the shadows destroyed the atmosphere so I backed it off to about 30%.




And overdone just to show what is there.

Interesting! I actually added a bit more contrast, and increased the saturation and yellowness of the greens in the first shot. Straight out of HDR, it seemed a bit cool and neutral to me, given it was early evening. I was aiming for the richness of colours in the second shot but seems like I overdid it. The original shot is here.

The second shot, I actually darkened the foreground / path a bit. I had previously pulled up the shadows a bit as you did, but thought I was killing the atmos a bit and the grain was starting to show. So I knocked it back again, possibly too far!

All this tweaking and adjusting of colour and brightness gives me a headache to be honest. I'm very indecisive and find it hard to draw a line in the sand and stop fiddling with my pictures in Photoshop.

This K-m shot I originally linked to in another thread recently looks normal to me.




John K

Here's a couple of mine, but NOT HDR this time . Just run through my normal processes. But these scenes are more evenly lit I think, so I accept do not present such a challenge to the camera. I see them as well exposed and 'natural'.










For interest, both shot with the 'K' 75-150 zoom.

John's original landscape shot at the start of this thread looks OK to me. Greens look green (not yellow-ish) and the whole scene is easily 'readable' with believable light and shade.

The Quarry HDR by Pentaxophile looks OK to me, except the greens are a little vibrant.

John K's Railway shot looks pretty good to me, strong but natural colouring and good light, sky is not blown out and the blue in the sky is right.

Nigel's two 'natural' shots above do not however look right to me. The colours are too saturated to be 'natural', in particular the blues in the sky are too bright and not the correct shade of blue - too much Cyan?

Regards
David

Agreed David, it's still a bit unrealistic.

A sunny day (7/5/13, 3.08 p.m.) at Stowe:




Philip

Nigel's road scene looks to me to have some odd colour banding in the sky. Overall the scene seems a bit too bright again. Could it be the brightness setting on the monitor being is a little too dark? How does a jpeg from the camera without any external processing look? The clock tower one seems to lack contrast.

MrB's building above looks right to me.

John K

I don't find any of these shots particularly natural. I think my eyes would naturally interpret these scenes rather differently. For example, in the first image I would not expect to see the shadow cast by the hedge to look anywhere near that dark, likewise the black shadow in the background trees. The brightest areas in the above shot I think are much brighter than how my imaging machinery works and the shadows deeper.

So personally, contrast is the most important factor and I think the best way to produce an image of a scene that is most faithful to human light processing is by choosing a scene that is naturally much lower in contrast than any of the above images. A dull grey sky I think gives more realistitic results. I think the choice of focal length, depth of field and aspect ratio has a part to play as well, not just brightness and colour.