I think it probably does look a bit more realistic. The stone might have been a fraction darker.

So - what do you reckon, Nigel? An improved HDR from several images, re-processing of a single image - or something else? Is it realistic enough for you?


Andrew

Technically realistic rendition? I don't know. I think it might be a little better. You folks can guess for yourselves how it was produced.




and a 100% crop ..........




Better, worse or just different? I quite like it.

Andrew

I think LR/Enfuse is actually quite good. It can do either HDR or focus stacking. I'm sure it can produce better results than I have seen so far - especially if I don't try (too much) to "improve" the image afterwards.

Up to press I have only played with it. Maybe I need to spend more serious time with it to get the best from it.

Andrew

I think I've learned quite a bit in this thread - and thanks to everyone who has contributed to that. Some of that is really re-learning stuff that I thought I knew anyway - such as shooting RAW and exposing to just avoid clipping highlights. It seems to work quite well even for fairly extreme subjects like stained glass windows in a church and landscapes with fluffy white clouds (which I should use ND grads for anyway).

I'm looking forward to seeing what the judge in my club comp is going to make of the stained glass HDR print I submitted. Maybe I should barrack if he doesn't mark it down.

Andrew

Nope, just the reverse. As I said of the last image, all I've done is lift the shadows & blacks so that the stone isn't completely black - and sharpen a bit. Other than that, it's exactly as a JPEG out of camera would have been.

In my book, the crop from the original HDR is ....... awful. I can't believe that I put that image into a photo club comp.

Andrew

Nigel, this is a crop from the first HDR image at the start of the thread.




You don't really think that's better than the crop from the single image immediately above, do you?

Andrew

Nigel - I agree with what you say, to an extent, about making selections and masking not being so simple. It would only be worth it if I regarded the stonework as being an important element of the photo. In a club comp, it's likely that the image would be marked down if the stonework was completely black with no detail.

Bearing that in mind, I have here just taken the single image (0.5sec exp) and lifted the shadows and blacks in Lightroom & added some sharpening.




and a 100% crop ..........




I'm not sure I can do much better with a single image. FWIW, I definitely prefer it to the first image in the thread. I remain unconvinced of the benefits of HDR software.

Andrew

Yep, I did try that. No matter what I do, it leaves the large blue area in the left hand pane looking purple.

Andrew

I am coming to think that the advantage of the Smeggypants cut & paste using two images approach, is that you have full control of the output - which isn't the case if you use HDR software (even the simple LR/Enfuse plugin in Lightroom).


Andrew

FWIW, this is the default output of a HDR produced by LR/Enfuse from the 0.5sec image and one three stops lighter (4sec).




I think HDR & LR/Enfuse just went on the back burner again. It doesn't seem to have anything to offer for this kind of image. I think now, for this kind of image, Smeggypants suggestion of using two images - one for the glass and the other for the stonework and then doing a cut and paste job might work best.


Andrew