Thanks Will, I appeciate that, very pleased you like them

Thanks also stub!

I like the suggestion from chris above about trying a sextrypt (?) sort of montage, and I will have a go at it.

Thanks to everyone else who have commented also

There's become a trend towards the 'one-stop-shop' solution in RAW software - each update brings more and features previously only available in the most powerful pixel editors - many of the selective options that smeggypants refers to.

I believe this complicates RAW working far too much - it moves it away from the process of being an initial 'development' (the equivilent to developing a negative) and into the terrain of output preparation.

I have found it helpful to maintain clear dividing lines in workflow between the different image stages - and that is helped by the use of specific software at each stage that plays to the key needs of the image as it moves through the chain.

I think you're right Andrew, that Lightroom software does have its limitations.

I don't agree on that assessment - there is obvious brushwork on the window frames and an unnatural transition of light and colour blending from the glass to the interior in all the 'blended' versions. I grant that the specific HDR example here, looked at closely, is a bit rough around the edges (literally!), but that just means we need to try for better HDR processing - its doesn't mean we should auto-resort to the lessor ideal technique.

I've stuck my neck out and offered to give it a go in Photomatix - lets see if I'll have to eat my words ... or just practice HDR more & more

I not a batch processor, far from it - I use what I term an 'optimised' workflow ... that means DNG, main conversion adjustments in Sagelight, output to 16bit TIFF, then into PS - the 'optimised' term really just means that each shot is treated individually, with the key processes applied in a manner that is unique to each shot's needs.

Its not 'commercial' of course, but then unless you're dealing with a large series of similar images shot in controlled lighting, then batch work (battery image farming?) is not going to make the most of every shot I feel.

I don't see any advantage in reducing detail at RAW conversion stage - and allowing all the noise present to be exported out at full quality gives the chance to deal with it in the most flexible & targeted way. I find that detailing and micro-contrast work at the output stage is higher quality when the detail was there already.

You'll have to be patient I'm afraid - I've got AGs shots, but work is taking up today, so maybe another day or so. Topaz is a highly effective NR tool with excellent 'DeBlur' and detail recovery - its does need time invested and experience on different subjects, but that is the same with any high quality photo software.

The point about NR in Photoshop using plugins is that it takes advantage of the full power of layers - you make different NR operations for targeted areas of the shot. You don't apply a blacks correction with no detail recovery to foliage or grasses for example - thats a different process applied via layers and masking. The NR is optimised throughout the image in this way.

Take away noise 'at source' during RAW conversion and you also take away detail - at the highest quality point in the chain.

Take a look at my 'stranger pics' - all with colour & luminance noise and detail restored on the fabrics and whites using Topaz DeNoise - and a separate shadows operation (higher shadow strength plus colour with zero detail recovery) on the black backgrounds. And all done on the 'master TIFF' in 16bit in PS. No NR at all during RAW conversion (Sagelight 4.0).

I must emphasise these are full adult-sized consenting strangers.

That was the idea! A different take on the 'strangers' theme Glad they've gone down well. What might surprise perhaps is the fact that these are not indoor shots - these are taken from the street through a shop window on a walkabout around South Kensington. True street portraits

A testimony to Pentax technology & 40 year old optics - as well as to the very expensive window cleaners employed around this part of town!

If any single exposure that is based around an scene's key tone/s cannot encompass the full camera DR, then that will always be a technical compromise. There's so much talk here about underexposing midtones in an effort to prevent a total blowout at the top - just because a camera might offer the possibility of reasonable shadow lifting doesn't mean that should become best practice.

Better to get the required optimized exposures for a number of key tones and use the HDR to compress them ... we may have more practice to do in perfecting this technique, but that doesn't mean its not the most worthy goal.

Never really felt too comfortable about doing this kind of thing, but have seen so many of this type of pic lately that I'm prompted to have a go. Took off from work early evening on a break to see what I'd find. Felt a bit nervous at first, but soon warmed up and was put at ease.

A bit worried these first efforts might look a bit rigid or wooden, but guess its down to 'practice practice & practice'. Hopefully if I head back sometime soon I might find them there again.

All with the K7 & Tamron Adaptall 135mm f2.8, all at f4.0. As always, C & Cs most welcome!




















































Thanks for checking them out