Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:00 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

Vvcarpio!

I don't know why you do what you do, in such an order? You have explained some of the resons, but I am not with you at all.

Forget about resizing before the HDR-process - unless your files ar really big, compared to mine, or they are RAW-files. My average file is 4,5 to 5 Mb and generally 4000pixels wide and 3000pixels high. DPHDR has no problem in chewing up 5 exposures of that size to make one HDR, and I have a pretty old and not so strong PC.

I am also amazed by the percentage of your sharpening-process. Isn't 500% a lot? In the back of my head I have the figures 110 to 120% for sharpening in PSE. What you do is too much perhaps, altering too much?

But then I do not use PSE to sharpen at all. I only sharpen images that have been reduced in size, because the resize-process deterioizes (??) IQ.

My resize-process is done with IrfanView 4.23 very nice and problem-free. I also use IrfanView for the end sharpening-process.

Good luck, vvcarpio.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:29 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter_S View Post
Vvcarpio!

I don't know why you do what you do, in such an order? You have explained some of the resons, but I am not with you at all.

Forget about resizing before the HDR-process - unless your files ar really big, compared to mine, or they are RAW-files. My average file is 4,5 to 5 Mb and generally 4000pixels wide and 3000pixels high. DPHDR has no problem in chewing up 5 exposures of that size to make one HDR, and I have a pretty old and not so strong PC.

I am also amazed by the percentage of your sharpening-process. Isn't 500% a lot? In the back of my head I have the figures 110 to 120% for sharpening in PSE. What you do is too much perhaps, altering too much?

But then I do not use PSE to sharpen at all. I only sharpen images that have been reduced in size, because the resize-process deterioizes (??) IQ.

My resize-process is done with IrfanView 4.23 very nice and problem-free. I also use IrfanView for the end sharpening-process.

Good luck, vvcarpio.
Hi, Walter. I do a lot of handheld bracketed shots -- especially my city shots -- so I do a lot of pin-warping. Pins in DPHDR slow down processing considerably so I find reducing the size first convenient. The practice has carried over to my tripod-mounted shots, too.

Sometimes, even if a see no warping, I leave the pin anyway because I don't trust my eyes all too well. I like to think that DPHDR has made minuscule alignments not visible on my computer screen. And sometimes, I do see the misalignments after I process them so I go back and redo. Also, with smaller images, not only does it run faster but the images align better, too, I think because there's less to align.

To me, it's probably a choice between losing detail due to misalignment or losing detail due to resizing. Either way, I lose.

An "amount" value "500%" I think is a lot if I use the default "radius" value of "1" (that comes with a default "amount" value of "100%"). So I reduce radius to 0.3 or 0.4 or until I see pixellation and also check the "more refined" checkbox.

Thanks, Walter.
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:30 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

That is way too much sharpening. especially since you have already boosted fine contrast in the HDR process.

It really shouldn't need too much, and should be done after resize.

try like 70-80%, radius 1, threshold 1 and then play with it from there.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:48 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

You can easily see image quality improving by changing from radius 4 to radius 3 in your #14 and #15 pics. #13 is the best of all.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:54 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
That is way too much sharpening. especially since you have already boosted fine contrast in the HDR process.

It really shouldn't need too much, and should be done after resize.

try like 70-80%, radius 1, threshold 1 and then play with it from there.
I did a quick sharpening of the unsharpened #13 image above. The image below is the result. Settings are:

Amount = 70%
Radius = 1



I am still leaning towards 500%-0.4. However I can be easily convinced -- a trait I'm not all to proud of.

Maybe if other post-processing methods like increasing contrast, etc. are applied to the to 70%-1 image it will come out sharper still without introducing too much pixellation.
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:57 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
You can easily see image quality improving by changing from radius 4 to radius 3 in your #14 and #15 pics. #13 is the best of all.
I guess you guys are right. I already had that feeling when PSE defaulted to 100%-1. I guess (and hope...) over-sharpening to me is a novelty that will soon come to pass...
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 12:10 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

Setting aside this discussion for a minute (thanks all for the input!), does anyone think anything about #4? It's my favorite. Not due to the composition but because of the dust, the grime, and the reflections on the glass, the rust on the hinges, the woodgrain on the window frame, and the wheelbarrow and the side of the cabinet inside. I meant to experiment with Halo-Matix for non-realistic imagery but now I can't make up my mind from memory if #4 is actually more real than the real thing .

I don't take credit for these either -- it's all done through the wizardry of some graphics software and hardware engineers. These are why photography takes up so much of my (and my wife's) time now. The thrills and surprises are many.

Last edited by vvcarpio; Jan 13, 2010 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Added "and hardware"
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 12:20 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvcarpio View Post
...does anyone think anything about #4?
Well, I have seen it initially, and didn't pay any attention to it. Now that you mention it, I went back a second time to look and it is still not exactly a whow'ser. It's all too kind of flat for my taste. No powerful contrast, no deep dark tones (blacks?), nothing that makes it stand out. Maybe just overall too light? Do you have a new monitor, perhaps? That could account for the difference from before.

Sorry - but I think you don't do your pictures justis this time. It seem as there are a different kind of HDR in this thread. You used to do much better before....? What happened?

My 2 cents.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 12:23 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter_S View Post
Well, I have seen it initially, and didn't pay any attention to it. Now that you mention it, I went back a second time to look and it is still not exactly a whow'ser. It's all too kind of flat for my taste. No powerful contrast, no deep dark tones (blacks?), nothing that makes it stand out. Maybe just overall too light? Do you have a new monitor, perhaps? That could account for the difference from before.

Sorry - but I think you don't do your pictures justis this time. It seem as there are a different kind of HDR in this thread. You used to do much better before....? What happened?

My 2 cents.
Thanks, Walter. Consider this an experiment -- a failed one at that.
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 12:35 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

About half the pictures I took at Neversink Valley Museum and Neversink River I didn't tone map with Halo-Matix. Below are some. They're more of the same shots I used to take so I hope you're not too disappointed that I maybe starting to go downhill...

#16. Taken with a slow shutter speed so the floating ice chunks that cover the entire river surface don't show.


#17. Neversink River with the aqueduct abutment in the distance.


#18. Part of the backyard of Neversink Valley Museum.
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.