| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/21/2008 09:52:45 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Actually the clouds is what spurred the question. In your photo they went from a light blue to a light brown color. While I like the warming effect it has I was just curious how easy would it be not to include that effect during tonemapping process. Photomatix doesn't have a channel mixer or equivalent to work with so I often just throw away the color data it produces and use the luminosity data only. That way if I want to change the colors I have a much more control to do so in photoshop without having to worry about color casts, blotches, etc, that photmatix may introduce. However, that tends to be more work and if I could keep the colors from dancing around in photomatix that would be most ideal. |
Actually that warmth is there in the clouds in the original, but it has been exaggerated. The thing is, the colors have all been amped in PM, and the darker component of the clouds is more prominent than it was before, so those particular colors are noticeably richer than they were to begin with, since I increased saturation globally in PM. I could have kept the PM saturation lower and this would be much less noticeable, but then I'd have had to increase saturation on CS3 to get the result I did elsewhere than in the sky. It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Notice that my photographer notes say "Hue/sat to tone down the reds and yellows. This was causing the sky to lose the cloud warmth, so I backed away from it, made a sky mask, inverted it, and did the hue/sat again only on the landscape itself."
In general, yes, PM tends to amp up the red/yellow components of images. You can control it by lowering saturation in PM, but in this case I liked the result in the sky.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2008 10:22:46 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
"Flattened entire image, saved as new file, duped BG, used "apply image" in soft light mode and faded, for more pop in the scene."
I just tried this on one of my HDR images and WOW! ... what a fast and effective technique THAT is!
|
I am curious about these few steps, what is BG and how do you use (do?) apply image? Is that like an extra layer added to the original or.. yeah just not really sure about this part.
Robert I really enjoy looking at your photos and what you do with HDR's. I've been interested also for a while and have been practicing lately. In other word's you inspire me. Keep it up! |
|
|
|
01/21/2008 10:34:57 PM · #28 |
BG is background ... the photo you are working on. Right click on background and select duplicate layer ... on pop up click on ok to accept "bachground copy" or enter a different name.
Image/Apply Image on the dropdown menu applies one image onto another with various modes to choose from. Since you only have one open here it will put an image of itself over top but different than a copy because you have all the modes to choose from.
You can then right click on that layer and adjust the blending properties or go to Edit/Fade Apply Image to change the opacity of the applied image with the desired mode (in this case "soft light"
me
|
|
|
|
01/21/2008 11:20:57 PM · #29 |
Things brings up a good point for which I'm not entirely understanding the usefulness of "Apply Image".
The same exact effect can be accomplished by duplicating the background, setting the blend more to Soft Light and changing the opacity.
Now, I understand that using Apply Image makes that effect FOR that layer, rather than using 2 layers to accomplish. But, why would one use Apply Image over what I described? It can't be for file size since both ideas use 2 replicates of the same layer. |
|
|
|
01/21/2008 11:59:37 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Things brings up a good point for which I'm not entirely understanding the usefulness of "Apply Image".
The same exact effect can be accomplished by duplicating the background, setting the blend more to Soft Light and changing the opacity.
Now, I understand that using Apply Image makes that effect FOR that layer, rather than using 2 layers to accomplish. But, why would one use Apply Image over what I described? It can't be for file size since both ideas use 2 replicates of the same layer. |
Because if you do a soft-light "apply image" layer, you now have the effect resident in that specific layer. Now you can change not only the opacity of that layer, you can also, from the layer blending modes list, change the BLENDING of it as well. In other words, it's now permanently got the soft-light-overlay effect locked in, and the layer itself is in normal mode. So you can now go back down and dupe the original BG layer, then change the layer mode for this new soft light layer, and see what effect this has on the BG dupe layer, and if you find something you like you can merge that down too, and so forth ad infinitum.
In practical terms you're probably right; if all you want is a soft light overlay, either will suffice, and most of the time that's all I use. I'm just used to doing it this way.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 07:02:27 AM · #31 |
It's threads like this that make me want to try Photomatix. I've tried the HDR thing in Photoshop, but always been disappointed with the result. More to the point, I always seem to end up with purple halos around detail. It's a bear to fix and makes it so little fun it's ridiculous.
I love the tones in your image by the way. While I can see how some would say you modified the image, in my mind, you're giving us your interpretation and I value that. Creative tactics (HDR, tone mapping, etc...) all allow the viewer to see what the artist is trying for. Some like it, some don't.
Great job! |
|
|
|
01/22/2008 07:05:55 AM · #32 |
Thanks, I just wasn't sure if there was something I was missing.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...In practical terms you're probably right; if all you want is a soft light overlay, either will suffice, and most of the time that's all I use. I'm just used to doing it this way.
R. |
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 09:29:47 AM · #33 |
| I am seriously budget-challenged. I was going to work with Photomatix Basic or FDRtools unstead of Photomatix Pro. Am I wasting my time with either or both? |
|
|
|
01/22/2008 10:56:07 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by bauerfan71:
I am seriously budget-challenged. I was going to work with Photomatix Basic or FDRtools unstead of Photomatix Pro. Am I wasting my time with either or both? |
Photomatix Basic only allows HDR tone mapping in "tone compressor" mode. I don't use that mode at all. What I use is "detail revealer" mode; that's the one that allows you to increase local area contrast, which is where the action's at when you're working with landscapes under bland lighting and so forth. "Tone compressor", also, is useless for single-image RAW tone mapping, which REQUIRES detail enhancement to work.
R.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/14/2025 03:41:53 AM EDT.
