PS Manual Blending

[biggerry]

I am having all sorts of difficulties stumbling my way thru manual blending with photochop, i am sure there are some good tutes out there and I really need to get and have a read (note if you know a half decent one please let me know).

I am over the rubbish that photomatix often puts out, it works fine for some bracketed images but is a complete disaster for others, hence the urge to try and nail the manual blend in photochop.

Anyway, onto the images, I am keen for feedback on these, both from a normal critique point of view but also from a photoshop blending POV.

Firstly, a reworked version of the one in week 35 (boy that was a shit version)

[Remorhaz]

I am having all sorts of difficulties stumbling my way thru manual blending with photochop, i am sure there are some good tutes out there and I really need to get and have a read (note if you know a half decent one please let me know).
I am over the rubbish that photomatix often puts out, it works fine for some bracketed images but is a complete disaster for others, hence the urge to try and nail the manual blend in photochop.
Anyway, onto the images, I am keen for feedback on these, both from a normal critique point of view but also from a photoshop blending POV.
Firstly, a reworked version of the one in week 35 (boy that was a shit version)

Actually I liked that shot in week 35

I must say however I can't really see anything "wrong" with your blending (I can't even tell they were blended) - I have to believe that basically most people looking at others (low res) images (unless theres some glaring obvious blend errors) that they just look at the overall image and won't notice any minor flaws - it's only the author with both access to the original(s) for reference plus the hires working version which they can view at 100% that's going to notice and spend ages trying to fix pixel level boundaries, etc.

Personally I'm nowadays finding less requirement to bother/need blending (not that I did it before I just gave up instead ). What with the awesomeness which is the new ACR Process Version 2012 - I can now "recover" stuff (in Lightroom (or PS ACR)) once impossible. The Shadows slider now manages to smartly bring back shadow detail (over many stops) without screwing the image and likewise the smart Highlights which does the same for highlights and the fact that the Exposure slider is now a lot smarter (basically positive values increase the exposure of the Shadows up to midtones but not the brights and likewise negative values does the same for the highlights down to the midtones but not the darks) and I can now do all of this stuff locally using the adjustment brush or grad filters.

The following shot must have been taken somewhere near where you did your second but my compo is not as good and I must have taken mine later after the best time had passed - but it does mean the sun was more up in mine so the contrast would have been worse. It's also as close as I could get to a reference with one of yours which is blended and you can see the before SOOC vs the after with literally a few minutes rough work in Lightroom only (with no fancy painstaking masking, etc):

Before SOOC (NB: Lightroom histogram shows for the RAW original that the red channel is blown on and around the sun but no shadows are clipped):


After:

[Reschsmooth]

For me, the last of your three works best, because the foreground has a tonality that seems more realistic given the lighting of the scene. When I look at your second, for example, we have the light source directly in front of us and a structure that has a face that should be in deep shadow. However, the tonality of that wall is very similar to that of the ocean, which is being illuminated by the light source. To me, this creates an image that is too flat and has a foreground that looks like it has been excessively dodged. This suggests a different outcome to a "normal" result of a grad ND filter. My opinion only .

[stubbsy]

I am over the rubbish that photomatix often puts out, it works fine for some bracketed images but is a complete disaster for others, hence the urge to try and nail the manual blend in photochop.

Gerry - have you looked at Nik HDR Pro - it's much less agressive than Photomatix and in PS you can paint it on (and off) before you click save. Even once applied it's a layer so you can erase it, adjust opacity etc. There's a demo of the just released v2 HERE

[Matt. K]

Gerry
Your photographs are a lot better than you think. You are very skilled and your work is of professional quality...in fact, I know a few photographers who work professionaly who don't have anywhere near your skills. So believe in yourself and follow your own road. Your vision of the world is what keeps us all rivetted to the forum and your seascapes are as good as any I've ever seen. Push them to the max. Use your skills to sing your own song.

[biggerry]

thanks for the feedback guys, appreciated.

Actually I liked that shot in week 35

i can't bear to look at it ;(

I must say however I can't really see anything "wrong" with your blending (I can't even tell they were blended) - I have to believe that basically most people looking at others (low res) images (unless theres some glaring obvious blend errors) that they just look at the overall image and won't notice any minor flaws - it's only the author with both access to the original(s) for reference plus the hires working version which they can view at 100% that's going to notice and spend ages trying to fix pixel level boundaries, etc.

thats true, i can see the errors and that drives me around the bend, i was having technical issues getting the boundary transition I wanted however it can be a case by case basis since getting the right transition is different for just about all images excluding a flat horizon/sky blend.

Personally I'm nowadays finding less requirement to bother/need blending (not that I did it before I just gave up instead ). What with the awesomeness which is the new ACR Process Version 2012 - I can now "recover" stuff (in Lightroom (or PS ACR)) once impossible. The Shadows slider now manages to smartly bring back shadow detail (over many stops) without screwing the image and likewise the smart Highlights which does the same for highlights and the fact that the Exposure slider is now a lot smarter (basically positive values increase the exposure of the Shadows up to midtones but not the brights and likewise negative values does the same for the highlights down to the midtones but not the darks) and I can now do all of this stuff locally using the adjustment brush or grad filters.

The following shot must have been taken somewhere near where you did your second but my compo is not as good and I must have taken mine later after the best time had passed - but it does mean the sun was more up in mine so the contrast would have been worse. It's also as close as I could get to a reference with one of yours which is blended and you can see the before SOOC vs the after with literally a few minutes rough work in Lightroom only (with no fancy painstaking masking, etc):

I have always loved the amount of massaging you can do to a raw image to get the dynamic range and I have banged that one on the head many a time. However there is a limit to the amount you can do it for certain scenes and the image you posted has shown this. Your shot is perfectly exposed, however the cut off highlights are there, if you exposed to maintain the nice golden exposure on teh sun then there would be little hope of recovering the shadows, without significant noise - hence this is where my desire to blend images is coming from. Note, this is mainly for images where the sun is within the frame and there is a seascape rock foreground or similar.

For me, the last of your three works best, because the foreground has a tonality that seems more realistic given the lighting of the scene. When I look at your second, for example, we have the light source directly in front of us and a structure that has a face that should be in deep shadow. However, the tonality of that wall is very similar to that of the ocean, which is being illuminated by the light source. To me, this creates an image that is too flat and has a foreground that looks like it has been excessively dodged. This suggests a different outcome to a "normal" result of a grad ND filter. My opinion only .

Cheers Patrick, I agree teh second is definitely the worst and quite possibly a poor choice of scene for this particular technique. I am happy with the transistion of this image, but as you rightly pointed out the foreground is just too bright and does not match the scene lighting correctly.

I am over the rubbish that photomatix often puts out, it works fine for some bracketed images but is a complete disaster for others, hence the urge to try and nail the manual blend in photochop.

Gerry - have you looked at Nik HDR Pro - it's much less agressive than Photomatix and in PS you can paint it on (and off) before you click save. Even once applied it's a layer so you can erase it, adjust opacity etc. There's a demo of the just released v2 HERE

Thanks Peter I will have alook at this.

Gerry
Your photographs are a lot better than you think. You are very skilled and your work is of professional quality...in fact, I know a few photographers who work professionaly who don't have anywhere near your skills. So believe in yourself and follow your own road. Your vision of the world is what keeps us all rivetted to the forum and your seascapes are as good as any I've ever seen. Push them to the max. Use your skills to sing your own song.

images are only as good as the beholder sees them and the more I take the more I seem disappointed.

Matt, have you every thought of motivational speaking, that paragraph is pretty sweet.

[Mr Darcy]

the more I take the more I seem disappointed.

Your photographs are a lot better than you think. You are very skilled and your work is of professional quality...in fact, I know a few photographers who work professionaly who don't have anywhere near your skills.

Putting these together puts Gerry about here on the graph Surenfound:

[Matt. K]

Gerry
I was paid to say that.

[biggerry]

Putting these together puts Gerry about here on the graph Surenfound:

haha what a place to be

Gerry
I was paid to say that.

payments on the way


here is another image which I am likign at the moment, it lacks a really strong anchor point..but..

[Remorhaz]

Cut the bottom 30% off (almost square crop) and then the line curves right through from bottom left corner across and back around to the top left.

[biggerry]

Cut the bottom 30% off (almost square crop) and then the line curves right through from bottom left corner across and back around to the top left.

yea, good idea