Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 19 posts | 
by jnadler on Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:32 am
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6926
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
Of the numerous methods to brighten up a dark shadow on a small portion of a bird's otherwise perfectly exposed plumage, which method do you prefer:

- Two Raw conversions, one for the overall exposed shot and one for just the shadow area . . and combine
-Do it all in Photoshop on one raw conversion select the shadow area and use shadow/highlights, multiply, etc?
-any other method?

Thanks
 

by rnclark on Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:02 am
rnclark
Lifetime Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978
With raw conversion to 16-bit file, there should be no need for 2 conversions.

Then in photoshop, all one needs is curves. Understand curves and understand image processing. Tools like highlight/shadow often leave halos and in photoshop the approximations for speed increase artifacts. Of course a good selection of the area is critical.

Roger
 

by bartley123 on Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:21 pm
bartley123
Forum Contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Location: Western Mass.
Nik Viveza is ideal for that situation, that's where it really shines.
Don Cooper
Western Mass.
http://www.doncooper.photos
 

by Kim on Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:09 pm
Kim
Forum Contributor
Posts: 647
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
If you want excellent control with no file degradation or artefact or halos etc. then simple create a new transparent layer above a 16 bit tiff version of the original converted image. Change the new layer blend mode to Softlight and select a small soft white brush at 10% opacity and simple paint over the affected area to build up the level of adjustment you need. You can drop the opacity of the brush to 5% as you get closer to the desired effect for better control if required.
 

by Kim on Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:11 pm
Kim
Forum Contributor
Posts: 647
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Forgot to add that you can adjust the opacity of the layer to further control the finished look as required if needed.
 

by DOglesby on Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:32 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
Kim wrote:If you want excellent control with no file degradation or artefact or halos etc. then simple create a new transparent layer above a 16 bit tiff version of the original converted image. Change the new layer blend mode to Softlight and select a small soft white brush at 10% opacity and simple paint over the affected area to build up the level of adjustment you need. You can drop the opacity of the brush to 5% as you get closer to the desired effect for better control if required.
Clever.  I'll give that a try.  Thanks!
Cheers,
Doug
 

by DOglesby on Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:33 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
bartley123 wrote:Nik Viveza is ideal for that situation, that's where it really shines.
Viveza is one of the greatest plugins ever made.  So versatile.
Cheers,
Doug
 

by Blck-shouldered Kite on Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:37 am
Blck-shouldered Kite
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2669
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Location: Maine
DOglesby wrote:
bartley123 wrote:Nik Viveza is ideal for that situation, that's where it really shines.
Viveza is one of the greatest plugins ever made.  So versatile.
1.  Where does one find Viveza?  I found one site selling Viveza 2 for $1200.  I am not paying that.  Is the first version available at a much more reasonable price?

2.  I see it is made for Mac; is there a Microsoft version?

Thanks
Robert
 

by Mark Picard on Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:18 am
User avatar
Mark Picard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Location: Northern Maine
Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:
DOglesby wrote:
bartley123 wrote:Nik Viveza is ideal for that situation, that's where it really shines.






Viveza is one of the greatest plugins ever made.  So versatile.





1.  Where does one find Viveza?  I found one site selling Viveza 2 for $1200.  I am not paying that.  Is the first version available at a much more reasonable price?

2.  I see it is made for Mac; is there a Microsoft version?

Thanks

Robert

Just go to the NIK website . Here you can sign up for the complete software kit as well. I highly recommend the entire lineup for all sorts of things. Of course, you can just purchase what you need, and each filter has a free trail period. Mac and Windows platforms.

Ah, I see that you can't get the individual filters anymore from NIK! (haven't been to their site in awhile :oops:

Thanks Robert for the update! All I can say is the entire kit is worth every penny ($149.).
Mark Picard
Website:  http://www.markpicard.com
Maine Photography Workshops


Last edited by Mark Picard on Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
 

by signgrap on Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:44 am
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: 1 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
If you want Viveza 2 you need to buy the NIK collection from Google https://www.google.com/nikcollection/
The cost is $149 a great deal - when NIK owned it it cost $600 for the Collection.
So far Google continues to upgrade the software.
Dick Ludwig
 

by Anthony Medici on Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:50 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
There are additional savings here: http://hdrguide.com/nik-collection-coupon-code
Tony
 

by Blck-shouldered Kite on Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:18 pm
Blck-shouldered Kite
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2669
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Location: Maine
I checked it out and it does look like something that would greatly improve my post processing. And you're right, the price if very reasonable. I have to get Elements 9 first. I have 8.

Thanks
Robert
 

by James Vellozzi on Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:51 pm
User avatar
James Vellozzi
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6299
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Hudson Valley, New York State
I just ignore it all together and usually accept the shot as is, or hope to go out again and get the bird at the right angle. hehe.. this was not really advice.
James Vellozzi
www.jamesvellozzi.com
 

by jnadler on Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:29 pm
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6926
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
Success last night doing this without spending any money.

1. ACR raw conversion #1 for the heavy shadow area, using exposure, fill, and lowered contrast
2. ACR raw conversion #2 for the rest of the image, leaving the dark area as is
3. Open both in photoshop and copy #2 on top of #1 - two adjutsment layers
4. Layer mask icon
5. Select soft brush and play with opacity and lighten dark area, blending as best as possible.
6. Merge layers.
7. done

I am under the assumption that it is best to work with the raw images as much as possible vs trying to fix in Photoshop on just one conversion. Much less noise in shadow area vs. Raw adjustment vs. PS CSx.x using curves, S/H, blending options, multiply/screen, etc. A simple manual HDR process.
 

by rnclark on Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:42 am
rnclark
Lifetime Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978
jnadler wrote: I am under the assumption that it is best to work with the raw images as much as possible vs trying to fix in Photoshop on just one conversion. Much less noise in shadow area vs. Raw adjustment vs. PS CSx.x using curves, S/H, blending options, multiply/screen, etc. A simple manual HDR process.
It would be nice to verify this assumption.  From a math standpoint, there should be little difference.  For example, one is going from 14 bit camera raw  input with some bits of noise to 15-bit processing in photoshop, so you you have a couple of bits to spare.  (Photoshop does 15-bits of range, not true 16-bits).  If Canon cameras with under 12 bits of real dynamic range, then one has several more bits to spare.  With Nikon cameras with close to 14 bits dynamic range, so only one extra bit.  But in either case, the conversion using the standard curve boosts the low end by 10x from the linear raw data, so there is another 3+ bits of pad.  So in the best cameras, one has 4 to 5 bits to define a signal level at the darkest end, and 6 or so bits for Canon cameras, and this is all at the low ISO range.  Digitization has more padding at high ISO  where dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio is lower.  With good post processing, there should be no difference, as the data from the camera are pretty well defined by 16-bit (photoshop 15 bit) processing.

In post processing, many of photoshops slider tools are integer approximations (probably for speed), and the use of those tools can produce funny artifacts.  That is why I use the curves tool.  Even tools like unsharp mask produce what I call a pasty look due to the integer math implementation.  Better would be to convert to 32-bit processing or use a program that does 32-bit floating point math for the internal calculations.

Even better in my view is to use a raw converter where one has better control over the algorithms used.  For example, I have been very impressed with darktable (free) for keeping detail and suppressing noise.

Roger
 

by joseph motto on Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:54 pm
User avatar
joseph motto
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: eau claire, wisconsin
Member #:00091
I am intrigued with Viveza II and did watch some of the tutorials and reviews. I wonder just how folks are using this? Generally I do 80%+ in LR and finish off in PS. Are you using Viveza in addition to LR or in place of it?  Can they be used together in a complimentary fashion or not? Much of the process seems to be for the same sort of corrections in both but in a different way. What seems most attractive in Viveza is overcoming the difficulties some of us experience in creating good selections, a technique that I personally would find most welcome.
joseph motto
NSN 0091
 

by Neilyb on Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:50 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositym ... sks-2.html

Not sure how relevant those will be to Elements but ebing able to selectively alter highlights or darks, or mask them out to avoid processing them altogether is useful in my book. Selecting the dark darks, ctrl+J on your background layer to duplicate the selected part to a new layer and then setting your layer blending to "screen" will brighten those darks... you can then mask out the parts you do not want brightened. If this layer exhibits noise you can noise reduce it without affecting the rest of the shot.
 

by DChan on Thu May 01, 2014 11:02 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
jnadler wrote:Of the numerous methods to brighten up a dark shadow on a small portion of a bird's otherwise perfectly exposed plumage, which method do you prefer:

- Two Raw conversions, one for the overall exposed shot and one for just the shadow area . . and combine

That should be better.
 

by hcarl on Fri May 09, 2014 12:04 am
hcarl
Forum Contributor
Posts: 185
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Have you tried the brush in either ACR or LR. Both work very well to bring up the shadow areas. Just don't get carried away. -1 to -1.5 works very well. If more is needed then the exposure used on the image was not correct. hcarl
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
19 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group