Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks, Mike.

 

Should have detailed - X-T2, two exposures six stops apart, 100-400/4.5-5.6 lens @ 400mm hand held (but braced on fence post), 1/1000 sec & 1/15 sec @ f/7.1, 3200 ISO, manually combined in Photoshop.

Noting also that three HDR programs couldn't get anywhere close to this result (Photomatix Pro, Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 and Photoshop HDR Pro).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epic image, Alan!

 

Thanks for sharing.


Nikon D500, D700, Df, 18-140/3.5-5.6 VR, 20/2.8D, 28-105/3.5-4.5D, 50/1.8D, 60/2.8D Macro, 80-200/4.5-5.6, 300/4E PF, 35/2D,  Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC

Manual Focus Lenses:  Nikon 55/3.5 Micro pre-AI, 105/2.5 AI, ZY Mitakon Creator 85/2

Olympus PEN-F, EM5.2, Olympus 9mm f/8 Fisheye, 17/1.8, 75-300/4.8-6.7 II, Panasonic 12-32/3.5-5.6, 12-35/2.8, 35-100/2.8, Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art, ZY Mitakon 25/0.95
 

http://www.bestlightphoto.net | http://www.visualohio.com | http://bestlightphoto.blogspot.com | Flickr | SCEENEINWINDOWS Project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Andrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ann said:

A glassy moon! Excellent.

 

Concerning HDR:

This is why we use Photoshop's Layers — although loading a couple of different made-in-ACR HDR instances as Smart Objects from the current ACR 9.10 into separate Layers in Ps 2017.1.1 does make this sort of exposure-combination much easier and far quicker than it used to be.

 

 

 

Actually, Ann, we don't let ACR anywhere near our RAF files. Ever. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2017 at 11:25, Ann said:

I know that you don't :ok: !

 

However, I and many other people (several million of them I believe?) happen to find the tools in the up-to-date versions of ACR and Ps CC 2017.1.1 to be outstandingly good and a huge advance over where they were only a few years ago!

 

 

 

Indeed I don't, Ann, and I make no apologies for being merciless in my criticism of ineptitude such as Adobe has and continues to display with their woeful raw processing of RAF files. Iridient has now provided a viable alternative with its X-Transformer DNG converter which allows users to sidestep that horrible ACR/LR default demosaic, but still use Camera Raw/LR controls for final image balancing and editing, with all the features of those panels available. Admittedly it's a disjointed approach, but for those welded to Adobe it's a cheap and reliable way to get the best out of RAF files and not be compromised at the point of simply opening a raw file as the ACR demosaic does.

 

Millions of Bayer sensor users may indeed be pleased with Adobe's answers for their equipment, but then millions of people also bought and drove Trabants, millions feed their money into poker machines, and millions of Americans voted in their last election.... In other words, if millions do something, it's not necessarily an endorsement of it being the best course of action or result. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful image! 

I have not done HDR for quite a while, last time I did my best results were also obtained when mixing the images  manually


Regards,

Armando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, armando_m said:

Wonderful image! 

I have not done HDR for quite a while, last time I did my best results were also obtained when mixing the images  manually

 

Thanks, Armando.

 

I agree that there are some things that no matter how smart software tries to get, where it is still quicker, far more controllable and in the end better to do things manually. It took me less time to get the moon registered and to the right intensity, then brush it into the lower layer with a mask than any of the three HDR programs took to come up with a bad result, let alone anything that I considered remotely OK.

 

Knowing what I did to get this result, I can also confidently say that no HDR program would come up with this result without a lot of messing around. It's not what they were designed to do - two exposures six stops apart, with one requiring considerable curves manipulation after the event, and the initial exposure not being plumb with the moon exposure - the blown background moon was not only not in the exact same spot (Earth's rotation), but the overexposure enlarged its circumference by several pixels all around. All easily and quickly compensated for by hand and two Photoshop layers, with an additional bit of retouching (although I wouldn't try this so confidently without a Wacom Intuos as the input device).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.