camera raw rescued these way overexposed pics

handsomejackuk · Mar 18, 2013

well impressed with camera raw and its ability to rescue three overexposed pictures... here are the originals, and the one run through photomatix.

basically i run all three raw files through ACR, reduced the exposure and played about a bit with clarity, and some other bits, saved as Tiff file and run through photomatix.. still need a bit more wirk on removal of the electric pylon, but getting into the camera raw thing its way cool...

give me some feed back on the final hdr please... considering the originals were well overexposed..

this is the hdr...

Ballistics · Mar 18, 2013

Its the dynamic range of your cameras sensor. If the dynamic range wasn't there, camera raw and photomatix would be worthless.

handsomejackuk · Mar 18, 2013

I cant quite work out whats happening though at the bottom left below the green trees it seems a bit strange... any ideas whats happening there...??

Ballistics · Mar 18, 2013

The shadow has been brought up to the point where it's blue.

handsomejackuk · Mar 18, 2013

ahhh thanks.. so the sky data was there anyway. ? i just couldnt understand why the jpgs had no data in the sky, and was completely washed out...i just hope i am getting somewhere and getting better... i have been taking loads and getting positive replies on one of my local facebook groups... just need to learn to tone them hdr down a bit as i seem to be overprocessing my images.. also wish i could get to grips with photoshop. I am hoping to be starting on a course this week on photoshop... maybe that will help...

handsomejackuk · Mar 18, 2013

thanks i going through the process again so will try again on that one... i did whack the blue up too to try and get some more detail in the sky.. maybe that needs turning down too is it the saturation highlight slider ?

hirejn · Mar 18, 2013

Looks like a software fix, which is the problem. Better to get exposure perfect. Either meter better for the subject or plan for a set of HDR exposures. I'm not certain this would've been out of the camera's dynamic range if metered properly. But if so a set of three exposures should've covered it, maybe even two. Now you're thinking about going back into software for more fixing. This is a good example of why it's better to get it right the first time.

480sparky · Mar 18, 2013

hirejn said:
Looks like a software fix, which is the problem. Better to get exposure perfect. Either meter better for the subject or plan for a set of HDR exposures. I'm not certain this would've been out of the camera's dynamic range if metered properly. But if so a set of three exposures should've covered it, maybe even two. Now you're thinking about going back into software for more fixing. This is a good example of why it's better to get it right the first time.

It's not always possible to 'get it right the first time'.

I saw this shot at a family get-together, but my flash didn't fire:

If I had the 'get it right in the camera and shoot JPEG', it would be trashed. Instead, I shoot raw. That saved the shot. I didn't see the potential of the image until I was at the computer (another habit of mine: NEVER delete in-camera!). Results from 'saving' the image because it's raw:

No way in haydes would I have saved the image shooting JPEG.

jake337 · Mar 18, 2013

480sparky said:
hirejn said:

Looks like a software fix, which is the problem. Better to get exposure perfect. Either meter better for the subject or plan for a set of HDR exposures. I'm not certain this would've been out of the camera's dynamic range if metered properly. But if so a set of three exposures should've covered it, maybe even two. Now you're thinking about going back into software for more fixing. This is a good example of why it's better to get it right the first time.

Click to expand...

It's not always possible to 'get it right the first time'.

I saw this shot at a family get-together, but my flash didn't fire:

If I had the 'get it right in the camera and shoot JPEG', it would be trashed. Instead, I shoot raw. That saved the shot. I didn't see the potential of the image until I was at the computer (another habit of mine: NEVER delete in-camera!). Results from 'saving' the image because it's raw:

No way in haydes would I have saved the image shooting JPEG.

I do agree with you but if one is out shooting planned landscapes, on a tripod, and with time to think then one should meter areas of the scene they are trying to capture more precisely.

480sparky · Mar 18, 2013

jake337 said:
I do agree with you but if one is out shooting planned landscapes, on a tripod, and with time to think then one should meter areas of the scene they are trying to capture more precisely.

I would still shoot raw. I may have the final vision for the scene while standing there next to the tripod, but who knows where or how I might use that image in a year, or 5 years, or 20 years.....?

Somewhere on the forum is a shot someone took from inside an abandoned home out west. Outside was a plain, blue sky. I took that shot and turned it into a cloudy sky, rendering the bright blue blob far less distracting. Had I not shot my image in raw, I might not have been able to make it 'match' his image.

jake337 · Mar 18, 2013

480sparky said:
jake337 said:

I do agree with you but if one is out shooting planned landscapes, on a tripod, and with time to think then one should meter areas of the scene they are trying to capture more precisely.

Click to expand...

I would still shoot raw. I may have the final vision for the scene while standing there next to the tripod, but who knows where or how I might use that image in a year, or 5 years, or 20 years.....?

Somewhere on the forum is a shot someone took from inside an abandoned home out west. Outside was a plain, blue sky. I took that shot and turned it into a cloudy sky, rendering the bright blue blob far less distracting. Had I not shot my image in raw, I might not have been able to make it 'match' his image.

Woops our communication must have slipped. Yes of course shoot RAW. I do. I thought your reply to Hirejn was about trying to get it right in camera.

480sparky · Mar 18, 2013

jake337 said:
Woops our communication must have slipped. Yes of course shoot RAW. I do. I thought your reply to Hirejn was about trying to get it right in camera.

Just a general statement on my part. Yes, you should always 'get it right' in the camera if humanly possible. However, when life hands me lemons, I don't make lemonade....... I make roast duck with a olive oil / garlic / lemon glaze.

I also found the image to which I was referring:

handsomejackuk · Mar 18, 2013

i realised when i got home my cock up... i didnt have a lot of time and sun was failing in clydach canyon...all shots hand held too... now if you saw this location you would realise that theres no way to get a sunset there.... where i live i never ever see a sunset.. closed in between two vallies east and west... i am learning and have alot to learn thanks for all the help and comments..... just need to master getting the skies exposed right.. also finding my images not seem to be very sharp... i am hoping this is down to my technique.. and hand holding. or the camera is not good... fuji f600 exr compact...

where in the hdr process is best to sharpen images...after photomatix, or at early stage such as in camera raw. or in photoshop after creating the hdr image... ?? would really like to know this...

handsomejackuk · Mar 18, 2013

heres another attempt... this time i opened the three source images again in camera raw, applied the lens correction for the camera, and aatered the three exposures for sky, highlights, and midtones... maybe i have got it better... let me know what you all think... cropped the image a bit too, i just need to learn how to get rid of the pylon... not that good at editing yet in photoshop..!!!!