[ShopVac]

Want to solicit some help from the masses on this...as it's killing me that I can't get these pictures to turn out right.

Start with a few sets of pictures taken today...example of normal exposure.

Test #1


Normally, I would convert these through PhotoMatix, use some mix of the Compresor or Fusion defaults...may increase the black and white clips, saturation, etc.

The, moving over to CS5, I'll try to adjust to photos with some layers using Topaz. Results...not bad, but lacking detail. Below, you can't even make out the grill, tires, etc.

HDR #1


This seems to hold true in all my examples, so clearly I'm doing something wrong, right?

Test #2


Convert to HDR, Some thing...no detail in the tire, grill, clouds, anything.

HDR #2


So, then I decide to pop it more on the PhotoMatix side, and choose one of the enhancers. Go back to through CS5...and next thing you know...I got a Warner Bros. cartoon.

HDR#2 - enhanced


Example #3 follows the same lines...simple picture with a puddle.

Test#3


So I go to enhance it through HDR, puddle looks a little better, picture starts to hurt the eyes, and the detail in the car is lost. (slightly different angle)

HDR #3


In this, I try to tone it down some, so the car is less cartoonish looking, but still doesn't come out how I would expect...maybe too much detail on the rocks? Looks like I got the rims powder coated too.

HDR #3 enhanced


I'm looking for help...if it's the starting pictures, so be it.

I've seen some folks put up some fantastic photos over the years...
I'd rather be one adding to them instead of just hurting the eyes.

Exif info is available on these...Thanks.

[rodi]

try blending your edit layer over your original layer and dodging and burning the areas that you think need improvement. this will help keep your detailed shadows from being lost, yet still retain those deep blacks that you seem to want.
here, i blended your first two images as an example. is this closer?
also, the blue highlights on the black areas of the car are from the sky/WB misadjustment. you can easily lose these with some quick adjustments to keep the car looking cleaner.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by rodi

try blending your edit layer over your original layer and dodging and burning the areas that you think need improvement. this will help keep your detailed shadows from being lost, yet still retain those deep blacks that you seem to want.

So to make sure I understand this, I would create the HRD image at I have in the second example, then add the original layer to the image?

What did you do to dodge / burn the areas...I'm guessing that from the HDR image, you would erase the section in question, leaving the original image there?

Originally Posted by rodi

here, i blended your first two images as an example. is this closer?

It's definitely better than mine...and I think it gets it in a better position, but it still doesn't pop out.

Originally Posted by rodi

also, the blue highlights on the black areas of the car are from the sky/WB misadjustment. you can easily lose these with some quick adjustments to keep the car looking cleaner

WB from when I was taking the pictures? Even in program mode, I normally leave this set to Auto. Should I be locking it down to a more amber tone, or am I off in what you are saying?

By the black area's, are you referencing the items circled in yellow?
Also, should I concern myself with the area's circled in blue?


I appreciate the help so far...

[rodi]

i put the original on the bottom, and set the edited on top at about 80%.
i used the dodge tool on the highlights of the tire edge on both layers. don't erase or mask out the bad areas, just tone them down, otherwise you don't keep the deep blacks.
how or what do you want to pop out? you might want to use depth of field to make it pop, or use artificial light to rim what you want to pop.
try setting your WB manually, to taste. but the blue sky reflection will still show up in black areas that are reflective. you'll need to do some post work to get highlight black areas to stay greyscale, and not reflect the bright blue sky.
by the black areas, i'm referring to the areas that need separation - the tires from the wheel wells, the grill/lip from the ground, the windscreen frame.
i wouldn't be too concerned with the blue circled areas. it's a lot of work to prevent those in-camera. and a lot of work to clone out in post. maybe concentrate only on areas that distract.

[ShopVac]

Thanks...are you creating the layer as anything specific (normal, Multiply, overlay, etc).

[M_Six]

Here's a non-HDR stab at it. To bring back detail in selective areas, open a new layer and change the blend mode to soft light. Then use a brush and paint the dark areas with white. It will lighten them up so you get detail. If it's too light, reduce opacity. Works the opposite way if you paint with black. Good for reducing blown out areas.

As far as this image itself goes, I think the colors of the car and the building behind just don't work together. Tough to bring out the red in the car without having the building scream at you.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Here's a non-HDR stab at it. To bring back detail in selective areas, open a new layer and change the blend mode to soft light. Then use a brush and paint the dark areas with white. It will lighten them up so you get detail. If it's too light, reduce opacity. Works the opposite way if you paint with black. Good for reducing blown out areas.

As far as this image itself goes, I think the colors of the car and the building behind just don't work together. Tough to bring out the red in the car without having the building scream at you.

I've never used that approach...I'll give it a try.

As for the background, I always thought you would want something contrasting the image...but I agree, the building gets the first glance. What type of backdrop would you recommend for a red car then?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

I've never used that approach...I'll give it a try.

As for the background, I always thought you would want something contrasting the image...but I agree, the building gets the first glance. What type of backdrop would you recommend for a red car then?

Buildings aren't bad backgrounds for cars. It's just that particular building with that color scheme draws the eye away from the car.

I'm wondering if you could desaturate the building a bit if it would help keep the focus on the car. Not a selective color shot, but maybe just take the edge off the building colors. Might work.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Buildings aren't bad backgrounds for cars. It's just that particular building with that color scheme draws the eye away from the car.

I'm wondering if you could desaturate the building a bit if it would help keep the focus on the car. Not a selective color shot, but maybe just take the edge off the building colors. Might work.

I was thinking the same thing once you said that...maybe grey scale it some.

[M_Six]

Here's a try. I desaturated the building a bit and tweaked the color balance toward red and away from cyan. Might have helped a bit.

[- Paul -]

You've just got your blacks too black on photomatix - move the white and black sliders around.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Here's a try. I desaturated the building a bit and tweaked the color balance toward red and away from cyan. Might have helped a bit.

In asking, did you create a layer, and highlight the building to do this?

Originally Posted by - Paul -

You've just got your blacks too black on photomatix - move the white and black sliders around.

I can work with the settings on this, am I correct to think that the white and black balance should be close when setting these?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

In asking, did you create a layer, and highlight the building to do this?

I created a duplicate layer, reduced saturation and played with the color balance, and then used a layer mask to bring back the car and the grass/trees.

[- Paul -]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

I can work with the settings on this, am I correct to think that the white and black balance should be close when setting these?

Can you post up the raw and I'll use my settings as a base to see how it comes out.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

Can you post up the raw and I'll use my settings as a base to see how it comes out.

I actually didn't take a raw photo...I put the camera in bracket mode. I can post these up tonight if you like.

I do have some raw images of items I took in Italy (that I also took in a bracket mode). Do you typically work off the raw image?

[InCityPhoto]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

I actually didn't take a raw photo...I put the camera in bracket mode. I can post these up tonight if you like.

I do have some raw images of items I took in Italy (that I also took in a bracket mode). Do you typically work off the raw image?

Shoot everything in RAW mode..

A Raw file is…
• not an image file per se (it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get).
• typically a proprietary format (with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet).
• at least 8 bits per color – red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file).
• the complete (lossless) data from the camera’s sensor.
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows).
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking).
• not as sharp.
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing.
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file or to a JPEG or other image format).
• sometimes admissable in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format).
• waiting to be processed by your computer.


Read more: http://www.digital-photography-schoo...#ixzz1MXNBJsds

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by InCityPhoto

Shoot everything in RAW mode..

A Raw file is…
• not an image file per se (it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get).
• typically a proprietary format (with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet).
• at least 8 bits per color – red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file).
• the complete (lossless) data from the camera’s sensor.
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows).
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking).
• not as sharp.
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing.
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file or to a JPEG or other image format).
• sometimes admissable in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format).
• waiting to be processed by your computer.


Read more: http://www.digital-photography-schoo...#ixzz1MXNBJsds

I can set the camera back into taking raw images with the photos...and I can open them with CS5...I just don't know where to start with them. I'll attached some raw images I have with the HDR's to get a comparison of what can be done...I just don't have it for the image in question.

Does the above site give any info on how to work a raw image (didn't look at it prior to typing this, but ill look at it tonight).

[- Paul -]

I don't use anything but raw - has more flexibility when processing than jpg.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

I don't use anything but raw - has more flexibility when processing than jpg.

Any sites I can peruse to get into doing this? Or care to share where I would even start? I'm willing to try...

I'll attach a similar item that has a raw image with it...it just won't be the one above (nor will it be one of a car) The concept would still apply though, right?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

Any sites I can peruse to get into doing this? Or care to share where I would even start? I'm willing to try...

I'll attach a similar item that has a raw image with it...it just won't be the one above (nor will it be one of a car) The concept would still apply though, right?

Here's a good starter video about some simple stuff in Camera Raw.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-phot...-image-great-/

And just FYI, my 15MP Canon creates 25MB RAW files. You need a big card if you shoot RAW.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Here's a good starter video about some simple stuff in Camera Raw.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-phot...-image-great-/

And just FYI, my 15MP Canon creates 25MB RAW files. You need a big card if you shoot RAW.

In a large setting / fine, I think my D90 is around 12 - 13MB IIRC. I have a few 8GB cards for it...so I don't think it's an issue. I do recall the count of the pictures left to take being much - much lower when I was doing this mode though (maybe 300 pictures a card).

I'll check that site when I get home tonight...

[M_Six]

8GB is fine. You just don't want to head out with a 2GB card and shoot RAW.