A little tone mapping: Fotomatix
May 22, 2014 19:53:37 #
Trying a little tonemapping on an otherwise boring frog.
Muscovy Duck Resting-2.jpg by Walkiria_50, on Flickr
Muscovy Duck Resting-2.jpg by Walkiria_50, on Flickr
May 22, 2014 20:29:49 #
Since we don't know what it looked like before the edit, I would have to say that boring might be a relative term but in any case, the end result is very nice. It seems to have worked out well. :thumbup: :thumbup:
May 22, 2014 20:45:46 #
Mike D. wrote:
Since we don't know what it looked like before the edit, I would have to say that boring might be a relative term but in any case, the end result is very nice. It seems to have worked out well. :thumbup: :thumbup:
I found one that has no PP, it may not be exactly the same... I shot several in sequence.
May 22, 2014 21:06:45 #
Not to worry, it's close enough to understand why you thought the original was boring. Your treatment of the image is MUCH better.
May 23, 2014 00:46:33 #
What's up with the "Muscovy Duck Resting....." link? Don't see any ducks in those pics?
May 23, 2014 03:20:37 #
I understand what you have tried to do but I do not believe tone mapping was the solution.
1) Since the area at the top left back is blown, processing it through photomatix does not bring back lost detail, it turns the blown area into a dirty grey colour as you have here.
2) On the frog's face and on the bottom right of the leaf you have ended up with overly bright highlights. This is because most of the Photomatix sliders make global adjustments rather than local. You are better off to take a tone mapped version back into PS or whatever you use and layer it onto a copy of the original pic before it was tone mapped. Then you can use a painted layer mask to make the local adjustments to calm down the Photomatix processing where it is needed.
3) You need to be wary of the 'Strength' and the 'Smooth Highlights' sliders in Photomatix as too much of the first and too little of the second are the main causes of the halo effect, particularly when combined with the wrong lighting setting. You have very strong haloing around the the top leaf and the leaf on the right and it is a tell tale sign of incorrect settings when tone mapping.
4) The frog is the subject so it is where you want the focus of attention to be. Since most of the Photomatix adjustments, tend to be global rather than local, you have have significantly brightened the leaf veins as well as the frog with the result that the bright colours dominate. In this case the top leaf is OOF so by brightening it as much as you did you have brought an OOF area to the centre of attention away from the in focus area ie the frog. The solution if you want to use tone mapping in this way is again to take this into PS and layer it onto a pre tone mapped version and then with a painted layer mask carefully pull the leaf right back almost to its original.
Don't get me wrong I am not knocking tone mapping or Photomatix. Most of the work I do is HDR with Photomatix being the software I use more than any other. But it is best at doing what it is designed to do, ie merge and tone map bracketed shots. And you need to take a lot of care with your settings to avoid the overblown HDR look. I am absolutely certain that you will get a better result with this pic by avoiding the road of tone mapping and choosing to process using the tools available in Elements/PS/Lightroom/Gimp etc and various plug ins. I would invite you to post the original here to see what can be done. BTW the frog isn't boring, he is beautiful, you just have to find the right way to bring him to life.
I hope this helps.
Peter
1) Since the area at the top left back is blown, processing it through photomatix does not bring back lost detail, it turns the blown area into a dirty grey colour as you have here.
2) On the frog's face and on the bottom right of the leaf you have ended up with overly bright highlights. This is because most of the Photomatix sliders make global adjustments rather than local. You are better off to take a tone mapped version back into PS or whatever you use and layer it onto a copy of the original pic before it was tone mapped. Then you can use a painted layer mask to make the local adjustments to calm down the Photomatix processing where it is needed.
3) You need to be wary of the 'Strength' and the 'Smooth Highlights' sliders in Photomatix as too much of the first and too little of the second are the main causes of the halo effect, particularly when combined with the wrong lighting setting. You have very strong haloing around the the top leaf and the leaf on the right and it is a tell tale sign of incorrect settings when tone mapping.
4) The frog is the subject so it is where you want the focus of attention to be. Since most of the Photomatix adjustments, tend to be global rather than local, you have have significantly brightened the leaf veins as well as the frog with the result that the bright colours dominate. In this case the top leaf is OOF so by brightening it as much as you did you have brought an OOF area to the centre of attention away from the in focus area ie the frog. The solution if you want to use tone mapping in this way is again to take this into PS and layer it onto a pre tone mapped version and then with a painted layer mask carefully pull the leaf right back almost to its original.
Don't get me wrong I am not knocking tone mapping or Photomatix. Most of the work I do is HDR with Photomatix being the software I use more than any other. But it is best at doing what it is designed to do, ie merge and tone map bracketed shots. And you need to take a lot of care with your settings to avoid the overblown HDR look. I am absolutely certain that you will get a better result with this pic by avoiding the road of tone mapping and choosing to process using the tools available in Elements/PS/Lightroom/Gimp etc and various plug ins. I would invite you to post the original here to see what can be done. BTW the frog isn't boring, he is beautiful, you just have to find the right way to bring him to life.
I hope this helps.
Peter
May 23, 2014 06:46:41 #
I took the original and cleaned it up some, added a high pass filter to sharpen it a little. Not a bad photo .
I also tone mapped the photo . little more artsy but still not a bad photo .
I also tone mapped the photo . little more artsy but still not a bad photo .
May 23, 2014 11:16:51 #
conkerwood wrote:
I understand what you have tried to do but I do n... (show quote)
I totally get what you are saying but I ABHORE the setup time to make an HDR which I will workup in Photomatix to show it, then have it being destroyed by someone saying -- not good, sorry -- Gert my drift? Too much work for nothing. OSo I might as well get the same results with less work. This is all said in jest so I hope you get me as well as I got you. ;-)
Why I do tonemapping? Because I don't have to take 3 pictures. When I have more time for HDR maybe. BTW, I may be close to trying it. I just need to set aside a time for the three pics and a good subject. Maybe I can start with a building that does not move or breathes. Though some people may argue that inanimate objects also breath, although not between seconds but years, like concrete. The advice, my friend, was well taken. I will work on that. I suppose a building is a good choice, one with texture may I say?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.