How should I have post processed this photo??
Apr 15, 2022 20:07:16 #
Trying out my new Sony a7 IV. using LAEA5 adaptor and vintage Minolta 50mm f 2.8 macro Post processing was in Luminar Neo
The camera makes it easier to get it right technically. Now, I am definitely the weak link in the chain of better photography. How should I have post processed this?
Photo 1 is my amateurish attempt at processing. Photo 2 is SOOC. ISO 250 eV 0.7 f8 1/250 sec.
Modifying and reposting (only to this topic) is specifically OK
The camera makes it easier to get it right technically. Now, I am definitely the weak link in the chain of better photography. How should I have post processed this?
Photo 1 is my amateurish attempt at processing. Photo 2 is SOOC. ISO 250 eV 0.7 f8 1/250 sec.
Modifying and reposting (only to this topic) is specifically OK
Apr 15, 2022 20:59:17 #
photogeneralist wrote:
Trying out my new Sony a7 IV. using LAEA5 adaptor and vintage Minolta 50mm f 2.8 macro Post processing was in Luminar Neo
The camera makes it easier to get it right technically. Now, I am definitely the weak link in the chain of better photography. How should I have post processed this?
Photo 1 is my amateurish attempt at processing. Photo 2 is SOOC. ISO 250 eV 0.7 f8 1/250 sec.
Modifying and reposting (only to this topic) is specifically OK
The camera makes it easier to get it right technically. Now, I am definitely the weak link in the chain of better photography. How should I have post processed this?
Photo 1 is my amateurish attempt at processing. Photo 2 is SOOC. ISO 250 eV 0.7 f8 1/250 sec.
Modifying and reposting (only to this topic) is specifically OK
These two are a cropped version from another shutter actuation taken about 30 sec later than the first two images (and it's SOOC original) Look in double download to appreciate the horns on the ram
Apr 15, 2022 21:30:50 #
I realize this is an exercise in editing, but the issues with the first image start in your shooting technique. Working harder there makes editing easier. Ideas:
1) Don't use a 'macro' lens for landscape photography.
2) If you can shoot at ISO-100, do that. Leverage the IBIS of your mirrorless camera, as needed / when appropriate.
3) Don't blow out the sky. Have your blinking highlight warnings active, either in the EVF as you compose or in the LCD playback / review. Review, adjust, reshoot whenever you have the entire sky blinking in the highlight warnings.
4) Use the Sony "multi" metering, and meter the entire scene. This should cut done on missed exposure / exposure errors and the review & reshoot needs. You have the EC properly set to +0.7, a good general approach to use with "multi" (full-frame) metering.
The JPEG attachment shows a quick general edit. The DNG allows for communication of all the LR settings that can import into other Adobe software and some other tools too.
1) Don't use a 'macro' lens for landscape photography.
2) If you can shoot at ISO-100, do that. Leverage the IBIS of your mirrorless camera, as needed / when appropriate.
3) Don't blow out the sky. Have your blinking highlight warnings active, either in the EVF as you compose or in the LCD playback / review. Review, adjust, reshoot whenever you have the entire sky blinking in the highlight warnings.
4) Use the Sony "multi" metering, and meter the entire scene. This should cut done on missed exposure / exposure errors and the review & reshoot needs. You have the EC properly set to +0.7, a good general approach to use with "multi" (full-frame) metering.
The JPEG attachment shows a quick general edit. The DNG allows for communication of all the LR settings that can import into other Adobe software and some other tools too.
Apr 16, 2022 08:02:50 #
Did the sky have blown areas in the first shot? If it did, that shows what happens when you expose for the foreground when there's a bright sky in the frame. The image as a whole has a high dynamic range and if the camera is to even come close to capturing the sky with its bright highlights, the darker foreground is going to end up significantly darker than how your eye saw it. Using EC of +0.7 was tempting fate no matter what metering mode you were using.
In #2 the camera did a far better job of capturing the sky, and I suspect it's the same sky but for some reason the camera decided on a lower exposure. You don't say what metering mode you were using and #2 is a crop so we don't know what the original framing was, but if you were using centre weighted or spot metering, the tilt of the camera can make a huge difference to the exposure. Multiple Area or Highlights Protected metering would have been a safer option. But even with Multiple Area metering, the combination of large dark areas and small bright areas is a recipe for blown highlights, especially if you include positive exposure compensation.
You don't say if you were shooting raw or not, but if you weren't you should have been. High dynamic range means extreme editing, and in that situation you really don't want the limitations that jpeg gives you.
The sky needs very different adjustments from the foreground, so the only option that's going to work well is selections. Globally lowering the highlights and lifting the shadows will get you only so far. Plus it'll leave the image lacking in contrast, and adding global contrast will take you in the direction of having darks that are too dark and brights that are too bright, which is what you were trying to get away from in the first place. When you work on the different areas separately you should be able to end up with a foreground that is as bright as you remember it and a sky that is as detailed as you remember it.
In #2 the camera did a far better job of capturing the sky, and I suspect it's the same sky but for some reason the camera decided on a lower exposure. You don't say what metering mode you were using and #2 is a crop so we don't know what the original framing was, but if you were using centre weighted or spot metering, the tilt of the camera can make a huge difference to the exposure. Multiple Area or Highlights Protected metering would have been a safer option. But even with Multiple Area metering, the combination of large dark areas and small bright areas is a recipe for blown highlights, especially if you include positive exposure compensation.
You don't say if you were shooting raw or not, but if you weren't you should have been. High dynamic range means extreme editing, and in that situation you really don't want the limitations that jpeg gives you.
The sky needs very different adjustments from the foreground, so the only option that's going to work well is selections. Globally lowering the highlights and lifting the shadows will get you only so far. Plus it'll leave the image lacking in contrast, and adding global contrast will take you in the direction of having darks that are too dark and brights that are too bright, which is what you were trying to get away from in the first place. When you work on the different areas separately you should be able to end up with a foreground that is as bright as you remember it and a sky that is as detailed as you remember it.
Apr 16, 2022 13:58:44 #
photogeneralist wrote:
These two are a cropped version from another shutter actuation taken about 30 sec later than the first two images (and it's SOOC original) Look in double download to appreciate the horns on the ram
Seems to me your issue would be less editing and more lens choice. If your subject was indeed the ram with impressive horns the 70-400 would have been a better lens choice! As for editing, unfortunately not much you can do with a sky that has blown out highlights.
Apr 16, 2022 15:44:55 #
This was done almost entirely using selections. Each part can be given optimum adjustments. That includes selecting different parts of the foreground and different parts of the sky. Only you know what it looked like to your eyes. Hopefully this is closer to your memories than the SOOC image.
.
.
Apr 16, 2022 15:47:32 #
Orphoto
Loc: Oregon
Here is my take on this. You would have had more options with a RAW image. The sky is darn near blown out in the first couple of images, but can't be altered without hitting the limitations baked in with the .jpg.
This is done using the 3rd image as the starting point.
By the way, I disagree with Paul as to macro lenses used for landscape work. Many do fine, others, not so much.
This is done using the 3rd image as the starting point.
By the way, I disagree with Paul as to macro lenses used for landscape work. Many do fine, others, not so much.
May 7, 2022 23:15:55 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.