[philbaum]

A kind security guard let me paint this truck last night - first time i've done anything this large.

f8, 10mm

[Designosophy]

I had a 3 image landscape hdr recently that had movement in 3 treetops due to wind. Photomatix's semi-manual method didn't fix it, so i made a virtual copy in LR of a single image, with a 1 EV step difference, input the vitual copy with the original into photomatix and came out with a good result. "semi-faux" hdr methods have a lot of advantages, IMO. Thank you for discussing it and i liked your hdr!

Thanks, and glad to hear your experience as well. It's amazing what you can do with one exposure and a little bit of work. I'm often confused when I see shots that are described as "nine exposure HDR," yet don't look like a scene that had a very high dynamic range to start out with. What do all the extra shots add? I have a feeling that there is a misapprehension that more shots always mean better HDR. Even if you're shootiing direct sunlight and full shadow, three shots will cover the range. (As an aside, I wonder if stacking images could yield better resolution using stacking software, but that's a different question.)

Something else that I learned (and most probably know this already): By default, ACR opens RAW images as 8-bits per channel. This discards some of the data from the original image when you finish your ACR editing and open in Photoshop. I've been trying to figure out how to get them to open as 16-bit images, which would preserve all of the information. There's what looks like a hyperlink at the bottom of the ACR window that lists the color space, color depth and resolution. If you click this, it brings up a dialog box that lets you set these parameters. I changed it to 16-bit.

I'm also experimenting with opening at the 25 mexapixel resolution, doing the Photoshop work, then downsampling. I'm not sure there's any benefit, though.

[Pentaxor]

Thanks, and glad to hear your experience as well. It's amazing what you can do with one exposure and a little bit of work. I'm often confused when I see shots that are described as "nine exposure HDR," yet don't look like a scene that had a very high dynamic range to start out with. What do all the extra shots add? I have a feeling that there is a misapprehension that more shots always mean better HDR. Even if you're shootiing direct sunlight and full shadow, three shots will cover the range. (As an aside, I wonder if stacking images could yield better resolution using stacking software, but that's a different question.)

Something else that I learned (and most probably know this already): By default, ACR opens RAW images as 8-bits per channel. This discards some of the data from the original image when you finish your ACR editing and open in Photoshop. I've been trying to figure out how to get them to open as 16-bit images, which would preserve all of the information. There's what looks like a hyperlink at the bottom of the ACR window that lists the color space, color depth and resolution. If you click this, it brings up a dialog box that lets you set these parameters. I changed it to 16-bit.

I'm also experimenting with opening at the 25 mexapixel resolution, doing the Photoshop work, then downsampling. I'm not sure there's any benefit, though.

the 9 shot combo probably has to do with varying color effect tonality rather than detail enhancements.

as far as preserving bit data from RAW, have you tried opening it up on lightroom first then edit in PS afterwards?

[Designosophy]

the 9 shot combo probably has to do with varying color effect tonality rather than detail enhancements.

as far as preserving bit data from RAW, have you tried opening it up on lightroom first then edit in PS afterwards?

That's interesting... what varying color effect requires multiple shots?

I don't use Lightroom because, from what I've read, ACR = Lightroom as far as raw data goes. My understanding is that the advantage of Lightroom is the ability to edit and organize multiple photos in a streamlined fashion. But I could be missing something.

[Pentaxor]

That's interesting... what varying color effect requires multiple shots?

I'm not quite familiar with the terminology, but it has to do with heavy post-processing and could show a psychedelic representation of the scene, although this can be done with one image by some degree, the multiple image combination or layers somehow brings a much more outrageous and better results, although I'm not that quite of a fan of such practice.

I don't use Lightroom because, from what I've read, ACR = Lightroom as far as raw data goes. My understanding is that the advantage of Lightroom is the ability to edit and organize multiple photos in a streamlined fashion. But I could be missing something.

I haven't read any article saying such because I haven't really read anything about it. but from my personal experience (viewing and post-processing), I seem to see and feel that when I open up the RAW files, the images on LR seem to render more data (basing on my visual perception) than that with the same images opened on ACR. that's why I don't open and edit RAW files on ACR. I'm not sure if it has to do with the RAW format used as well. fwiw, I using Adobe RGB color and DNG RAW format.

[philbaum]

....
I haven't read any article saying such because I haven't really read anything about it. but from my personal experience (viewing and post-processing), I seem to see and feel that when I open up the RAW files, the images on LR seem to render more data (basing on my visual perception) than that with the same images opened on ACR. that's why I don't open and edit RAW files on ACR. I'm not sure if it has to do with the RAW format used as well. fwiw, I using Adobe RGB color and DNG RAW format.

I'm sure that LR preserves 16bit data after conversion. When you go to a plugin such as Photoshop Elements, LR opens up a window giving one the option to select 16 bit or 8 bit data file in the transfer to the plugin. The software couldn't do that if it was already discarded earlier. Besides, its a database program and doesn't apply any adjustments to the program until it "exports" (or in this case transfers the file to a plugin and then reimports as a new file)

[Pentaxor]

I'm sure that LR preserves 16bit data after conversion. When you go to a plugin such as Photoshop Elements, LR opens up a window giving one the option to select 16 bit or 8 bit data file in the transfer to the plugin. The software couldn't do that if it was already discarded earlier. Besides, its a database program and doesn't apply any adjustments to the program until it "exports" (or in this case transfers the file to a plugin and then reimports as a new file)

that would make a lot of sense, although I don't use or have the Photoshop Element plugin so I'm not aware of such an option. what I do however is use LR primarily for database purposes and corrections before I edit and apply the images with further enhancements on LR or with LR plugins or open them afterwards on PS5 then apply the necessary enhancements and final process.

[Class A]

I haven't read any article saying such because I haven't really read anything about it. but from my personal experience (viewing and post-processing), I seem to see and feel that when I open up the RAW files, the images on LR seem to render more data (basing on my visual perception) than that with the same images opened on ACR.

Lightroom uses the exact same code as ACR. The only difference are the user interface controls. The preferences dialogue even mentions "Camera Raw Cache". You'll also find hints on the web to keep the ACR versions between LR and PS the same. On developer oriented pages you'll also find people explicitly state that LR embodies the ACR code.

If ACR didn't get the local adjustment brush, LR still wouldn't have it (as reported by Mark Hamburg in one of George Jardine's podcasts).

[Falke]

Interesting conversation here regarding 16 bit and ACR. My understanding was/is - and that is my workflow - I open the image (DNG) in ACR (in 8bit). I do my minimal adjustments with whitebalance etc. . Once I open the image in PS5 I switch the mode to 16bit (I think the data is still there, even if it is treated like a 8bit in ACR).
I won't comment too much on HDR but I moved away from it and use image blending (rather than stacking) several methods are explained here: Digital Blending.
My latest shots however don't even need that anymore since I invested in a graduated ND filter (I have been accused of being elitist however - I don't get that... - I only try to save a bit of PP work.)
Here is another shot from my recent trip. I processed this shot on my laptop which was not accurately calibrated, which shows mostly in the wrong colour of the clouds.

[Jewelltrail]

Interesting conversation here regarding 16 bit and ACR. My understanding was/is - and that is my workflow - I open the image (DNG) in ACR (in 8bit). I do my minimal adjustments with whitebalance etc. . Once I open the image in PS5 I switch the mode to 16bit (I think the data is still there, even if it is treated like a 8bit in ACR).
I won't comment too much on HDR but I moved away from it and use image blending (rather than stacking) several methods are explained here: Digital Blending.
My latest shots however don't even need that anymore since I invested in a graduated ND filter (I have been accused of being elitist however - I don't get that... - I only try to save a bit of PP work.)
Here is another shot from my recent trip. I processed this shot on my laptop which was not accurately calibrated, which shows mostly in the wrong colour of the clouds.

Great scene & composition. I too do not use HDR, but opt for "blending" or "exposure fusions." Also, like you, I find ND grads indispensable tools for avoiding serious PPing altogether.

[Pentaxor]

Interesting conversation here regarding 16 bit and ACR. My understanding was/is - and that is my workflow - I open the image (DNG) in ACR (in 8bit). I do my minimal adjustments with whitebalance etc. . Once I open the image in PS5 I switch the mode to 16bit (I think the data is still there, even if it is treated like a 8bit in ACR).
I won't comment too much on HDR but I moved away from it and use image blending (rather than stacking) several methods are explained here: Digital Blending.
My latest shots however don't even need that anymore since I invested in a graduated ND filter (I have been accused of being elitist however - I don't get that... - I only try to save a bit of PP work.)
Here is another shot from my recent trip. I processed this shot on my which was not accurately calibrated, which shows mostly in the wrong colour of the clouds.

some accused you of being an elitist? who are those people?

I can only think of one reason why those people say that you may be an elitist and that maybe because of the trying to justify the use and cost of an ND filter with today's post-processing techniques. although they are forgetting the essentials of why ND filters are used for long exposures and there is a reason for that aside from convenience.

[Pentaxor]

Great scene & composition. I too do not use HDR, but opt for "blending" or "exposure fusions." Also, like you, I find ND grads indispensable tools for avoiding serious PPing altogether.

may I suggest using Viveza 2? I dunno if you have heard of it, but it is a great PP tool and easy to use.

[Designosophy]

Once I open the image in PS5 I switch the mode to 16bit (I think the data is still there, even if it is treated like a 8bit in ACR).

It's probably not a big deal. If you're happy with the way your photos turn out, then that's what's most important. But I am 100% sure that once a RAW image (or any image) is in 8-bit mode in Photoshop, any data beyond the 8 bits per channel is gone. When you convert an image from 8-bit mode to 16-bit mode, Photoshop spreads the 8 bit data across 16 bits, but it doesn't reconstitute the original 16-bit data. At that point, there is some benefit to working in 16-bit mode and then converting back to 8-bit mode, but the difference is probably not visible to the naked eye. I'm not even sure how much benefit is obtained by starting with 16 bits and keeping them throughout the retouching process. My guess is, for normal retouching, it doesn't make any visible difference. For intense retouching, redistribution of tonalities, etc., I bet it does make a difference.

BTW, that is an awesome photo. One of these days, I'll be investing in some ND graded filters. Another day, I'll invest in some traveling to beautiful places like that.

[Falke]

Thanks again Jewelltrail, Pentaxor and Desingnosopy.

It's probably not a big deal. If you're happy ....
I'll invest in some traveling to beautiful places like that.

You are right and I did a bit more research and what you said was confirmed by a lecturer. I changed the default settings in ACR to 16bit.
If you are into landscapes, then traveling certainly is the way to go - but it is also good for other things...
Keep up the good work my friends.

[rosserx]

I've had my 10-20 for a couple weeks now. I'm really digging this lens more and more every day. Here is a couple for my weekend in NY.