digital darkroom assignment #13

[Andy]

i'm not cletus, but i play him on dgrin :lol3

he asked me to guest host this time. fun fun fun!

assignment: increasing dynamic range

find a scene that has a very broad dynamic range. using your digital editing software, combine multiple exposures into one image, and show us the before and after.

this can be done shooting raw or jpg. raw if you got it, is best. if you have a digicam that only shoots jpg, you can still do it. finally, it can be done with any digital camera.

a few tips:

1) at shoot, watch your histogram carefully, avoiding the loss of data at either end of the specturm

2) shooting jpg? use a tripod on a scene that has broad dynamic range. fire off three shots, and use your camera's exposure bracketing feature to take a shot that is 1/2 stop underexposed, evenly exposed, and 1/2 stop overexposed. you'll then blend these in post.

3) shooting raw? you only need to shoot one exposure, and you'll develop multiple images in your raw coverter and blend them in post.

i've just made up a digital blending tutorial (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=29136#post29136), hopefully this will give you a good start. and if you'd like more, you can also check out luminous landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml).

i'll be available for your questions. please ask them here in this thread.

enjoy (greater dynamic range) photography,

[spockling]

Here's one I shot last week.....Before

[spockling]

And After...

[ginger_55]

That looks great, Spockling.

That is one "darkroom" thing that makes my brain hurt. I so admire people with the foresight, patience, planning and know how to do that type of thing.

g

[lynnma]

i'm not cletus, but i play him on dgrin :lol3

he asked me to guest host this time. fun fun fun!

assignment: increasing dynamic range

find a scene that has a very broad dynamic range. using your digital editing software, combine multiple exposures into one image, and show us the before and after.

this can be done shooting raw or jpg. raw if you got it, is best. if you have a digicam that only shoots jpg, you can still do it. finally, it can be done with any digital camera.

a few tips:

1) at shoot, watch your histogram carefully, avoiding the loss of data at either end of the specturm

2) shooting jpg? use a tripod on a scene that has broad dynamic range. fire off three shots, and use your camera's exposure bracketing feature to take a shot that is 1/2 stop underexposed, evenly exposed, and 1/2 stop overexposed. you'll then blend these in post.

3) shooting raw? you only need to shoot one exposure, and you'll develop multiple images in your raw coverter and blend them in post.

i've just made up a digital blending tutorial (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=29136#post29136), hopefully this will give you a good start. and if you'd like more, you can also check out luminous landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml).

i'll be available for your questions. please ask them here in this thread.

enjoy (greater dynamic range) photography,Andy can we use an old shot or does it have to be fresh??:dunno

[Andy]

Andy can we use an old shot or does it have to be fresh??:dunno

the intent here is to practice a new technique. use what you have, or shoot new :deal

[ginger_55]

Lynn, just now driving home, I thought "old shot", too. But I can't do that, and I suspect that you can't either.

(I will probably end up doing this, but can't figure out where to say the least of when)

The reason some of us can't use old shots is that I do not regularly use a tripod, like never. I have bad shots, somewhere, but no companion shot to blend with it.

I think I just thought of somewhere, but I have noticed that bracketing feature on our cameras, thought it was really cool, but couldn't figure out why one of the three shots bracketed was over exposed.

Now I know why.

ginger

[Thwack]

When working with RAW files, you started with 2 stops of difference between the images you're working with.

When shooting JPG's, you suggest bracketing by +/- 1/2 stop. That gives a range of only 1 stop between the two images we'd be working with.

Is that because JPG's are more susceptable to noise if we bracket by +/- a full stop vs. working with RAW files?

I've lost some potentially cool shots lately by not using a tripod and bracketing, so I'm very interested in this assignment and any subtle details I can ferret out.

Thanks.

[Andy]

remember, we went thru the raw thing, dear.

Lynn, just now driving home, I thought "old shot", too. But I can't do that, and I suspect that you can't either.

(I will probably end up doing this, but can't figure out where to say the least of when)

The reason some of us can't use old shots is that I do not regularly use a tripod, like never. I have bad shots, somewhere, but no companion shot to blend with it.

I think I just thought of somewhere, but I have noticed that bracketing feature on our cameras, thought it was really cool, but couldn't figure out why one of the three shots bracketed was over exposed.

Now I know why.

ginger

[ginger_55]

remember, we went thru the raw thing, dear.
I don't understand, Andy, really I don't understand at all.

I am shooting exclusively in RAW and have been since I went to that conert.

I just put about 150 RAW shots on my computer.

I couldn't use an old shot for the Cletus/Andy discussion anyway, so I would be shooting in RAW.

Do my shots look like I am not shooting in RAW? I am, exclusively.

And I will be until I go to visit my daughter in DC on the 17th. I am going to use jpeg there with her and my grandchildren. I will want to get as many shots of them as I can.

But why did you post that re RAW?

Ginger

[ginger_55]

Oh, maybe you can't use that bracketing feature with RAW. If that is so, I forgot it............

Sorry. But nowhere did I imply that I wasn't going to shoot in RAW.

g

[snapapple]

I don't understand, Andy, really I don't understand at all.

I am shooting exclusively in RAW and have been since I went to that conert.

I just put about 150 RAW shots on my computer.
I couldn't use an old shot for the Cletus/Andy discussion anyway, so I would be shooting in RAW.
Do my shots look like I am not shooting in RAW? I am, exclusively.

And I will be until I go to visit my daughter in DC on the 17th. I am going to use jpeg there with her and my grandchildren. I will want to get as many shots of them as I can.
But why did you post that re RAW?

Ginger

Ginger,
I don't know why he posted that about RAW either. It may be because you mention needing more than one image. If you shoot in RAW, you really only need one image. Then, you can develope it 3 different ways and use those three images for your composite. You're right, you probably don't have any old shots you could use, because you were not shooting in RAW before. For now you can shoot RAW and develope 3 or shoot JPEG shooting 3 bracketed. If you want to try this assignment, just chose any of your RAW shots with real light and real dark areas. You've got it. Andy just isn't reading well today.
Go to it.

[Andy]

Lynn, just now driving home, I thought "old shot", too. But I can't do that, and I suspect that you can't either.

(I will probably end up doing this, but can't figure out where to say the least of when)

The reason some of us can't use old shots is that I do not regularly use a tripod, like never. I have bad shots, somewhere, but no companion shot to blend with it.

I think I just thought of somewhere, but I have noticed that bracketing feature on our cameras, thought it was really cool, but couldn't figure out why one of the three shots bracketed was over exposed.

Now I know why.

ginger

i was reading your post perfectly, ginger dear :D i was just reminding you that raw is exactly as snappy said - so shoot some raws this week, with a lot of d.r. in the shot. :deal

[ginger_55]

I was going to go back out to that place to take this photo two different ways, will post photo. The sun was behind the house, the house is too dark, the whole thing is too dark, I could fix that, probably, but the sky is blown.

Don't I have to have the color in both places.

I haven't wanted to appear dumber than I already do, but I get confused by some of the photo language and abbreviations in the tutorials. I get out books to try to understand, but I am way behind you in the area of photo speak, Andy.

I did not know, until Snappy said that about using RAW 3 different ways that I could do that. I am sure I was told that in a tutorial or somewhere, but I am trying to learn so much, well, this old dog is a bit arthritic mentally at times, or something.

I am still not really understanding how to implement what Snappy is talking about.

OK, I am going to dig that hole in the sand,
and crawl in it.

ginger
the idiot who never reads books for idiots, they only make me more so.

Coming out of the closet, here, by necessity.

[lynnma]

I was going to go back out to that place to take this photo two different ways, will post photo. The sun was behind the house, the house is too dark, the whole thing is too dark, I could fix that, probably, but the sky is blown.

Don't I have to have the color in both places.

I haven't wanted to appear dumber than I already do, but I get confused by some of the photo language and abbreviations in the tutorials. I get out books to try to understand, but I am way behind you in the area of photo speak, Andy.

I did not know, until Snappy said that about using RAW 3 different ways that I could do that. I am sure I was told that in a tutorial or somewhere, but I am trying to learn so much, well, this old dog is a bit arthritic mentally at times, or something.

I am still not really understanding how to implement what Snappy is talking about.

OK, I am going to dig that hole in the sand,
and crawl in it.

ginger
the idiot who never reads books for idiots, they only make me more so.

Coming out of the closet, here, by necessity.
Hi Ginger.. I didn't know what d.r. meant either.. it means dynamic range. Also if you open a raw file in photoshop cs this is what it looks like. If you look you can see that you can move the exposure slider up and down and change the exposer sever stops. Other stuff too.. this is before you open it again in photoshop to play with it more. Try it and see.. play with it for a while and it'll make sense.

[lynnma]

Hi Ginger.. I didn't know what d.r. meant either.. it means dynamic range. Also if you open a raw file in photoshop cs this is what it looks like. If you look you can see that you can move the exposure slider up and down and change the exposer sever stops. Other stuff too.. this is before you open it again in photoshop to play with it more. Try it and see.. play with it for a while and it'll make sense.sorry that example was'nt too clear... here it is again... its just like you have control over what the camera usually does only in photoshop.. it's magic. No bracketing needed, just take your raw (any old raw) and try it. :thumb thats why everyone keeps talking about raw... you can change it after the fact, even if the exposure is 2 stops wrong either way...:D

[ginger_55]

This is a jpeg, but I have the original RAW, and it looks just like this, I just had to make it a jpeg to show you all.

This would be what you are talking about, wouldn't it? Are you just talking about fiddling with the controls, or are you talking about blending, it seems from "listening" to what is being written that the tutorial is on blending, but that with RAW you don't need to blend?

Is that right?

Am I still confused, and what to I do from here? I have been hitting exposure til the histo goes all the way over to the highlight side, then I have been hitting the shadows til the histo is all the way to the left, too. Then I usually have put the shot in PS CS.

g, Thanks, you all.
http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9495734-L.jpg

[lynnma]

This is a jpeg, but I have the original RAW, and it looks just like this, I just had to make it a jpeg to show you all.

This would be what you are talking about, wouldn't it? Are you just talking about fiddling with the controls, or are you talking about blending, it seems from "listening" to what is being written that the tutorial is on blending, but that with RAW you don't need to blend?

Is that right?

Am I still confused, and what to I do from here? I have been hitting exposure til the histo goes all the way over to the highlight side, then I have been hitting the shadows til the histo is all the way to the left, too. Then I usually have put the shot in PS CS.

g, Thanks, you all.
http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/9495734-L.jpg
Hi Ginge.. sorry if I was confusing... I can't see your jpeg for some reason, it'sn not showing. Yes I am talking about fiddling with the controls BUT taking the one shot fiddling with the controls til it's very light say, then maybe saving that copy, taking the same shot, fiddling with it again and making it say dark? and saving that (different name) then opeing both in photoshop and only then blending one on top of the other and erasing part of the top one...make sense?? let me know if not..

[ginger_55]

Thanks, Lynn, now it is starting to make sense. I honestly do have a headache. My PC shut down before I could throw two more examples over here.

And these are as freshly done as Sat and Mon, too. Strange that you can't see the shot, I can in your response, all nicely done with the white line around it.

I used to ask a lot more questions, then I got famous, and I didn't want to sound stupid, but I still am, getting smarter, but my vocabulary level is much below someone like Andy's. And people forget what they didn't know. And if I don't ask, you all won't know that I just don't understand.

I really have trouble understand layers, for instance. I do use it to my advantage. But if Andy, or anyone has a tutorial that includes a lot of layers, I ignore it.

Or I did ask the question about the layers locking up on me. I did get answers. They just didn't work for me, two examples of how to solve it, I think. I will figure it out someday. Now, if it locks up, I just merge the layers and start from where I left off. I mean I can't keep saying, "but I don't understand", and it is frustrating to the other person, as that person is not looking at my computer and really can't understand what I don't understand.
ETc.

The eye thing, the thing you look through, I never could focus it manually, as nothing ever looked clear through it. I just had to trust AF. I mentioned it on dgrin, in relation to something else, no response on not being able to see.

Then a week or so later, after I got my camera back from repair, I mentioned it to my husband. He ignored me, I tried to get him to look through it, he said he never could see through my view finders. He was getting really annoyed, and I was talking about sending the camera back as defective. I made him promise to call about it. (He would have promised anything to shut me up, then).

But he did make some comment under his breath about most cameras having an adjustment you could make, mumble, mumble.........

The next day I looked, there was this tee tiny thing: I CAN SEE NOW. But that is how dumb I can be, and people don't know that, because I have been taking photos so long.

And being practically deaf, I learned to hide "dumb" by the time I was in grade school, so it is hard for me to ask this stuff.

Thanks for being patient, Lynn. I will try to separate the light from the dark, sounds biblical, and put them together, then I will show you all.

ginger:D

[Thwack]

Ginger,

If it helps, Andy posted a step by step walk through using a RAW file in his example. You can see the steps in the thread at:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=29136#post29136

Just like Lynn said, you open the RAW file twice...one time you save it as-is (if you like the exposure on PART of the picture) and the other time, you adjust the exposure before opening it (which corrects the under-exposed part of your picture while overexposing the part you liked initially).

You then blend the good parts of those two together, trampling the poorly exposed parts in the process.

Good luck (great looking sunset...I bet it looks even cooler once you fix the exposure on the land portion).

All my cameras only shoot JPEG so I have to go take some new shots to try this out.

My next camera will definitely have to support RAW.

[lynnma]

Thanks, Lynn, now it is starting to make sense. I honestly do have a headache. My PC shut down before I could throw two more examples over here.

And these are as freshly done as Sat and Mon, too. Strange that you can't see the shot, I can in your response, all nicely done with the white line around it.

I used to ask a lot more questions, then I got famous, and I didn't want to sound stupid, but I still am, getting smarter, but my vocabulary level is much below someone like Andy's. And people forget what they didn't know. And if I don't ask, you all won't know that I just don't understand.

I really have trouble understand layers, for instance. I do use it to my advantage. But if Andy, or anyone has a tutorial that includes a lot of layers, I ignore it.

Or I did ask the question about the layers locking up on me. I did get answers. They just didn't work for me, two examples of how to solve it, I think. I will figure it out someday. Now, if it locks up, I just merge the layers and start from where I left off. I mean I can't keep saying, "but I don't understand", and it is frustrating to the other person, as that person is not looking at my computer and really can't understand what I don't understand.
ETc.

The eye thing, the thing you look through, I never could focus it manually, as nothing ever looked clear through it. I just had to trust AF. I mentioned it on dgrin, in relation to something else, no response on not being able to see.

Then a week or so later, after I got my camera back from repair, I mentioned it to my husband. He ignored me, I tried to get him to look through it, he said he never could see through my view finders. He was getting really annoyed, and I was talking about sending the camera back as defective. I made him promise to call about it. (He would have promised anything to shut me up, then).

But he did make some comment under his breath about most cameras having an adjustment you could make, mumble, mumble.........

The next day I looked, there was this tee tiny thing: I CAN SEE NOW. But that is how dumb I can be, and people don't know that, because I have been taking photos so long.

And being practically deaf, I learned to hide "dumb" by the time I was in grade school, so it is hard for me to ask this stuff.

Thanks for being patient, Lynn. I will try to separate the light from the dark, sounds biblical, and put them together, then I will show you all.

ginger:DGreat! sounds good to me.. pm me if you get in a bind... It's not easy being green.. I know...:rofl

[ginger_55]

That is my problem with layers, they always lock. I have asked about this before. I was sent to places to read things, they didn't work. So, I just learned to live with it. If they locked, well, I merged them and went on.

Now for this assignment. I have two versions of the same RAW file that I want to "blend", "paste", whatever. I did one, don't know how good it was, but I didn't like the picture, so I went to do another one.

Doing the first one, nothing locked.

I went to do the second one, and it said I could not put one layer on top of the other, as the layer, the first one, the background, was locked.

I don't understand.

I don't understand how layers get locked.

I don't understand how to unlock them.

Or how to lock them, if I were to want to.

Locking layers are a complete mystery to me, and I can't do this assignment of blending two layers, not when they lock me out.

ginger

[ginger_55]

The first one here is the finished photo. I never did get the thing unlocked. Somehow, I bypassed it, but how, I don't know as I had tried the same thing before and it hadn't worked. I have looked everywhere. CS tells you how to lock but not how to unlock, or work when things are locked. And you can't follow it backwards. Below this is the original photo taken RAW this morning, Thurs. ginger

Oh, is it OK to have a blown area in the sky like this, I don't mind it, I like it, but I wonder about Challenges and stuff.

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9547611-L.jpg


http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9547604-L.jpg

[ginger_55]

I am not sure this is aligned, but it appears to be until the end. And the sun appears to be aligned, just not the grass. g
The first one of this is at the beginning of this thread, I have to go to bed.

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9550317-L.jpg

[ginger_55]

This is the before. I thought it might not be the best picture, but would be a good example.


http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9585749-L.jpg

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9585748-L.jpg

That looks kind of fake, don't you think? It is the time of day for that yellowish color, so I don't really like to correct for it. What do you all think?

ginger

[ginger_55]

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9585724-L.jpg


http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9585723-L.jpg
I am using a method found in a book, bringing the dark one on top of the light one, using Difference to align, though that has not been a problem. Then I go to Layer > Layer Styles > Blending Options (moving sliders and things, I am having a little bit of trouble getting that down, it worked best in this photo.) My main problem comes at the point of putting the dark one on top of the light one. Whichever one is on layers, layers says is locked. Then I duplicate it and try to put the dark one over the light one with the move thingy, and the dark one becomes the one on layers. They switch back and forth, depending in which I touch, so it is serendipity to get the layer to come out and "paste".

This was the last one I did last night. I was exhausted, no one was on the site, I don't think, I went to sleep.

ginger

[lynnma]

This is the before. I thought it might not be the best picture, but would be a good example.






That looks kind of fake, don't you think? It is the time of day for that yellowish color, so I don't really like to correct for it. What do you all think?

gingerYes I think this one is a little overdone.. Doin good tho Ginger... your'e on a roll :D

[lynnma]

before


http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/9592804-L.jpg



After
http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/9592803-L.jpg

very little difference really I spose... but I did do a Cletus burn jobby and also blended a layer that was diffused glow underneath the orgininal and wiped off a thin amount in places to let the glow through... not so impressive but I thought I did it so I'll post it. :D

[lynnma]

before
http://lynn.smugmug.com/photos/9593990-L.jpg




After
http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/9593991-L.jpg
I used the exposure in raw to lighten the second time around, curves and noise reduction.

[lynnma]

That is my problem with layers, they always lock. I have asked about this before. I was sent to places to read things, they didn't work. So, I just learned to live with it. If they locked, well, I merged them and went on.

Now for this assignment. I have two versions of the same RAW file that I want to "blend", "paste", whatever. I did one, don't know how good it was, but I didn't like the picture, so I went to do another one.

Doing the first one, nothing locked.

I went to do the second one, and it said I could not put one layer on top of the other, as the layer, the first one, the background, was locked.

I don't understand.

I don't understand how layers get locked.

I don't understand how to unlock them.

Or how to lock them, if I were to want to.

Locking layers are a complete mystery to me, and I can't do this assignment of blending two layers, not when they lock me out.

ginger
Layers can be locked or unlocked ... see red circles..hope this helps.:D

[ginger_55]

That is a really pretty picture, Lynn. The one with the boats and birds. I love it when there are birds all over.

(Smile, kind of obviously considering all the pigeons and the kid. But I also love boats and seagulls, I can sit here and imagine the noises they make.)

Thanks for the "tutorial" photo. I have clicked on the locks many times, trying to get them to do something. Never noticed it making any difference.

This is a problem with me, it has been true whether it was Elements, PS 7, or CS.

The bottom layer I can understand why it would lock. That would maybe keep the photo safe, "intact", so to speak.

But to not be able to control it on up the line, well, I need to be able to know what I am doing wrong. What are you doing with the locks? Is it difficult to say? Do you click on what to do what?

ginger

Also, I really like your entry in the "time" category. I am not going to work on it anymore. I will be surprised if I do another photograph on it. One, it is supposed to rain for the next year or so. Two, that category is driving me nuts, thinking of the past and all.......... With the trip to DC coming up a week from tomorrow (Sunday), and I don't travel much, this will be the first time, except Charlotte, in a year, so I have alot of stress......

I like the way you sized your entry, too. I like the slave cabin I did, but I think the prayer book is a more personal entry, and since neither is going far, I should enter the personal one. But I am torn between the prayer book by itself, the square one, towards the end of my thread, or the prayer book with a toy wooden doll. Could you look at those two and see which one you like?

thanks,

me

[lynnma]

That is a really pretty picture, Lynn. The one with the boats and birds. I love it when there are birds all over.

(Smile, kind of obviously considering all the pigeons and the kid. But I also love boats and seagulls, I can sit here and imagine the noises they make.)

Thanks for the "tutorial" photo. I have clicked on the locks many times, trying to get them to do something. Never noticed it making any difference.

This is a problem with me, it has been true whether it was Elements, PS 7, or CS.

The bottom layer I can understand why it would lock. That would maybe keep the photo safe, "intact", so to speak.

But to not be able to control it on up the line, well, I need to be able to know what I am doing wrong. What are you doing with the locks? Is it difficult to say? Do you click on what to do what?

ginger

Also, I really like your entry in the "time" category. I am not going to work on it anymore. I will be surprised if I do another photograph on it. One, it is supposed to rain for the next year or so. Two, that category is driving me nuts, thinking of the past and all.......... With the trip to DC coming up a week from tomorrow (Sunday), and I don't travel much, this will be the first time, except Charlotte, in a year, so I have alot of stress......

I like the way you sized your entry, too. I like the slave cabin I did, but I think the prayer book is a more personal entry, and since neither is going far, I should enter the personal one. But I am torn between the prayer book by itself, the square one, towards the end of my thread, or the prayer book with a toy wooden doll. Could you look at those two and see which one you like?

thanks,

meTo lock a layer just click on the layer you want to lock and then click on the little (tiny put ya glasses on) lock. A little lock appears in the layer. To unlock just click on the lock again. For thing like this I've found if you go to "help" then "index" and just look under layers... and then lock.. the explanatins are pretty short and easy to stomach.. hope this helps.. I'll check on your shots in a sec.

[ginger_55]

:D I did go to help..............well, I have no memory of what it said, except I think the solution is so obvious that no one has written it down. I went to help a few nights ago. And did it again. And did it again today for something else.

I want to post my challenge creation, in case anyone misses it. It was made using the knowledge from this tutorial. It may not be WOW, it may just be an OH, MY God, but give me a tool, just gotta play.........

I took this:

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9612706-L.jpg



and this:


http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9612771-L.jpg


That face is frightening, isn't it. Anyway, I got this:


http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9612082-L.jpg


and this:


http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/9612854-L.jpg


g

[Andy]

hey wow!

you did very very well on all of them, except for the one where you asked if it looked fake. well, it does - very fake :D but you knew that. it's good to know where the limits are.

good work, g, and i applaud :clap your attitude!

[wxwax]

Below is a composite of 8 different exposures from the single RAW image. Here's the original image.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/9647848-L.jpg



I made separate exposures for: the lit logs in the foreground; the unlit logs in the foreground; the water; the green trees on the right; the ridge on the left; the slope of Mount St. Helens; the brighter parts of the sky; and the darker parts of the sky. I'm not crazy about it, but it's a start.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/9646502-L.jpg

[jwear]

better than the original each is a layer [no raw exp. as yet]?

[DavidTO]

I'm not crazy about it, but it's a start.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/9646502-S.jpg

Curious, wxwax, what do you not like about it? Looks pretty good.

The mountains on the left could use some more detail?

[wxwax]

better than the original each is a layer [no raw exp. as yet]?

Yes, that's right. :nod Each exposure is a layer. Then you use a Mask to eliminate the part you don't want. If you shoot in RAW (as opposed to jpeg), the technology allows you to change your exposure after the fact, by as much as 2-3 stops (I'm told.) I just move the sliders around to get stuff looking better.

RAW can be a lifesaver. But in truth, I think it's better to bracket with multiple shots. More control that way, and you're more likely to get a good result. As I was in a moving helicopter, I couldn't accurately bracket, so I shot in RAW and kept the exposure dark enough to not burn out the highlights. I was counting on RAW to allow me to bring up the exposure for the dark bits when I got home.

[wxwax]

Curious, wxwax, what do you not like about it? Looks pretty good.

The mountains on the left could use some more detail?

Hi David. :wave Yes, the ridge to the left could use more detail - I did the best I know how. Maybe Curves could do a better job. Ditto with the slope of St Helens - the haze defeated me. Also, I'd sure like to see more detail of the trees in the water, especially in the darker area to the lower right. I guess I'd need a big print to make that possible. And finally, I'm not crazy about the composition. Ah well!

[landrum]

Okay, I gave this a shot. This photo was taken on vacation with my Minolta A2 (which is a SUCKY camera that I no longer have!) I only had a jpg of it to work with.

BEFORE:
http://landrum.smugmug.com/photos/9905075-L.jpg

AFTER:

http://landrum.smugmug.com/photos/9905077-L.jpg

I ended up using 3 layers. The first was corrected for my subjects. The second was corrected for the water. The third was the original lightened a bit and set to 50%. I used the third because the edges of my subjects were really blown out with the corrections, and even only erasing with 10-25% I still couldn't get it to look right. The overlay just seemed to even things out. Did I do this right? Was there an easier way? What do you think???

Thanks!
Laurie

[wxwax]

Nice job, Laurie! The water looks good, and so does the women to the right. To my eye, the one to the left looks slightly artificial - too sharp a contrast against the water background. That's where Andy's technique comes in handy... the one where he uses different size brushes with gradually changing opacities, in order to smooth the transition in a mask. .

[wxwax]

Reviving an old thread... here's another shot where I made different exposures in RAW and combined them.

In this case, one exposure for the sky, one for the helicopter, one for the ground and one for the pilot. Plus a generous amount of the Cletus Method to lighten the guy's face and darken the sky around the edges of the chopper.

This was shot on the valley floor beneath Mount St. Helens (it's cloud shrouded in the background.)

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/9642565-L.jpg