Ian's Images

Monday, April 22, 2019

HDR Pro from Lightroom

Creating HDR Images

Lightroom HDR versus Photoshop HDR Pro

I am a warm-weather namby-pamby. I take more outdoor, landscape images in the summer. Yes, although I know the first rule of landscape photography is "on sunny days open-sky photographs must only be taken at sunrise and sunset", I still take most of my shots during the day.

The problem I have, as you will guess, is the light is too harsh; the darks are too black and the highlights are too white.

Thus I often bracket the exposure time of my shots to allow HDR processing to bring in the darks and lights and hopefully generate an acceptable full DR image to work from.

We all know Adobe Lightroom (LR) uses the same underlying engine as Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which just happens to also be Photoshop's (PS) default RAW processor. Thus it makes no difference whether a RAW image is processed in PS/ACR or LR.

When Lightroom introduced HDR processing I just assumed that the engine for this would be the same as the one that Photoshop uses (where it is called HDR PRO.) Whether they are or are not the same I can't be certain but my conversions differ.

I processed a set of three images, handheld, taken at 0, minus 1 and 2/3 stops and plus 1 and 2/3 stops exposure time increments.

I used LR HDR to combine them into one 32-bit DNG. I then used PS HDR PRO to create one 32-bit PSD. I compared the results.

PS HDR PRO was the clear winner and worth the few extra seconds it takes.

These are the three RAW photos in my set: normal (0), (over) +1.6 and (under) -1.6 stops

I created the HDR in LR as follows...

Select the image set
Right click one of the selected images
Choose PHOTO MERGE > HDR.
In the popup HDR window select AUTO ALIGN and GHOSTING if needed, mine was hand held so I selected both, and auto settings is optional
Click MERGE and the job is done.

I created the HDR in PS as follows...

Starting from within LR
Select the image set, right click one of the selected images
Choose EDIT IN > MERGE TO HDR PRO IN PHOTOSHOP

This will open Photoshop and open the HDR PRO window.

Select REMOVE GHOSTS if it was hand held or needs deghosting.
Select MODE to 32 bit
Select COMPLETE TONING IN ADOBE CAMERA RAW
You can select (tick) or deselect one or more images in your set, I used all three.
If you have chosen to remove ghosts, highlight the image which will be used to choose the ghosted sectors. (also note: in my set selecting the over exposed image (EV +1.6) the sky had a cyan cast, but selecting the normal exposure (EV 0) image was OK.
Click the TONE IN ACR to create the merged image and open it in ACR for additional work as desired (e.g. click BASIC > AUTO)
Click OK to open the HDR image in Photoshop as a 32-bit PSD.
Click FILE > SAVE and close the image to return back to LR, The HDR image will have been imported and ready for any additional post processing.

This is the final PS HDR PRO image (reduced size)...

Comparing the LR and the PS HDR PRO results I have zoomed into the branches of both trees.

LR HDR version...

PS HDR PRO version...

(Click the images to view them in more detail)

There is clearly a much crisper rendition of the branches in the PS version. They are mushy in the LR version.

Similar results are evident in other parts of the photograph.

I know the sky is a different hue. I tried to match the images but failed. Colours can always be changed to taste in LR or PS.

So it would seem the two HDR processors (LR and PS) are different apps and PS wins.

But Are They Different Applications?

I am still in two minds that LR and PS use different HDR applications

First, it doesn't make sense that Adobe would develop a different HDR application when they wanted to add HDR to Lightroom. Surely they would simply lift the code from PS and slot it into LR.

Secondly, both methods (LR and PS) had exactly the same, small problem with the solitary duck, duplicating part of the duck to its lower left. In both LR and ACR this was quickly fixed with the HEALING BRUSH.

So I suspect they have the same underlying code, or at least many of the same components such as (I assume) the ALIGN module that produced the same half duck.

Thus different results could just be due to the user interface that drives the HDR code. We know the PS interface offers a different approach to set handling, so perhaps PS simply passes different default parameters to the HDR app to those that LR passes in. In this instance PS parameters produced better results.

Other HDR products are available

Different results would be obtained using other HDR software, e.g. Capture One, ON1, Photomatix, NIK, Aurora etc. But I am only working with LR and PS so I will now consider PS first before LR.

Dated: 22nd April 2019, using the current versions of LR and PS at that date.
Versions: LR is 8.2.1, ACR is 11.2.1, PS is 20.0.4
Camera: Fujifilm X-T2, RAF, 1/500, f/7.1 ISO 200. 35mm with the 18-55mm XF lens.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Choosing the next lens for the Fuji X-T2

So I have a new FUJI camera, the X-T2. It came with the kit lens, the XF 18-55mm (Full Frame equiv of 27-83mm) f/2.8 to f/4. I also have a 2-year old XC 50-230mm (FF 75-345mm), not as good quality as an XF lens but works on the X-T2.
For the last 6 years I was shooting the full frame Canon 5DII and their 24-105mm f/4 lens hardly left the body.

I was spoiled, I think I am finding 18mm (FF 27mm) not quite wide enough and 55mm (FF 83mm) not quite long enough. Do I need another lens or two? If so which lens should I get?

The first decision I made: stick with Fuji lenses as there are no easy alternatives on the market. Those that fit typically have, as far as I can tell, no automatic focusing and possibly no auto aperture when fitted to the Fuji body. Perhaps one day Sigma/Tamron will make some less-expensive, compatible lenses but no sign of that happening anytime soon.

Looking through the Fuji catalogue I have narrowed my possibilities down to the following...

10-24mm f/4 (FF 15-36mm, for wide angles)
18-135mm f/3.5 to 5.6 (FF 27-203mm - sounds like a good walk-about lens)
60mm 2.4 macro (FF 90mm for portraits and macro)

Being lazy and reluctant to change lenses I figured the 18-135 would probably stay on the body most of the time, but is it a good enough lens?

I don't do that many but I enjoy taking macros and portraits. I had an inexpensive Sigma 105mm macro for the Canon so I know the 60mm macro would get some use.

I can't afford every lens in the catalogue so need some hard information to justify my decision. That is where Lightroom (LR) comes in. Do I need a wide aperture? Do I need really use 24mm and 105mm much on the Canon? This information will help me choose a suitable lens or two.

In my personal LR catalogue (I have other catalogues for my commercial work) I have around 90,000 images from the past 14 years. I took a lot more but many have been culled. So let's get some stats out of LR. These are not difficult to do. I have been using the 5DII and 24-105 lens for 6 years so decide to concentrate on those last 6 years.

I created a series of Smart Collections to count the number of images I have taken at various apertures and focal lengths. For instance: How many of my images were taken in the f/4 to f/5.6 range

This ensured images for the correct camera+lens and aperture range are selected as I may have some images from other photographers in there.

I did this for a range of apertures and then some for various focal lengths.

These are my stats from the Canon...

There is a small margin of error. Not sure why, possibly due to images not quite fitting in the ranges specified, e.g. one range being f/4 to f/5.6 and the next smart collection range being f/5.7 to f/11, but maybe an image was recorded at 5.61 and got missed. Not to worry, it is not a long way out so I can live with that.

I can see that 17% of my keepers came from the 24-27mm range and the X-T2 18-55 doesn't cover that range. I could probably live without it and usually stand further back for a wider shot or take a 2-shot panorama. But 26% of the time I used a longer range than the X-T2 18-55 and I know that I would not have often used that longer focal length if I didn't need it.

Also on the aperture side I use f/4 to f/5.6 for 44% of the time. The X-T2 18-55 covers that and more (f/2.8 - f/4) so it scores well on that but if I bought the 18-135 it wouldn't be so good.

So now onto the reviews. Search the web for some good review sites. I like those where they review and test a lot of lenses in technical detail. I know that one can't just rely on the technical specs but they tend to be a lot more reliable than some of the posts on public forums (you know the ones, where someone gives a product 5 stars based on the marketing spec before the item has even been released!)

The 18-135 had some reasonable reviews but one too many poor ones. It seems it would be a usable lens but not the best.

So given that doubt, the lack of wide angle and large apertures I decided to hold off on buying that lens. I know if I had it I would use it 80% of the time but would I be happy?

So I have settled for two lenses, the wide angle 10-24mm and the 60mm macro. Hopefully this will cover and expand my wide angle needs and give me a portrait ad macro lens. Both lenses have had excellent reviews. I know the 60mm macro is not looking as useful as the better spec'd and newer 80mm macro but it is less than half the price.

What about the longer lens? I have not often found a need for more than FF 105mm. So I will live with using the XC 50-230mm when I want anything in that range. I have tested it out and it is not too shoddy, in fact better than my cheap Sigma FF 70-300mm lens I used on the Canon.

Now I just need to get used to the Fuji instead of the Canon. And get used to carrying and changing lenses. The sensor is smaller but has more pixels, I think the image quality is better than the 5DII which shows it age when pushing the ISO up.

I can use the EVF normally but make good use of the articulated LCD when I need it. The WYSIWYG viewfinders are good, I tend to shoot Av or manually and both are helped by this. The menus are different and a bit convoluted but I am getting used to them.

Do I prefer it over the Canon? Not yet. I would have loved to have the new 5DIV and stayed with my 24-105 but the body is too expensive and has no articulated LCD. Despite the many advantages of an electronic viewfinder I still prefer the optical viewfinder of the Canon.

There are other good FF systems now, the new Nikon 850 and the Sony whatever, but they would be even more expensive than the Canon 5DIV would have been for me.

I have had need to use the Fuji support to get my tethering sorted out and they were very helpful. I can't imagine Canon would have done the same.

BTW I have ignored the fact that the aperture effects on DoF for an APS-C sensor (as used on the Fuji) are not identical to those of a FF sensor. Roughly an APS-C sensor will have a DoF of 1.5x that of the FF sensor. This means the Fuji backgrounds will not be as soft focus as the Canon for the same aperture. But this won't be noticeable for much of my work and both the 60mm and the 18-55 can work down to f/2.8 which is better for this than the f/4 of the Canon.