Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos HDR Creation
Thread started 05 Jun 2017 (Monday) 10:39
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Light bloom due to over exposure twilight building photography

 
Timza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Timza's Avatar
130 posts
Joined Jan 2016
Post has been edited 4 months ago by Timza.
Jun 07, 2017 17:23 |  #16

I see what you have pointed out, but do not agree that what you have found is also the problem I started this thread to solve.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by Left Handed Brisket. 3 edits done in total.
Jun 07, 2017 18:17 |  #17

Timza wrote in post #18373399 (external link)
I see what you have pointed out, but do not agree that what you have found is also the problem I started this thread to solve.

I get what you are saying so I will back up.

There is no reason multiple exposures at the exact same time of day cannot capture the full dynamic range of the scene. Seriously, no reason. Right now I am trying to wrap up a huge project shooting interiors and exteriors of apartment complexes. I have taken and processed hundreds of HDR images in the past two months and the only thing remotely like this is an occasional rainbow type lens flare caused by a bare light bulb in an overhead lamp ... think ceiling fan with no solid globe. I have plenty of shots (hundreds that are 5 bracketed shots, between 2/3rds stop and a stop and a third between each) that span the range from a dark closet with no light, to a room lit with both overhead and window light, to full sun outside and/or streaming in the window. I shoot in continuous mode so all five shots are taken in less than 2 seconds. None of my individual shots have shown the kind of effects you are seeing and none of my processed Enfuse HDRs have shown the kind of effects you are seeing.

While my shots are not exactly like yours, they are pretty darn close. Besides, people do stuff like you are doing ALL THE TIME with no problems like you are having. I have done it myself. Your scene is nothing compared to the dynamic range of pointing the camera right at the setting sun and capturing valleys in the shade below.

here is kirkt's first paragraph after you posted examples, he's a smart guy by the way:

Thank you for the examples. There are a few ways to combat this kind of artifact. First, your camera set up and equipment - the lens you use and the aperture settings you employ can make a significant difference. If you shoot a lot of this kind of scene, consider a highly corrected lens that will reduce flare. In addition to the "blooming" you demonstrate around light sources, these images have significant lens flare artifacts - flare not only causes ugly patterns of color across an image, but also reduces contrast. Also. make sure the front and rear elements of your lens are clean! Also, if you shoot with a UV filter or some similar filter in front of your lens (maybe just to protect the front element) remove it. Each additional layer of glass or muck can cause the diffusion and flare of light that you are trying to fight.

You can insist that the lens artifacts that have been pointed out are not the issue, but the fact is, you came here for advice and have received what I believe is at least a very large part of your problem. Insisting that the advice you have been given does not address the problem does not mean that the advice actually does not address the problem. It just means you are unwilling to take the advice you have asked for.

Seriously, how can you look at the two images i posted and say that the lens is not a major source of your problem? eh, whatever, good luck.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
Timza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Timza's Avatar
130 posts
Joined Jan 2016
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by Timza. 5 edits done in total.
Jun 07, 2017 21:44 |  #18

Ok. The two images directly below are new and taken tonight. Different camera than used for my previous images. Different lens. The image on the left was with a UV filter screwed onto the front of the lens. The image on the right was without any filter. You can see that there is light bloom in both images, but the image on the left has an additional reflection from the UV filter. In the first images I posted on this thread I had a UV filter on the lens, but then part of Kirk's helpful advice was to remove my UV filter and I did. You can see on the previous page that with my images after Kirk's great advice there was no reflection. You can also see directly below that there is something going on with the brightness of the MA+NASIUM sign where it is blooming more than the GREAT CLIPS sign. So I need to continue to experiment.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Ok. Five bracketed images shown below. Taken tonight. Different camera from my previous images. Different lens. No UV filter. No reflection. But, same light bloom increasing as the exposure increases. As I previously said, while I do agree that the reflection found in one of my first three posted images was a problem, I do not believe that problem continued after I stopped using a UV filter on my later images, and I do not believe that problem is the problem that I started this thread to solve.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Jun 08, 2017 09:16 |  #19

Another thing to consider is how the HDR application you use actually performs the merge - each application may have different methods, from a basic pixel averaging strategy, to more complex strategies that weight pixels, or merges based on segmenting the source images based on luminance and stitching the segmented areas together into a single composite. As your lens begins to produce bloom around very bright light sources (in the more overexposed images meant for shadow detail) those blooming pixels get reinforced in each successive exposure in which they appear and may make their way into the merge.

To combat this, you may need a lens that handles glare and flare better or software that has better merge strategies to reduce this artifact.

Like I said - if you can post an exposure sequence of raw files, I will run them through all of the different applications I use and compare the results to see if the artifacts can be handled purely in the HDR process, versus with different optics. I can test your images in:

Photomatix 6
HDR Expose 3
SNS HDR
LumaRiver HDR
Photoshop/ACR
Franzis HDR Projects 5
Picturenaut


kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Jun 08, 2017 09:22 |  #20

Another approach to consider is to use a Graduated ND filter with a soft transition so that you are performing the tonal range compression in-camera. You expose for your building and then choose the appropriate filter strength to control the sky. However, I would guess the the exposure puzzle is really geared more toward exposing for the lights on the building while still getting good exposure on the building face - the lights on the building are likely similar in exposure value to the sky, so exposing for the lights and sky will underexposure the building.

In this case you may be able to get away with 2 exposures and do a luminosity blend. One exposure for the sky and bright lights on the building and a second exposure for the building. Then use the sky/lights exposure as your base image and mask in the properly exposed building onto the sky/lights image.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Jun 08, 2017 09:39 |  #21

And, finally, consider shooting one raw exposure that is slightly underexposed or at least exposed so that no blooming is present and simply boost the shadow and dark midotnes on the building to where you want them. This will reduce contrast int he image, but you can restore that contrast with local contrast enhancement like clarity, HiRaLoAm, etc.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Timza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Timza's Avatar
130 posts
Joined Jan 2016
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by Timza. 3 edits done in total.
Jun 08, 2017 10:24 |  #22

I hear you. And I do appreciate your thoughts. I am getting a new lens to try that may be here today or tomorrow and will experiment more over the weekend.

There is one issue we cannot change with what lens or software I use. There is a specific time when the sky is either the best dark blue or the most colorful red / orange, or has the most defined cloud structure. To me this seems to be about 15 minutes after official weather.com sunset (based on time zone not based on longitude). And a good exposure for this seems to be about 2 stops under an evaluative metering normal exposure for the scene. At that same time, the correct exposure for the exterior walls seems to be about three stops more exposed above that sky exposure (or one stop more than evaluative scene normal). If I am going to use only the bracketed photos taken at that time, then I need a lens and software solution that deals with the lights. I do not believe I can do the reverse. I do not think I can take a photograph earlier based on the correct normal exposure balance between the exterior wall and the exterior lights and then neutral density down the sky to get the same blue hour color or red / orange sunset color.




LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Post has been edited 4 months ago by kirkt.
Jun 08, 2017 13:17 as a reply to Timza's post |  #23

Post a raw image set for download to Dropbox or similar. I will run your image set through various applications to investigate the options, in terms of the merge and toning algorithms.

I hope your new lens works out!

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Timza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Timza's Avatar
130 posts
Joined Jan 2016
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by Timza. 2 edits done in total.
Jun 09, 2017 22:35 |  #24

Ok. New to me Olympus M1 original Mark I. Brand new to me today Olympus 25mm f/1.8. Camera bracket function 7 images 2 stops apart. Hand held. No UV filter on lens. The below three images were merged in Photomatix Pro, Exposure Fusion, Neutral.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
Timza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Timza's Avatar
130 posts
Joined Jan 2016
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by Timza. 3 edits done in total.
Jun 10, 2017 10:57 |  #25

Here are excellent examples from last night. The image on the far left shows the exterior signage in wonderful focus and color with no blooming, but the sky is dark and the exterior wall is dark. Then the image in the center shows a pretty blue sky, and the interior is nicely exposed, but the exterior sign is starting to lose its color, note how the big A in the center image is not as red as it is in the image on the left. Then the image on the far right shows the sky over exposed, the interior over exposed, the exterior walls maybe correctly exposed to maybe slightly over exposed, and the exterior signage not just over exposed but blooming in a way that the outlines of the sign letters are not visible.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Jun 10, 2017 18:40 as a reply to Timza's post |  #26

I will take a look at your images tonight.

Thanks for sharing!

Kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Post has been edited 4 months ago by kirkt.
Jun 11, 2017 12:14 |  #27

First major problem: You are not acquiring your image sequences properly. Your image exposure is being manipulated by fixing aperture AND shutter speed and changing ISO. This is a no-no.

Fix aperture and ISO (and WB and focus) and change shutter speed to get good quality data.

Then post a link to a sample image sequence and I'll take a look. Right now the images are awash in noise and there are all sorts of color artifacts that occur in the merging process.

And I still think your solution will be in the use of a lens that handles flare better.

Kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Jun 11, 2017 12:22 |  #28

In this situation I would use shutter speed as the variable too, but just as an FYI, here is a great example of ISO being the variable.

http://photography-on-the.net ...showthread.php?p=18​354124


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,347 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Jun 11, 2017 13:02 |  #29

When you use enfuse, you can probably get away with ISO variation - enfuse is just looking to segment "well exposed" pixels. When you merge data to a 32bit hdr image, you need to vary the amount of light hitting the sensor (change exposure). Jacking up ISO does not do this, and it introduces unnecessary noise.

Vary shutter speed.

Kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,501 views & 4 likes for this thread
Light bloom due to over exposure twilight building photography
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos HDR Creation


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00088 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is lookingglassphoto
1006 guests, 496 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016