Bhutanese valley

Just a quick post with a shot from my last holiday that I thought makes a point about a notable change in my approach to photography today compared with a couple of years ago. This is a shot of a valley in Bhutan. The important thing is that it was taken on a beautiful clear day and it's just HDR and other post-processing that's sculpted this fictional brooding skyline. In truth is probably very obvious that this is the case- subtlety is clearly the next thing I need to learn with my photography- but what I take from this is that only a couple of years ago I was an out-of-the-camera purist and here I am now being happy to fundamentally alter the scene. There are pros and cons to both approaches of course, but I think that this usage probably benefits the type of photography that I most often find myself doing.

Machinery 2.9 example

Further to yesterday's post, I thought I'd show a quick example of a single exposure enhanced with Machinery HDR 2.9. It's not the perfect example since there's some moderate JPG artefaction happening but overall I think you can see the effect. Nothing too dramatic, just a basic preset easily toned down if it's thought to be too strong (it's probably a little over-sharpened) but comparing it with the base image on the left, I think it definitely adds a desirable enhancement.

Machinery HDR 2.9

One of the things I like about the Machinery HDR software is that it's clear that it's continuously being improved and developed behind the scenes. It seems as though every other time I start it up, there's a new version to update to. We're now on version 2.9 which professed "improved ghost removal" (something I'd commented before was weaker when compared with Photomatix). I'll be honest, I'm still not seeing it but the overall improvement in HDR quality from, say, v2.6 means that I can often remove the single exposure that's causing the ghost and I'm still able to get the overall effect I want from only two (JPG) exposures. Of course that doesn't help if you've got movement between all three frames, but it's something worth having nonetheless.

As I said, the overall improvement to HDR is great- it achieves an increasingly 'natural' HDR look (something they've always strived for). Blacks are well preserved, something I always struggled with in Photomatix where it would make my pictures look washed out, the famous HDR halo effect is all but banished entirely and, perhaps most surprisingly, it's able to achieve great effects from a single JPG exposure. Even for non-typical HDR subjects such as portraits. I'm now using it as a generic post-processing tool for pictures I wouldn't describe as HDR per se (e.g. the snap of Sacha, above). I'm seeing it really emphasize depth in a number of shots and it definitely bears further experimentation.

Drop saturation - technique or gimmick?

Above is a photo I took at a protest march a couple of years ago. It's the only example of a photo where I've used selective drop saturation to isolate a subject. It's a simple technique and there's a lot about but I'm wondering whether it's more of a gimmick than a legitmate technique. It's a quick way of making a subject leap out from the picture but could it be too easy? Is that a thing? Could it be/is it overused? And is it always an improvement? Take a look at the two photos below, which I took at a party over the weekend. I'm not sure that the processed photo is actually an improving and probably detracts from the original rather than adding to it, although I still like it. Now I've found a simple tool to achieve the effect, maybe I'll start to use it more and see if I reach any conclusions.

More Machinery

I'm continuing to use my new HDR software, Machinery, mostly to revisit shots from my 2013 trips to South-East Asia and the USA. The above shot is one which has come out favourably from the process, especially compared to its former Photomatix equivalent. The natural HDR look that Machinery pitches for (as of v2.8) totally eliminates the 'halo' effect that so frequently plagues HDR output as well as getting truer blacks. I'm certainly getting better shots out of it. I still intend to do a proper like-for-like Photomatix vs. Machinery at some point, though.

HDR compare and contrast

I stumbled upon HDR One magazine the other day and obviously it's a great resource for the type of photography that I most commonly do. As well as the articles themselves, it's also provided some great suggestions of HDR software out there. I've picked up a demo of Machinery to try it out and it's definitely an interesting contrast with Photomatix. Machinery does profess an intent towards natural HDR, which isn't usually what I aim for but maybe I should. All the more reason to experiment.

I must emphasise at this point that I have, at time of writing, only had to run a couple of images through it so there's lots more exploration to be done but here are two images- the first done in Photomatix, the second done in Machinery: The difference is obvious- Machinery certainly does create a more naturalistic HDR image. Also look at how crisp that bastard is! Not only does Machinery provide built-in sharpening but the halo-ing effect (so often the bane of HDR) is reduced, presumably due to the more natural look. Take a look at the streetlights on the left of the image, for example (both in the foreground and the BG) and the superior detail on the shelf of Buddha figures. It's also astonishingly fast and does a genuine live change as opposed to Photomatix's two-stage 'guestimate' process, which has always bothered me, to be honest.

Obviously this image comparison also depends on the settings and post-HDR-processing each image has been run through. They've both had the contrast lowered and brightness increased. The Photomatix image was sharpened a touch and the Machinery one had it's saturation upped a bit since lowering the contrast left it a little washed out (or maybe I'm just too used to Photomatix output).

Overall, perhaps as you'd expect, it seems that the different softwares both have areas in which they are superior but it certainly seems that the de facto industry standard position that Photomatix seems to enjoy can be challenged. In any case, I definitely need to do some more experimentation with Machinery to see what I can get out of it but first experience has definitely left a positive impression.

Tech upgrade

So the new laptop has arrived and I've got busy with Photomatix and GIMP. Particularly GIMP which I've not really used much before. I've obtained some scripts to replicate some of the effects I used to use with Picnik- Ortonography and Vignette, mostly. I even still dip into Aviary in Flickr when it suits.

Both Photomatix and GIMP run faster than on my old machine (even when it was at its best) but not quite the breakneck speed that I was perhaps expecting but it's ok, I'm happy with the step up. I'm still not entirely happy with how Photomatix operates, though. It comes up with a preview image which you tweak before instructing it to process the final image. The problem is that the final image doesn't match the preview, which is no end of frustrating. Can anyone recommend any other good HDR software? Photomatix is great but it does let itself down in a big way with this one issue.

As for the images that accompany this post, they're more examples of HDR efforts around la Sagrada Familia and one more atheist's love affair with the buildings of a religion he doesn't subscribe to. Christianity does provide some good photo ops, I'll give it that.

Au revoir Picnik

I'm meant to be revising for a series of Japanese exams and this, of course, means that I've been doing anything but revising for my Japanese exams. Procrastination breeds portraiture.

This picture was also a first experiment in Flickr's new inbuilt browser after Picnik integration was discontinued following it's purchase by Google (rival to the Yahoo-run Flickr). I have to say, I'm far from impressed. Picnik had a decent variety of features and filters but its replacement, Aviary, is not much more than Instagram in terms of variety. The most important omission (for me, anyway) is the ability to vary the strength of the effects- maybe I like one of their filters and it'd really bring out a photo if applied at 30% but ruins it at 100%. No dice; it's all or nothing.

This a dealbreaker for me and I don't think that I'm really left with an alternative other than looking into Photoshop which I'm reluctant to do. Picnik was a perfect tool for me as someone who took to post-processing somewhat reluctantly; it offered a decent variety of simple but potentially profound and scalable options with sensible options and parameters which supported versioning in the browser. Photoshop, by comparison, is an infinite, cumbersome tool and a technical can of worms I'd rather not open.

My basic HDR process

Following on from my last entry, I thought I'd give a little insight on the comparatively basic process I use in creating images such as the one I posted.


So this is the raw image that my camera took, having assessed the light in the scene etc.


This is the HDR image having mixed in one overexposed and one underexposed shot (D7000 only supports 3-step autobracketing).


...and this is the image after further post-processing. A little sharpening, exposure/contrast and filters and you get this less-than-subtle fantasy skyline.

The Far End of Central

The success of my previous attempt with more aggressive HDR and post-processing drew some very nice feedback. This shot isn't as strong as that one for a number of reasons (composition isn't as strong, shot isn't as crisp- I blame HK's air quality- and the lights on the right hand side of the shot bleed too much; whatever effects I apply makes the left hand side of the shot look better but the right side look worse) but the positive comments have encouraged me to experiment and be bolder with more extreme techniques whereas previously I tended to tried to treat these with a lighter touch. This result is passable, I feel. I'll keep on experimenting with it.

Cat

I'm looking after a friend's cat for a while. She proves to be an entertaining portrait subject.

Flickr has stated that it's going to be undergoing some pretty major changes, including discontinuing built-in editing via Picnik (which is now owned by Google, as opposed to Yahoo's Flickr). I've got pretty used to being able to make little tweaks post-upload (contrast with me borderline anti-post-processing entries earlier in this blog) so depending on what they replace it with may determine whether I stay with the service at all, or whether I just bite the bullet and take up something like Photoshop to handle post-processing. Picknik disappears around mid-April, we'll see what happens then.

Comparison piece

The portraits I've been taking at work have also been a good platform to try a bit more post-processing. Portraits tend to call out for it a bit more than, say, architecture photography. I've tried not to be too heavy-handed with it, especially where the raw image (above left) is nice and sharp to begin with. Let me know what you think of the post-processed image (above right); is it an improvement or no?

HK$10

As mentioned, I'm off to Hong Kong in a few weeks and this allows me to experience glorious foreign money! Ours is so dull by comparison.

This shot was actually taken with my old Nikon D3000 and it's standard 18-55mm kit lens which I find is a superior macro lens to the 50mm. Obviously it has greater zoom but I also think the minimum focus distance is shorter so you can get closer in.

This shot is also an example of early experiments with post-processing. It's not something that I've traditionally liked to do. Part of it is a complete lack of experience with that type of thing but part of it is that it feels just slightly dishonest to me. I don't want you getting the wrong idea, I'm not a 'straight out of the camera' purist but for my own use, what I want is an exercise in photography, not digital art and post-processing starts you down that route where there's no difinitive cutoff. If I want to use it for correction, surely the obvious feeling is why didn't I achieve the effect with the photo itself?

Anyway, artistic insecurities aside, I did want to explore Flickr's inbuilt editing software (via Piknik.com). It's features are best described as basic but fundamental by which I mean that you can create profound effects (if desired) by playing with rudimentary settings. It also saves versioning so if, after I save the file back to Flickr, I decide I don't like it, I can hop back in and click 'Undo'. Nice.

This is one of the areas where Flickr has shone through a little bit; one of the reasons for me starting this blog was wanting to test Blogger/Picasa/Google+ interconnectivity but Picasa's inbuilt editing doesn't seem to be on the same level as Flickr/Piknik's. Obviously there are a myriad of 3rd offline and synchronised solutions but an integrated host/edit package really appeals.

In any case, the post-processing effects have certainly allowed me to turn the above shot from something decidedly unremarkable into something rather more... eye-catching? The trick now will be to resist slathering every shot in garish post-processing effects to try and make something out of nothing. Frankly I could do without the temptation.