Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u

v2010.122     09/29/10     

Priority: Low     

v2010.122 includes the following:

• Single raw HDR: The raw refine dialog now includes a significantly improved fill light and a new "HDR" slider.  To create high dynamic range photos, simply expose for the highlights when you take your raw photo and then when refining your raw in Qimage Ultimate, add enough fill to brighten the shadows.  Then simply drag the "HDR" slider to the right to recover any lost detail in the highlights by compressing the dynamic range.  By operating only the fill and HDR sliders, its easy to create beautiful HDR photos from a single raw exposure!  In many cases (when dynamic range isn't extreme), single raw HDR photos produce better results than many people are achieving with multiple exposures.  Note: the fill light in both the raw refine dialog and the (non raw) image editor have been improved and may show slight differences from prior versions.  Please double check for proper fill and exposure prior to printing photos when fill light was added in previous versions of Qimage/Qimage Ultimate.
• Fixes and improvements: Fixed some minor bugs and made some slight improvements to some windows and dialogs.

Learn more about Qimage Ultimate single raw HDR (with examples): http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/hdr.htm

Mike

Thanks very much Mike.

Anything else up your sleeve??!!

Peter

You are bringing out new features thick and fast, it is a job to keep up with you :)  Only just getting the hang of tone sharpening which I find quite subtle and very effective.

Thanks for the new features, they are keeping this only brain working hard.

Jeff g

Jeff,
You only have yourself to blame, was you who started this HDR stuff, remember?  ;D

I've had a quick go with a number of images and it works very well in the right circumstances.
It works for any high contrast image where exposure was for highlights and a good level of Fill is required - not just for back-lit cloudy skies.
See attached below for a simple example. Filled to give detail in the dark foliage  then HDR to bring back the detail in the water ripples & fountain.

Terry

Wow you people get up early over in the UK. Don't you ever sleep.
When I got on here a while ago, boy, was I surprised, and pleasantly so.

I played for a while, (with Qimage Ultimate) and not only has the FILL been improved, but the HDR slider is a really nice tool.
Terry is right on the money. Oh I forgot!   "Spot on" .
To simplify, when you have some shadow areas that need opening (lightening), but in doing so, your highlighted areas are losing detail (like lace work on a white blouse, or the folds in a man's white shirt (or the detail in the bright parts of Terry's top tier water), you can recall the detail with some judicious use of the HDR slider.

I wish Mike would have called it Fill Detail, or Recovery of Detail, because that's what it does.
Anyway, have fun redoing all your old images. That will keep you (Jeff-G) out of the pubs for a while! :-)
You do not need HDR on every image. So don't get carried away. But try it. That's how you get the feel of it.
Second caveat. Add too much HDR, and you can see the contrast flatten somewhat. 

Have fun all you Ultimate people.   (hey! We are UPs) Ultimate People!!

Fred

When you get to my age one has to get up early, time is short and a lot to do :)

I have just taken a shot direct into sun through Poplar tree metered for sky.

5 minutes quick work with Ultimate.  The new HDR slider did a good job I think.

(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v10/p215501660-4.jpg)
Camera created jpeg

(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p42669229-4.jpg)
Raw image Ultimated

Jeff g
 

Try raising the FILL a few more numbers

Yes I do remember, I did not think it would have such a quick effect. Must congratulate Mike on such a simple (for us that is) additional feature.

Jeff

Jeff,
Would it be too much trouble to send me the RAW file?
Appreciate it.

Fred   wathree.ssz@verizon.net

Jeff,

Wow, nice shot!  I've found that the ones that have the sun in the picture are the most difficult.  Most of those are so extreme that they actually need multiple exposures to do HDR well.  That sample is actually quite nice, although for something that extreme (with the sun itself in the photo), I might have opted the more difficult route of multiple exposures.  Our of curiosity, what camera?

One comment just from looking at the shot: be careful not go to too high with the HDR.  Some of the clouds near the horizon level might benefit from less HDR.  The HDR slider is designed so that if you go beyond about 20 on the slider, it does a different sort of DR compression: one that tends to smooth out the boundary between shadows and highlights.  That method takes care of any halos or sharp transitions.  If not used carefully, it can make some areas look pasty though if there's detail you want in that section of the curve.  I wonder if backing off on the HDR slider a little would bring back some of the clouds near the horizon.  That may brighten the brightest clouds a little but that's OK: you don't want those too dark anyway and you can often brighten them quite a bit without actually losing detail on them.

It's a delicate balance actually that takes a little getting used to.  I've been working on this for 2 weeks over many dozens of shots.  I'd welcome you emailing me that shot if you like.  I'd like to see what I can do with it.

Regards,
Mike

Mike and Fred

Image sent yesterday, at least it left me.

Jeff g

Hi Jeff,
Nothing arrived here. It's 5:30 am at my house EDT right now.

I think you said it was a new or different camera. Were the Raws too large to email?

Fred

Jeff,
I just googled your camera and focused on the size of the Raw file size. The consensus seems to be about 25 megs as a DNG.
In an email, that usually translates to a 27+ meg email and attachment.
Too much for email.

There's a site called YOUSENDIT.com where you upload your image and give my email address. I get notified, and I can download from there; no charge to you.
Maybe you have a site from which I can download your shot?

Otherwise, I think I am out of ideas.

Fred

Jeff,

Thanks for sending the image.  Looks like you did a great job.  I can't improve on it much.  Most of what I did was a matter of taste.  Here's your rendition (repeated from above) and then mine:

(http://jeffmilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p42669229-4.jpg)
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/jeffsimage.jpg)

Comments welcome of course.

Mike

Mike & Jeff,

Would you both mind sharing the settings that you used (TTS, HDR, Fill, Curves, etc.) to obtain your desired results. I understand how each photo we process will be entirely different.

Just curious as to what each of you did.

Both are very nice photos.

BTW..Thank you Mike for the HDR options. Experimented late last night (barely awake) and had a couple of very positive results from some old RAW photos. At least my wife was impressed.

Appreciate your work.

Ken

For my rendition above, all edits were done in Qimage Ultimate:

In Raw Refine:
  WB on clouds
  Fill +20
  HDR 35

In Image Editor:
  Contrast +10
  Shadow noise checked
  TTS with shadow of center shrub/tree selected, RGB targeting, 90% TTS slider, radius 8, strength -100

That last one acts as a selective noise filter, removing noise from only the parts of the image that have noise (there was a LOT of noise as this example is pretty extreme).

Mike

Thank you very much Mike. Just got back to the PC. Hope tomorrow I can experiment a bit more.

Just looking at your settings will get me out of my, "confined thinking" using QIU. I never imagined using a radius of 8.. for anything. I'm going back to the photos I have already played with and will start again. Conservative by nature I suppose...must expand the use of the tools you have provided.

Can see that QIU can probably be used to extended softening of portrait backgrounds when required. Some of my best portrait shots have been unintended....then the PP softening is required...bokeh effect.

I am always fearful of checking "shadow noise" after using TTS. Does it soften the photo after sharpening? You seemed to use it effectively combined with, -100 strength.

I am still amazed at how well this program works. You never (or at least I have not) experience the "photo shopped" look. The corrections all blend.. just as you remember when taking the photo.

Thank you again. Will gladly attempt to absorb QIU advice from the experts.

Ken

Hello all

Mike's result is, lets face it, much better than mine, if only because the sky is blue.  This was probably achieved in the Raw Refine, I would think I used the WB on clouds with a fill +18 and hdr 31.

The Image Editor adjustments I made do not now show, god knows why, but from memory I increased the contrast and I always try +5 to +10 first, shadow noise checked.  My camera (Pentax K20) seems to create shadow noise even at iso 200 or probably it is the processing.  I certainly did not use anything like Mike's  TTS settings, I would never have thought of rad 8 and -100 etc

Qimage raw processing is so good that you tend not to realize how bad the actual image is, I sometime put a 'bad' image through Elements Raw just to see and often as in this case the image is so 'off' that I would just discard it.  I purposely set out to take an image at the extremes of light and shade, and think it was a hell of a test and a bit unfair.

So all in all a nice thought provoking and instructive thread.

Jeff  g   



   

Jeff,
Mike's rendition is very close to yours. Only the White Balance is the glaring difference.
His noise reduction approach is unique. I didn't think of doing that -100 sharpening either.
Nevertheless, there is more than one way to set the controls to get a fine image result.
Mike will tell you himself, that his numbers are his way of getting the most out of the image, but other settings work as well too.
Was the sky blue when you took that shot?
I have shots with a morning pink, even with a purplish hue sky. You could have gone subjectively with your sky.
The rich blue is beautiful, but your job was also fine.

Fred

Just in response to questions...

The shadow noise filter remains one of the most effective noise reduction filters and I tend to use it a lot when I see noise.  That's usually my first check and if I don't get acceptable results, I try something else.  Most noise tends to reside in the shadows and it is a very useful tool when doing TTS sharpening and fill light.  It's the perfect match for those since fill light and selective sharpening can bring out the noise in shadows.

The K20D camera seems to be a little more prone to shadow noise, so I just created a custom sharpening/NR setting for that camera in QU's raw format options and it works so well that even this extreme sun/shadow shot doesn't need any additional NR!  At that point, I just used TTS to sharpen the brighter green of the trees.  Now I have a printable photo!  Jeff, you might want to create a custom NR setting for that K20D.  I used 6 notches to the right of default on the NR slider and it removes almost all the noise from that photo.  Just test that to see if it's too much on normal photos.  I bet it'll be OK.

Mike

Would like to see some examples with people and backlighting.  Normally, outdoors - especially just shooting "snapshotty" kinds of things, I wouldn't be shooting raw - but I could change if this would work.  Always have problems if I get photo I really like because by the time I have gotten facial featues to the proper exposure and flesh tones, I have often blown out the backgrounds and in fact everrything that's not part of the face.  So, if anyone has fooled around with this enough to have some of those examples - please post.

Mel W

Mel I am emailing 3 versions of a famous image that appears on the web site of Qimage. It illustrates how much better results you can get from Raw. There's a jpg made from the Refined raw, and a jpg that used the same image and was processed using FILL, and another JPG processed using Curves.
This is the same problem that backlit faces offer. The exposure was set by the brighter part of the image leaving the subject (face or snap shot) in deep darkness.)

I wish I could make the file sizes under 128K so I could post them here, but I leave that to you if you know a good way to do it.
I am not well versed in forum posting methods.

Fred

It just goes to show how seemingly small adjustments can effect the result.  I think you are all being kind to me :)

Thanks Mike for suggestions, Raw default noise setting now under test.

Jeff

   

Hi Mel,
Here is an example.
Not exactly back lighting  but the band members were in deep shadow with a very bright background.
Shot in raw with about level 15 of Fill.
See attached for untouched version.
(http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/image/127921320/original.jpg)

There are other similar shots in that gallery too.
Terry

I searched through my folders to find the most extreme example I could come up with.  This is my most extreme example of salvaging a backlit raw.  Not great but I could produce a photo that I could at least post in my basement to keep the rats out.  ;)

Standard exposure:
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/xtreme-before.jpg)

Fill +20, no other mods:
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/xtreme-after.jpg)

The new fill (in v2010.122 and later) was redesigned to make sure you still get a near-linear tone curve no matter how hard you push the fill light.  Prior versions (and the fill lights in most other software I tried too) tended to give garish skin tones once you reach +15 or so.  In the latest QU, you can push the fill to ridiculous levels and you'll still get accurate color.  Took me two weeks to solve the math for that one!  But it works.

Mike

I like the upper picture better!!
Fred

You guys all have a lot more raw talent than I do.  But seriously, I like both examples.  And I'll get there but it will take a while. 

When I first started using qimage in 2003, shooting raw was the last thing I would have thought of - in fact probably did even know what it was at the time as I was still trying to get used to this whole digital thing.  At the time my trusty Mamiya TLR and Pentax 6x7 were still sitting close by awaiting their next use. It never came, and this past winter, I finally packed up my enlarger, analyzer, and most of my darkroom, in the silly thought that someone might want the stuff. 

So I gradually developed my own workflow and techniques with qimage and jpegs, and by the time I bought my D200 I had consistency in my results.  Sometime last year - when Qstudio first introduced raw, I started slowly to experiment with it, and now use it for a lot of the pictures I take in my "studio" (Rube Goldberg version).  Now with Qimage, I can do in about ten minutes, what might have been a half day darkroom session - or more - since you really had to wait for prints to dry to evaluate them. The only darkroom technique I have really missed is the ability to dodge and burn in - and maybe - just maybe - this latest improvement to the fill light gets me closer than I have yet been to having that at last. (By the way - I hate the PSE dodge/burn - you have to select highlights, shadows or midtones - and the darn thing never really looks right).

Just from my little bit of experimenting tonight, even the improvements to the fill light in the image editor are significant.  But in any case, I will now be shooting even more raw and seeing what I can do woth it.

I finally had some time to post three samples.
One is the original image, very dark, due to the photographer exposing for the clouds, or in many cases, bright backgrounds, fool the camera.
I am showing the original, the image after Qimage Ultimate spent 30 seconds processing it.
The third image which will be a second post (too many K to make the forum software happy) shows what the image looks like had you shot this in JPG mode and developed it as a snapshot.
Just interesting to see why, I too was converted from a devout JPGer to a devout and Bar Mitzvah'ed Raw shooter.

:-)

Fred

and the image processed as a JPG

Click the Images to enlarge.

By the way - meant to include in my previous post - thanks Fred for sending me those images - as I said there - I am looking forward to this.

Yes, the improvement in the raw processing tools in Ultimate is very encouraging.

I am pleased that I decided to upgrade from Studio even though I also have three other raw processing software.

I have been trying the new HDR on numerous images.  I've found it to be very useful.  Is there any preference to using the fill in the raw exposure development or in the editor ..... or both?

Mike has expressed to us that one is better off doing FILL in raw Refine.
As a reminder of this, when your mouse pointer hovers over the FILL in the Editor screen, a "hint balloon" opens to tell you that, "For the Highest Quality Fill light, Use Refine"

Fred

Thanks Fred.  I never noticed the "hint" since I just would go right to clicking it in the editor as I had forever  :o