Central Coast photo shoot Images

[hector]

Hello all.
Yesterday Mike, Andrew and Myself went to Somersby Falls for some Landscape imaging.
I have processed my first image which is a vertical Panaramic of the falls taken with a Nikon D300 and the 70-200 F2.8 lens set at f16 and 70mm.
Camera was set on ISO100 with a 15 second exposure.
The image was put together in CS3.
Ladies and Gentlement I present
Somersby Falls
I have added more images further down.

[RB]

Oh wow Andrew !!!
How stunning is that !!!

Excellent mate, the colours are so vivid and striking.

:thumbsup:

[hector]

Thanks Andrew. I am working on another HDR at the moment. I am looking forward to seeing what you have.
Andrew

[Quark]

Great work Andrew,
Love the reflections, what a top spot to just sit and contemplate, life the universe and everything.

Regards
Trevor

[TheDecepticon]

Top shot for sure! Very crisp & clean.

[hector]

More images from the shoot. One of the images has been processed in HDR see if you can tell which one.
One of these images I dont really like but a few other people thought it was good. I will let everyone here have a look. For the sake of excitement I will not reveal which of the images I don't like. :lol:

[hector]

Please ignore the first image in the second group, when it converted to JPG frpm TIFF it must have shanged colour profile as well and became to saturated.here is the correct version.:doh:

[RB]

Andrew your shots are just amazing !!
Excellent work indeed.

Here's two of mine so far which I've had a chance to process.

The first is the waterfall at the lower end of the falls done in HDR using the 5D.
I've also included the link to the full-frame version below:
(Warning 2.7MB , 4368 x 2912 pixels) ... http://www.astro-image.org/page/tr/somersbyfallsff.htm

The second was my very last shot which was very rushed as we had to get back to the carpark before they shut the gates.
Here I had to use some flash because it was almost 8pm !

I'll post more later.

Cheers and thanks for looking.

[RB]

Here's another photo from Somersby Falls.

This one is from the beginning of the session and is of the first waterfall you come to when entering the area.

This is a HDR of 3 images using the Canon 5D, 24-70mm L at 62mm, f/16, ISO 50.

[hector]

They are amazing Andrew!
The first image you have posted is unreal. I tried to get that as well but mine did not turn out at all like that. the angle you had was much more interesting. will remember that for next time. The full falls image from the upper area is beautiful as well.
Wonder how Mike went?

[hector]

More images from the shoot again
First is the full falls from a slightly different location and a single shot.
Second is the waterfalls reflection on the pond at the base of the falls. It didnt look as good as I thought when done in colour but it did work in B&W.
Hope you enjoy.
A few more to come

[iceman]

Brilliant images so far guys, really really nice. I haven't even LOOKED at mine yet, sorry :(

When I get back to work i'll have more time to go through them LOL

[Kevnool]

I,m Amazed the quality of these images, they should be poster sized A5 and sold as prints .................Great work....cheers Kev.

[sheeny]

Andrew,

Whichever shot is HDR you have done it very well indeed! I can't pick any artifacts... If I had to guess I would say No 3 was HDR based on the wider dynamic range I would expect in that shot. Excellent work!:thumbsup:

In fact all the shots in this thread so far are excellent work guys! Impressive!

Al.

[RB]

Thanks for your nice comments guys, glad you're enjoying the images.

Here's the next cab off the rank, "The Fallen Log".
It's another HDR shot processed using Photoshop HDR Merge.

:)

[hector]

Thanks guys for all your kind words.
Kev during my processing of any image I increase the print size to a minumum of 30 inch on large side. I have been know to have an image to 100 inch. I would be happy to suply one of the images at full res if anyone wanted to print it up and display it. I would he THRILLED if that were to happen.
I usually dont use the HDR programme much as I find it overbakes the image to much. I can say that number 3 is not the HDR image. But it is the image I don't like. If you look at the name of the image you will see how I feel about it.
Andrew

[hector]

Andrew you have outdone yourself. Fallen log is a great image. I like the way that Photoshop handles HDR, not to harsh and little to no artifacts.
Great depth of field in that image as well, shot at about f16??
Andrew

[acropolite]

Interesting to compare the HDR image of the falls (RB) (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=52300) with Hectors (Andrew) image (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=52301) of the same composition.

On my monitor the HDR image looks rather flat and unnatural. The colours of the rocks on the middle RHS of the image look washed out and quite unnatural, whereas the colours from the D300 seem more natural and vibrant.

Not having been there, it's difficult to say which image more accurately matches the reality, but, despite being a Canon man, I must say that in this instance I much prefer the image from the Nikon. :camera:

Now I think I'll go and wash my mouth out with soap...:P

[hector]

Thank you Phil.
That must be hard for any Canon fan to say. Maybe Andrew may like to try and process the correctly exposed image from his HDR collection in photoshop without HDR to get a proper comparison of the Cameras. The different processing the images have had will effect the way they look. I personally dont like the look of the HDR images but I find that Andrew does not over do the processing.

[gary]

Hi Phil,

Firstly, thanks to the guys for the lovely images!

I just wanted to take a few moments to help clarify some technical points.

It is important to keep in mind that none of the excellent images on this thread
are HDR images. All of them are LDR images.

This is a very important distinction and a key to what is really going on.

Bear with me and I will try my best to explain what I mean. :)

Ideally, cameras would be able to take a HDR image with a single exposure.
Just as ideally, rendering devices, such as monitors and printers, would then
be able to display them directly with the full range of luminance levels.

Please allow me to give an extreme example. If the technology existed, one should
be able to take a picture of the sun, such that, when it was displayed back on
a monitor, one would need to wear appropriate protective eyewear just to
view it. Putting aside, for one moment, the obvious health & safety ramifications
such a hypothetical technology might pose, it does bring into some context the current
state of the art in imaging and display technologies compared to what we might
dream about as being possible in the future.

The dynamic range of an image is the ratio of the most luminous part in the image
to the least luminous part.

Though a human eye can adjust itself over a dynamic range of about
1,000,000 : 1 and at any one instant, has a dynamic range of about 1000:1,
many consumer grade digital cameras have a dynamic range of only about
500:1 and LCD monitors only about 600:1.

Therefore compared to our own sense of perception, technology as it stands
today just doesn't have the numbers to back it. As tools for capturing
and reproducing images as we actually see them, in some ways, they are still
measurably blunt instruments.

It's a bit like comparing audio reproduction between an old 78 rpm record and today's
Dolby surround systems. The 78 recording and then playing back on the gramophone
just doesn't have the dynamic range to reproduce the original concert performance.

Since common commercial cameras don't currently possess the capability to capture
in one instant anywhere near the same dynamic range that the human eye/brain
can, HDR is currently a bit of a kludge. We take multiple images at different
exposures and use software to combine and convert them to an image
format whereby floating point numbers are used to represent the image in terms
of energy levels of light for a given area that falls with a given solid angle.

If our monitors and printers could then directly render such a HDR format, the
results would be dramatic.

Alas, they cannot. Our monitors and printers have very limited dynamic range
output capability. Whereas we refer to the HDR file as being "scene referred",
we now need to transform the HDR to a Low Dynamic Range (LDR) image
to match the inherent LDR and limited gamut of our output devices.
Such a transformation results in the data now being "output referred" .

The class of transformations that perform this conversion are referred to
as "tone mapping". Tone mapping is an entirely different and distinct process
from the creation of HDR images.

Tone mapping is not an exact science. Instead, there exist various
algorithmic attempts to perform tone mapping and different software
packages may offer one or more different algorithms to perform it.
Whereas when a user synthesizes a HDR image from multiple exposures,
the amount of control they have over the HDR image is limited, during the
tone mapping process, typically they are presented with many user selectable
controls.

Tone mapping throws away information. So what the user is doing in one
sense is making decisions about which information in the HDR image will
be used to create the LDR image and which will be thrown away.

Some of the tone mapping algorithms attempt to mimic an attribute of
human perception known as "locale adaptation". Our eyes can change
their sensitivity in different areas across the field of view. How we do this
is not completely understood. Tone mapping operations that attempt to
do the same are crude attempts. It is still early days.

One side effect of some popular algorithms that attempt to mimic locale
adaptation can be artifacts such as halos.

So what is the future of HDR? It is a reasonably safe bet that, in the future,
all cameras will be HDR. What we now know as "Raw" formats will one day
disappear. The current limitations are purely based in semiconductor
physics and engineering.

It may turn out that HDR output devices are the more challenging.
What I suspect is that the future may bring some new output technologies
with higher dynamic range than today's monitors. Some form of tone
mapping might still need to take place as long as the dynamic range of the
output device is narrower than the input device. However, the photographer
will have a broader gamut from which they can draw and for those interested
in 'photorealism' rather than visual art, the process will be more forgiving.

Just to touch briefly on the differences between the two brands of camera,
you can see if you breath in all of the above that the cameras themselves
only play one part in the whole process of producing the final image that appears
on the screen. The tone mapping operations and the decisions the
photographer makes about how the tone mapping algorithms will be
applied will likely account for more of the differences in color than those that can
be attributed to come from the cameras themselves. So no need to trade
in your camera for some other brand. :thumbsup:

So in a nutshell, there are two processes. The first is HDR. Since none of
us have output devices that can directly render HDR, the HDR files
are actually still sitting back on the hard disks of our intrepid photographers.
They can't 'view' them directly either.

The second is tone mapping. We are on an entirely different page now.
Whereas one can say, "I like the look of the results of this tone mapping
operation", it doesn't make much sense to say "I like the look of this
HDR image". Semantically, it is now common to refer to an image that
was originally created with HDR as an "HDR image". But many enthusiasts
confuse the results of HDR with those of tone mapping and they are two
entirely different things. The danger is that some might throw the baby
out with the bath water. When HDR becomes "in built" and the default
image capture mode in cameras, there is the risk that there might be some
that say, "but I don't like HDR" because of their experience with tone
mapped LDR's. It would be a bit like saying, "but I don't like Raw images".

Hopefully the above might be a helpful insight for those unfamiliar with the
underlying technologies involved.

Thanks again to our intrepid photographers for their splendid posts!::thumbsup:

Best regards

Gary

[Octane]

Boys,

Nice shots. Wish I could have attended. :)

Gary, your posts are like poems; I love reading them. Thanks for the detailed post! :)

Regards,
Humayun

[hector]

Another image taken early in the shoot. This time croped to add effect.
The image ws shot at ISO100 using the 18-70 lens set at 18mm and the camera was set to f16 with a 5 second exposure. A polariser was attached to the lens to enhance colour. Processed in CS3 from a raw file with a +20 on the red and Yellow channel in Saturation a slight cure adjustment. Not a lot to do when converted out of raw.
Hope you like
Andrew

[hector]

And yet another image.
This one was at the bottom of the falls trail and is where some og the water goes down a hole in the rock. Shot in similar conditions as the earlier image. The lens was set at 27mm at f8 and a 25 second exposure.
Hope you all like.
Andrew

[RB]

Firstly, sorry I've been away from the forum and haven't had a chance to reply.... so, where do I start?

Firstly I'd just like to say congratulations to Andrew (Hector) for his wonderful images and photographic skills.
Andrew Murrell, Gary Kopff and a few others here are photographers which I look up to because of their imaging skills and talent for composition, content selection and processing skills.

I don't like being drawn into a Canon Vs Nikon debate because as any good photographer will tell you it's not the camera body that determines the final outcome of the image but rather the photographer who takes the shot.

Many times I've seen people view a beautiful image and their first response is: " wow, your camera takes wonderful photos ! "
I've know some photographers who have responded with the following tongue in cheek response: "Thank you, your mouth forms wonderful compliments !"... :lol:

I don't want people to get the wrong idea about any camera brand.
It's up to the individual to do their research and choose a system of camera equipment that suites their needs and skills.
The final result of any image taken with any particular brand will depend mostly on the skills of the photographer, not the brand itself.



Thank you Andrew, yes I too prefer Photoshop over the others in it's ability to handle HDR processing. (Read below for more on Photoshop HDR).
The "Fallen Log" was indeed shot at f/16, excellent observation Andrew !



LOL Phil, it's is not necessary to "wash one's mouth out" for saying you prefer one image over another, especially when based on an image viewed in jpg on the net.
(I know you said it tongue in cheek). :P
I have seen many many Nikon images on the net which are simply stunning and probably as just many Canon images too.
Surly it boils down to the photographers processing regime and how the RAW file is handled in Post Processing.

In fact I agree with you, that in this shot that you refer to, I too am not totally happy with it.
It's actually the first time I have posted an image using Photomatix to process a HDR image and I am less than happy with it, preferring to use Photoshop Merge to HDR instead.
I was actually telling Andrew (Hector) in a PM that I prefer PS HDR over the Photomatix app.
I find Photoshop HDR gives me better results than the other HDR apps.
And as you have witnessed here, the result from my use of Photomatix in HDR is not up to the quality I can achieve when I use PS, but that's just me.

I may redo this one using Photoshop, I'll see.
As I've stated, I do prefer to keep my HDR's looking as natural as possible while still trying to display as wide a dynamic range as possible.


Thank you Andrew, I think we both have very similar imaging routines and our processing preferences are very similar too.
I'll see about processing the single shot and post it later for comparison.



Once again, Gary has put into eloquent words what I find very hard to convey in the written form.
He has precisely explained what real HDR is.
We all refer to HDR images but as explained it's actually a misnomer.
It's simply the best we can do with the technology we have.

It's also interesting to realise that when working with Photoshop HDR merge and RAW files, you actually end up with a 32 bit image that then has to to tone mapped down to 16 bit so that you can work on it and from there to be further squeezed down to the forum size of <200kb.
This in fact makes it very difficult to produce a "HDR" image that retains maximum Dynamic Range whilst still presenting a "natural" view of the scene without overdoing the colour saturation.

I do like some HDR images that look over saturated, but these are few and not all scenes lend themselves to this type of process.

As for Andrew's shots here, I congratulate him as I thoroughly enjoy them and is what I like to see in any photograph, whether it's done in HDR or not.

Cheers and thanks everyone for your input, I look forward to more here and to see Mike's lovely images too.

:)

[hector]

Thanks Andrew for your kind words. I must admit that I am constantly looking forward to seeing your images when they get posted.
I to am not wanting to get into a Nikon Vs Canon debate. Both camera perform wonderfully and in the hands of any photographer they will produce excelent images. Many of the images are made in Photoshop not the camera.
Here is an example.

I usually perfer to get the image correct in the camera first but sometimes it just doesnt work out that way. This image I would normally not process but it had all the information to render a good images. All of this processing was done in Camera Raw. I strongly recommend shooting in raw.

[Deeno]

Thanks guys for some truly lovely landscape images.:2thumbs:

And thanks to everyone who has contributed to this very informative thread.:cool2:

Cheers
Deeno

[RB]

Excellent advice for everyone - to shoot in RAW, and again great work Andrew.


Deeno you'll have to join us when the chance arises again mate.
I'd also love to have Humayun join us too !

[RB]

LOL I know these are starting to look monotonous but we can't help it.
The three of us were all shooting the same scenes. :lol:

Another HDR done in PS from Somersby Falls.

The larger version is here:
http://www.astro-image.org/page/tr/somersbyfallsff4small.htm

Hope you like it.

[iceman]

Beautiful image again, Andrew. The full frame of the 5D works well in bringing in more of the scene.

I should hopefully be able to post mine tonight or tomorrow! Finally! Though after seeing yours and Andrews great shots it's hard to follow suit.

Agree about RAW - I never shoot in anything but RAW these days.

[hector]

OMG Andrew
Thats the one!!!!!!!
It is "the most versatile word in the english language"ing beautiful
Well done
Andrew

[Octane]

Andrew,

Lovely, lovely, lovely.

Though, I find the blown out part of the sky a bit distracting. Would it be possible for you to mask it out with one of the -xEV or 0EV images?

Regards,
Humayun

[iceman]

Hi guys

I finally finished processing my shots from our Sommersby Falls expedition.

Most of them are HDR/tonemap shots, and for these type of scenes I do like the extra saturation and colour.

They look just right when viewing on my laptop, but on the LCD next to it they look a little over-saturated - so i'd love your feedback on how they look to you.

I had a great time shooting with you guys and look forward to doing it again soon.

Cheers

[iceman]

Last one..

[GTB_an_Owl]

YES - well we have had the Andrew's and the Mike's up here taking these great shots - now we are going to get every "Tom, Dick and Harry" to our secret location.
i think i will put on a ranger suit and go collect admission fees at the gate up there

it is so easy to forget the treasures we have in our own backyards

thanks for reminding me fella's

geoff

[gary]

Hi Mike,

Magnifique! They are as vibrant and uplifting as a Gauguin!

Best Regards

Gary

[RB]

Thanks H,

I did see the sky but didn't bother to adjust it, I may have another go later.


These have come up wonderfully Mike, the colours are very rich and vibrant.
It's very hard to strike a perfect medium and try and accommodate all the possible monitor settings, that people viewing the images, may have.

[RB]

Here's one from today !
I suppose the only thing that gives a clue to the time this one was taken is the stars in the sky.
It was taken at 3.30am !
I had to guess the focus in manual mode since the 5D doesn't have a liveview function.

Andrew (hector) and I met up at the Falls around 3am this morning and took a few shots, with the aim of having the scenes lit by the full moon.
Unfortunately we had fog roll in and decided to cut our session short.

[hector]

Mike your shots were worth waiting for. We all have different styles and that shows in the images we have displayed. I dont think you need worry about the saturation of colour they look fantastic to me. Images 2, 4, and 5 are unreal.
Well Done.

Here's one from today !
I suppose the only thing that gives a clue to the time this one was taken is the stars in the sky.
It was taken at 3.30am !

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE SAW!!!!
It is far better. I cant wait to get home and process some of my images now. I really enjoyed our getting together today and wish that the fog had fogged of as I really wanted to try the falls itself. Next time.

[matt]

Terrific images, guys....

And it's really exciting to see how you each bring your own styles and techniques to capturing similar subjects.

Andrew - you've just about convinced me about the 24-70mm:whistle:

[RB]

LOL Andrew we were lucky to be able to find our way back to the cars.
Cheers mate and thank you so much for your company.


I think it's a terrific lens Matt, as you know from my PM's to you I highly recommend it for both terrestrial and astro use.

I found it to be a great performer in low light situations thanks to it's f/2.8 aperture.
The range is also very nice, but if one finds it a little restrictive at 70mm then the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS will be a great alternative.

Either way, I find this range to be indispensable and is my most used FL range.

:)

[RB]

OK here's a redo guys.
http://www.astro-image.org/page/tr/somersbyfallsff4small.htm

Went back over the sky section with a masked 0EV exposure.
(the second shot is the original for comparison)

Hope you like.

:)

[iceman]

Better, nice! :thumbsup:

[StephenM]

Beautiful images guys! Very nice!

[Octane]

Andrew,

Oh yeah -- that's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

Cheers!

Regards,
Humayun

[gary]

Hi Andrew,

That final touch worked nicely. :thumbsup:

Best regards

Gary