Landscapes

Using HDR in Lightroom to increase Dynamic Range of your camera

Before we get started, just a few words about High Dynamic Range (HDR) editing. There are a lot of different ways to apply HDR processing to an image. All of them have their pros and cons. The way I use HDR in this post is the most basic use, and I'm sure that the more advanced of you think it isn't the right way to do it. But for you who don't know what HDR is, and why it's useful, I hope you'll find the following a useful stepping stone into expanding your toolbox. You can use this technique with any camera (even the one in your phone!), and it is especially useful on older and/or smaller cameras that don't have a very good Dynamic Range to begin with.

So, what is HDR and why should you care? Simply put, your camera is not as good as your eye at recording big ranges of light versus dark. If you stand in your back yard in the summer, you will note that your eye can see the blue in the sky, as well as the dark under the trees. Similarly, during e.g. sunset, your eyes and brain have no difficulty in seeing the last rays of the sun in the sky, as well as the dark ground in front of you.

For the camera, this poses a problem. Even though camera sensors have come a long way in recent years, they still can't compete with your own eyes when it comes to dynamic range (the range of brightness from black to white). Modern cameras can detect up to 15 stops of dynamic range at most, while your eyes are in the range of 20 or so (combined with your brain that range increases by a significant amount). If you are not familiar with the term 'stop', you might want to google that first, as it is a very fundamental measurement in how cameras tell you how bright something is. For now, I'll just tell you that each stop is a doubling of the amount of light. So, increasing the stop by one doubles the brightness, increasing it with two doubles the brightness twice, etc. A difference of 10 stops is actually a brightness difference 1024 times to the original. 

So, cameras can capture highlights that are around 4-8000 times brighter than the shadows, in theory at least. In practice, this range is smaller; the shadow range of that number comes with a lot of visible noise that you typically wouldn't want in your image. Of course, it doesn't matter what the numbers actually are, we are interested in the result. So, let's take a look.

The image above is a scene from the Finnish archipelago, during a nice sunset. It is processed to convey the feeling of serenity; but it is also processed to maximize dynamic range. When I took the image, I realized that the dynamic range of my camera wasn't going to cut it. The sky was much too bright, and the ground was much too dark in comparison. It's not what my eyes saw, but unfortunately my eyes don't take the picture. Here is the raw output of my camera with no processing:

The camera chose to expose more of the ground in this particular instance. As you can see, the ground is visible but still dark, and the sky is almost white. There is another problem as well; the sky doesn't only look white, it is white. Going to the 'Develop' Module in Lightroom and clicking on the highlight warning triangle in the histogram confirms this:

The area marked with red is pure white; that are was simply too bright for the camera to capture. The data in that area is gone; no colors, no contrast, no anything; it is just white. Because of this, reducing the whites or highlights doesn't work. The area isn't white anymore, but is still just a blob of the same color.

That does not look right. The sun and clouds around it are a solid block of color, no detail what so ever.

Typically, you can fix this by deliberately under-exposing your image by a stop or two. You can do this either in Manual mode or with Exposure Compensation, it doesn't matter; the point is you tell the camera to make the image darker on purpose, so that the camera has a chance to capture more of the highlights. So, let's try that:

Raw image, under-exposed by 1 stop (half as bright as the original). The sun is still over-exposed, but it is a lot better. The ground, though..

Now we have another issue; the ground is way too dark. Depending on your camera, it might not be a problem. Many modern cameras (Nikons especially) have amazing shadow recovery that let you get the detail back when processing a RAW file. But many cameras don't, and in this image, my trusty Nikon doesn't fare too well either. Let's try increasing the shadows and taking a detailed look at what it does.

Shadows at +100, nothing else. Too good to be true?

3:1 magnification of a shadow area. See all the noise? That pixelated mess is very typical when you raise deep shadows on most cameras.

So, we got the detail back, at least when looking at the image from a distance. But we paid heavily. When we increase the shadows, we are asking Lightroom to amplify the brightness in an area where our camera was struggling to get enough light. As a result, we see very clear noise in our image. Not good if we wan't to publish a high-resolution image online, or hang a print on our wall.

So, finally we arrive at what HDR actually is. To fix the problems we are having, we need more dynamic range. We need more information in the highlights and the shadows. Using HDR, we accomplish this by taking multiple images and combining them to a single, data-packed image. We take images that are darker so that we get a nice sky with all the detail preserved, and we take images that are too bright, to get more data for the shadows, reducing noise in those areas. Then we feed all of them into the Lightroom HDR tool and let it combine them. 

You can take as many photos as you like, but typically you would use 3 or 5 shots. The middle one is 'correctly' exposed, or at least what your camera thinks is correct. This will be your average. The other ones are spaced out both ways, with a difference of for example 1 stop. So with three images would have values of -1, 0 and +1 stop, and five would have -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. I took three with a difference of 2 stops (-2, 0, +2) because of the big range I was dealing with; the more images you take the better the end result will be, but the longer it takes to process. It helps to use a tripod when taking the images, but it isn't strictly necessary. Just remember that your bright shots might be 2 stops over-exposed, lowering your shutter speed by a factor of 4. In the series below the bright shot is at 1/6th of a second, making it tricky to hand-hold. I just used a tripod so that I din't need to worry about it. I'm lazy that way ;)

-2 stops, 'correct', +2 stops. The left one has a nice sky, the right one has no noise in the shadows, and the middle one is a good average.

Select the three images in Lightroom (e.g. using the ctrl key), right click, and choose 'Photo Merge' > 'HDR'. Lightroom will build a preview and show you some options.

Let's go through the options real quick.

  • Auto align: Always tick this, even when using a tripod. It makes sure the images are aligned, pixel-by-pixel.
  • Auto Tone: Leave this off, we want to process our image ourselves. Leaving it on is OK though, as you can reset those changes later if you don't like them.
  • Deghost amount: If your image contains moving subjects (people, vehicles, moving branches, etc.), chances are that those objects have moved between shots. This setting lets Lightroom detect that movement, and remove it. I typically use 'Low' or 'Medium', but with this particular image Lightroom was misbehaving and only let me choose 'None'. 

When ready, select 'Merge'. Lightroom will start the merging process. Note that the original images will not be touched; instead, a new file will be created. Lightroom can even merge RAW files, that external applications typically can't, and produces a HDR RAW file which is very convenient. Here is the new file, opened in the Develop module:

Doesn't look like much, does it? There are changes, if you look closely; the sky is a little bit darker, and the ground is a little bit lighter. The beauty, though, is in the data. Even though Lightroom doesn't tell you, it has a lot more range to play with now. Let's start opening up the shadows and checking the noise:

The noise is completely gone. Good riddance.

You'll see the same effect when processing the highlights; the detail is now back. From this point, you can edit the image as normal. I dropped the total exposure, added contrast, clarity and vibrance, and cropped some of the top and bottom (they weren't that interesting, and now the image is 16:9, fitting nicely into e.g. a Full HD screen).

Note how I cropped the leaves in the corner; you don't want distractions in the corners. The horizon is also close to a 3rd-line.

The I added some more vibrance to the overall image (from 15 to 30), and created a graduated filter to darken the sky a tiny bit, also adding a hint of saturation. The last thing was removing all the dust spots I had on my sensor/lens; go to 'Spot Removal' and turn on 'Visualize spots' and play with the slider until you clearly see the spots. Then just click each of them.

3 spots down, one to go (top right of the image).

And there you have it. I hope this tutorial helps you when you stumble on a great scene, but your camera doesn't want to play. Using the HDR function in Lightroom is really easy, as long as you remember to take the additional pictures. With it, you don't need the latest and greatest camera to produce amazing, high-range photos.

Next up, creating Panoramas in Lightroom, see you then :)

Creating a dramatic Black-And-White Landscape image

I've shown you a lot of landscapes so far on this blog, but I haven't shown you how they end up here. Some images are simple, requiring minimal editing to produce nice results; some take hours. In this post, I'll show you how I edited one of the images I took in Norway, all the way from raw capture to final result.

I use Lightroom CC for my editing, but you can do all of this in Lightroom 5 or 6, or even pure Photoshop (as long as you have the Adobe Camera RAW plugin installed). Since I shoot all my landscapes excplicitely with post-processing in mind, I always shoot in 14-bit RAW format. JPEG simply doesn't allow me to do even half of the edits I usually do. I always take care to expose for the highlights when I take a photo. That means making sure that no areas of the photo are blown out (the sun being an exception). If you want to take landscape photos, and don't have the highlight warning blinkies turned on, shame on you! :)

Without further ado, here is the final image:

And here is the RAW file exported to JPEG with no processing whatsoever:

Note that the ground is a little bit dark; this is normal when exposing for the highlights when it's cloudy. Don't worry. As they say, we'll fix it in post ;)

OK, let's get started. The very first thing I do, is go to the 'Develop tab' in Lightroom, and go down to 'Lens Corrections'. Here, I check 'Enable Profile Corrections' and 'Remove Chromatic Aberration'. The first setting makes Lightroom correct for any deficiencies in my lens (in this case it was the Nikon 10-24 DX), mainly vignetting and barrel distortion. The second removes unwanted colors around high-contrast edges, which is also a defect of most lenses.

Corrections applied. Not a big difference on the final image, but especially chromatic aberrations show really well in prints if you don't remove them.

There is quite a big difference between the light and dark parts of the image; especially the mountain on the right is too dark. In real life the mountain was very dark, but it doesn't translate that well to the image. In my opinion, it's OK to modify your images. I'm still going to keep it natural, just not the way it actually looked ;)

To lessen the dynamic range (the difference between light and dark) I'm going to use a trick I learned from Sergio Ramelli of YouTube fame. He is very fond of the method, but I think it doesn't always work; in this case, it does. First, go to the 'Basic' tab. Take the 'Highlights' slider, and drag it all the way to the left. This makes light areas darker. Then, take the 'Shadows' slider, and drag it all the way to the right. This lightens up dark areas. The end result looks like this:

What we did was squish all tones towards the middle, making the picture look a bit washed out. Next, we'll fix the blandness using the 'Whites' and 'Blacks' sliders. You can drag these by just looking at the image and seeing the changes, but there is a better way; using the Alt key on your keyboard. Press down the Alt key and grab the 'Whites' slider. You'll notice the image goes black; don't worry. Move the slider towards the right, until small specks of white appear in the image area. Let go of the slider and the Alt key, and you'll see your picture again.

Tiny hint of blue where the clouds are, this is good.

Now, do the same with the 'Blacks' slider, but drag it to the left. The image will be white; stop when you get some black areas, and release.

You can go a bit farther with the black than the whites. As you can see, the lake is the darkest part in this image.

What we did was change the white and black point of your image; the lightest part, and the darkest part. When using the Alt key, Lightroom shows you the areas that are pure white and black, respectively. You always want a little bit pure white and pure black in the images, this helps with perceived contrast. Let's take a look at our image after the adjustment.

Much better than the last, right? It is basically the same as the first image, but we've added contrast. Now, you could do this with the 'Contrast' slider, but I find the results aren't nearly as good. Still with me? Good, then lets do the last bit of global adjustments before we pause and take stock. I do this by adding a touch of 'Clarity', 'Vibrance' and 'Contrast'. How much depends completely on the picture. I usually just eyeball it until it looks good, then take away about 10-20%. Your eyes deceive you into thinking you haven't gone too far, but trust me, you will. If you can pause at this point and come back the next day, do it. It will help you dial back on the heavy processing you are doing right now. I typically try to do two passes, where the second is during another day. Very often I realize my settings are too strong. For now, you can see my eyeballed settings for the three down below, with the end result.

The difference is again quite small. Editing is often about adding small changes, letting the sum of the changes have a big impact. 

So, at this point we have a nice image, that could be printed and hang on the wall. But when I edited this, I had a couple of thoughts. One, I really liked the road form going down toward the lake and round it. Two, the scene is dramatic, but could be made more so. Three, There is not a lot of color information in the image. Granted, the colors are true to life, but I ended up trying something I usually do when there isn't that much color; I go black and white.

B&W is great for showing form and light; by not having colors in the image, the brain has less distractions to worry about. However, it also means you have to pay much more attention to the light and dark areas (contrast) of you picture, as well as the relationship between lines and forms.

You can go back and forth between color and b&w by clicking the captions. By default, Lightroom chooses the shown mix for black and white conversions; it looks more natural than a flat curve. You can of course change the mix if you prefer.

You can go back and forth between color and b&w by clicking the captions. By default, Lightroom chooses the shown mix for black and white conversions; it looks more natural than a flat curve. You can of course change the mix if you prefer.

OK, I can work with this. First thing I did was pump up 'Contrast' and 'Clarity'¨. These sliders work extremely well in black and white, so you have more leeway in using them without the image looking unnatural. Increasing the values for both give us much more contrast, which translates to mood:

The next thing I wanted to fix was the road. I love the form, but I can't really see it. The rocks are a bit too distracting, and the road itself has the same tone as the rocks so it doesn't separate from the clutter. There are a couple of ways to solve this, but I chose a simple method. To reduce the clutter of the rocks, lower contrast and clarity on them. To bring out the road, increase contrast between the road and the rocks by making the road darker and the rocks brighter.

Time for the brush tool, then. For those of you not familiar with brushes, don't worry. Basically what I'm doing is localized changes that you can edit after the fact. If you mess up, you can undo anything. I'll start by selecting the brush tool and making sure the settings for the brush itself is OK. The effects do not matter at all at this point; I can change them in any way I like afterward. With brushes, you want to have a light touch, so I chose values around 75 for 'Flow' and 'Density'. For the size, I adjust it continually with my mouse wheel while I'm painting; big areas get a big brush, while small areas need a smaller brush. Lastly i press the 'O' key to turn on 'Show selected mask overlay'. You can also do this in the toolbar below the image. Now, start painting:

You can see the painted area above. Each click and drag will add a little more color. Remember, you are not painting the color, the color only shows you what you selected for your adjustments that will be done later. Carefully go through the area you want to change, in my case I started with the rocks in the foreground and between the bends in the road. When done, the selection looked like this:

If you paint on something you didn't intend to paint on, it's easy to fix; In the brush menu, you can select the 'Erase' brush, which does exactly what you'd expect. The same exact thing can also be found using the Alt key; when pressed, you are using the erase brush. To turn off the red mask, press 'O' again.

Now, the next thing is to do the actual adjustment. Remember, what I wanted was to reduce the contrast and make the rocks lighter, so lets do exactly that:

Add a bit of 'Exposure', drop 'Contrast' and 'Clarity'.

Add a bit of 'Exposure', drop 'Contrast' and 'Clarity'.

Next, let's do the road. We will need a new brush for this, because we don't want to mess up the changes we just did to the rocks. In the top right of the brush panel, select 'New'. This allows you to start painting a completely new area, that will have different settings. This time, paint only the road:

I wanted to darken the road, so lets do that:

'Exposure' and 'Contrast' darken the road, while 'Clarity' helps keep some of the detail.

'Exposure' and 'Contrast' darken the road, while 'Clarity' helps keep some of the detail.

There are a lot of things I could still do; the rocks in the foreground could have even less contrast, the water in the lake could be smoother, etc. I spent around an hour on the real version of this image, fixing small things like the reflections of the snow in the lake. I've ordered a big print for my wall, I think It will look amazing :) For this post, I think I'll stop here.

Thanks for reading, and please join me in the next one, where I create a high dynamic range (HDR) image!

 

 

 

Day 9: all good things must come to an end, or do they?

The last day was finally here. To be honest, I welcomed it. As magnificent as the trip had been, I was looking forward to going home. 8 days, almost a thousand kilometers in the car and the bad beds had made an impact. I was very, very tired. 

The last days drive was quite uneventful. Partly because I was tired, an partly because the terrain flattened as I drove westwards to Bergen. I had seen landscapes that were so much nicer just a day ago, so I decided to keep on driving instead. The only place I stopped properly was Nærøyfjorden; and even there, I didn't take many pictures.

The way home.

Nærøyfjorden, part of the Sogne fjord system.

Nærøyfjorden, port of Gudvangen.

So, instead of talking about the non-interesting travel home, I'll talk a little about my feelings about the trip instead. As I write this, it's been three months since I got back. Of the 2800+ images I took I still have exactly 1000 left, and I should pare them down even more. So, was it worth the time and the money? Absolutely. Will I go back? Maybe.

As great as Jotunheimen is, I feel that I've seen it now. Don't get me wrong, If someone offered, I'd take a second trip in a heartbeat. Spending a couple of weeks in the Mountains near Geiranger or Jotunheimen proper would be awesome. But I want to see other places as well. Lofoten, for instance. Or the whole North-Western coast of Norway (see  e.g. here).

Better than blue skies, I think.

Hafslovatnet. I think.

Reflections in Jolstravatn

So, what was the greatest, nicest, most beautiful thing during the whole trip? The answer is, I don't know. I can't decide. I can give you a non-ordered list of absolutely gorgeous places, though; Fannaråken, Jotunheimen highlands, Geiranger highlands, Utladalen, and some of the Sogne fjord corners such as Nærøyfjorden and Lustrafjorden. I went primarily to see and experience proper mountains, and boy, did I. It was an experience of a lifetime, truly, and I'm already thinking on where to go next.

What about the trip format? Driving from place to place, and visiting multiple places instead of just a few? Well, I'd say that it worked quite well. And even though it rained quite often, I still think I got lucky with the weather (especially on Fannaråken!). It could have been so much worse. I knew it was a risk going so late in the summer, but it was a calculated risk. I don't mind cold, and I do mind tourists, even though I am one. I planned the trip so that I had the best combination of low tourists, sunset colors (see Fannaråken post for that), and still somewhat good weather. I bet the landscapes are different during the summer or winter, but looking back I got a sort of ominous feeling in many shots that I think suits the majestic landscapes well. As many landscape photographers will tell you, blue skies are almost the worst you can have :)

My trusty rented steed in its usual position, waiting for me to do my thing.

Sheep and Sogne fjord.

As for driving around, I think that it was the right thing to do for the first trip. I had no idea of what the terrain would look like, or where the real points of interest were. Covering as much ground as possible posed a real risk if the weather turned crappy the single day I had for a particular shot, but it was a risk I had to take. If I were to go back, and I definitely will at some point, I would pick two or three locations and stay there multiple days instead, exploring the area. I would probably pick Jotunheim (the area around Prestesteinsvatnet) and the area before Geiranger (around Breiddalsvatnet) from the places I visited for that; but there are lots of places that I didn't get to as well. So, now that I've seen everything I know what to concentrate on. 

What would I change? That's a tough one.. One thing would be to spend a day at Besseggen, traversing the ridge from end to end. Or at least taking some pics from the highest point. The most important thing though would not have to do with my planning, or gear, or the route; it would be to take more time shooting. And I don't mean taking more photos, I mean taking less. Thinking through the shot, taking time to align things, and so forth. I've realized I've come a long way in how I shoot, but I still have a lot to learn in finding compositions and replacing those 50 shots from a location with one amazing one. Not that taking multiple shots is bad, sometimes you get lucky (the Sognefjord image in the previous post being one; I'm embarrassed at how sloppy I was when I took it. It was a total fluke it turned out as good as it did). Part of it was the format of the trip; driving along roads and leaving the engine running while running out to the side of the road to take the shot doesn't encourage you to take your time. But it is an excuse; I can do better, and I will try to in the future.

On the road back from Geiranger

Very typical view of Sogne fjord. The trick is to find an angle without the road, and still get some foreground.

So, what's next? As I mentioned, I still need to pair down the photos a bit, but I think I'm pretty much done with this trip otherwise. Just have to place an order for some big prints to put in my new office, I think (60x40cm aluminium prints, I'll do a post on that later). What about other trips, then? Definitely. After Norway, I already was on a two week trip to Santa Cruz, California, and I took some great pics there too. So I think I will do a bit of a redesign of this blog, making it a continuous thing instead of just dedicated to the Norway trip. I also have a post planned for gear, and at least two for post-processing. I also have earlier photos, that I might do posts on; some from my cottages in the archipelago, some semi-macro insect shots, and even a week-long photography workshop on Lanzarote from almost two years ago, if I'm brave enough to show my very early work.

So, lots to do, and lots of things to come. I also have a couple of weeks of vacation left to take before summer, and I don't know how to use them. I was eyeing a photo workshop in Iceland, but it is too expensive. Next year, maybe. I might just take the time off to take photos of eagles at our cottage, who knows. But if you made it his far, thank you. I really appreciate it. I'm humbled that people take the time to read the stories of an amateur just doing what he loves.

And lastly, a couple of sneak peeks:

Turku archipelago, taken at our cottage.

Damselfly, I think. Not very good with naming the things I shoot, sorry :)

Sunset in Santa Cruz.

Powered by Squarespace