Quite a few of my published landscape images have been Tone Mapped or Blended in post-processing. I have been sending my method to people who requested it but I thought that a few more folk could gain something from it so here it is.

No illustrations sorry as I'm away from my home computer for a while but a look at my published images may give you an insight to what I want to achieve, try to see which ones aren't tone mapped as well.

Any queries, just let me know and I'll try and help.

Tone Mapping using Photomatix Software.

Objective of using this processing technique.

The aim of this processing technique is to create a deeper spread of tones, richer textured appearance and hopefully a 3 dimensional effect throughout the scene.

I have no doubt that similar effects can be achieved using other processing techniques in software such as Photoshop but I personally do not have the skill or experience beyond a few layers and levels methods. I am aware that other people do a similar process using Photomatix as well and this is just my preferred way.

My main passion is landscape photography so therefore have only applied this technique to these types of shots but there is no reason not to try on other types.

I must also stress this technique is no substitute for a correctly exposed and well thought out scene with complimentary light. This process is only a technique to subtly enhance an image in post-production stage.

My shots are taken conventionally using ND grads, polariser etc for whatever the scene requires to get a good spread across the histogram i.e. no blown out highlights or blocked up shadows however my tendency is to shoot to the left or centre of the histogram as a personal preference. The RAW files are good enough histogram-wise to process normally in a RAW converter/editing program and would make an acceptable image that way and have done for me without using this process. Generally I only use this process on shots with plenty of light across the scene and a good spread across the histogram especially in the mid-tones as I’ve tried on more dull images to poor effect. Usually works best I think with an interesting sky as I’ve found that the 3D effect really pops the clouds out.

The RAW converter stage

• Take one RAW file in your RAW converter, I leave sharpening from camera on highest setting, usually leave the WB as-shot, in my case always Auto but you could change here and I generally leave the levels/curves alone if there is a full spread across the histogram. If the image is slightly under exposed I may move the highlights slider in a touch or slightly tweak the exposure value.
• Save this RAW as a 16bit TIFF and call 0EV.
• Take the same RAW file and move exposure to -0.3 or -0.5 and save as a TIFF, name it -0.3EV, -0.5EV etc.
• Take the same RAW file and move exposure to +0.3 or +0.5 and save as a TIFF, name it +0.3EV, +0.5EV etc.
• So now you have 3 x TIFFs at a – value, 0EV and a + value, example DSC100_-03EV, DSC100_0EV and DSC100_+03EV. I’ve only experimented with either 0.3 or 0.5 either side of 0EV so far but you could try any exposure either side of the base 0EV file but just 3 in total, no point doing 5 say, two each side.

The Photomatix stage

The HDR Program

• Now the blending bit. I load all three into Photomatix Pro 3.0, the HDR software but I’m not trying to increase the tonal range of the image as in a typical HDR process, the tonal range is set in the first RAW saved at 0EV.
• No need to align images etc or smooth out water in the two selectors as all three files are derived from one and are identical bar the exposure.
• What I hope to achieve is a blend of the best bits from the dark areas, midtones and highlights.
• It varies a lot between different shots what I do with the sliders but what I aim to achieve is:
A. A blue/black inky background sky, more inky towards the top and preferably with grey or white clouds in several layers over the background sky. Note: you must have captured these in the first place.
B. A rich texture to any grasses or foliage.
C. A deep tonal range across very darks to very brights but not a significant increase in overall dynamic range as in a true HDR image.

Importantly I don’t want it to look like an HDR shot and strive for this, if it does appear unreal I delete and move on to the next.

Occasionally I can’t get it to work at all and the image could look dull and unreal, if so I delete and usually just work on the original RAW/TIFF and process normally with Converter/Photoshop or I go down the Blend route, see later.

As mentioned earlier it can vary between different images what sliders and amounts I apply but here is a few tips with the HDR processing.

In the Details Enhancer tab, from the top sliders down.
Strength is often between 75 and 100, but sometimes down to 50.
Colour Saturation, leave at 50 but optional.
Light Smoothing, is mostly V. High but sometimes High.
Luminosity is 0 but optional maybe +/- 2.
Tone, vary white and black points to suit contrast. Gamma is often set between 1.10 and 1.30.
Colour; hardly alter but maybe +1 or 2 for any/each selection.
Micro Contrast, maybe +1 or 2, quite powerful this and has a big effect, I often balance this one against Gamma and White point in the Tone Tab. It’s kind of an exposure triangle.
Micro Smoothing left at 2.
S/H tab, I leave alone and never touch this as it’s too complicated and have no real idea what it does.
These are the general guidelines to what I do but experimentation can be done.
• Okay, when you have a reasonable looking image, process it and save as a TIFF, if it looks good then it goes into PS Elements 5. Warning though, what may look good in Photomatix prior to processing to save as a TIFF can look bad after the processing stage, you don’t see the actual end result whilst tinkering just a representation and only see the result after pressing the ‘Process’ button. In Elements I do the usual but basic levels tweaks to selected areas. You will no doubt have your own preferred way of tweaking an image but I often purposely blow out the highlights in selected areas such as white cloud tips or flowing water, I think it looks more real as the eye would see. Do the usual cropping, sharpening etc as desired.

The Blend route

As mentioned above, I sometimes cannot get the file to look right at all in the HDR program, don’t fully understand why yet but think it has something to do with the original spread of mid tones. I’ve noticed that files with a big bulge in midtones usually work a lot better.
If it doesn’t work then I can go back to a conventional converter/PS process and will get an acceptable result but I like to use the same 3 separate TIFFs as above and put them into the BLEND program in Photomatix. Here I get 100% good results as the final image never looks unreal or completely naff as can in the HDR program.
I usually select ‘adjust for highlights and shadows’ button, here you have only 3 sliders, the top one goes usually to 8 or 10, the saturation to 1 or 2 and the blending point to anywhere that looks good but often 0 or a negative value.
The final file has more grit and texture and subtle saturation in colours without being OTT but doesn’t usually have the fabulous 3D effect that the HDR program can give to skies and clouds.
In any case this program is pretty safe to use and experimentation can be done with confidence.
Put the final saved TIFF into your editing program and do usual final tweaks to levels/curves, sharpening etc as desired.

Summary
I probably use this technique on about 75% of the images I process, some just don’t need it and have a simple levels/curves tweak only. Some that I have used it on have transformed good appealing images into ones that have that little extra ‘wow’, only my opinion of course.

If you already have Photomatix, give it a go but I’m not sure it would be worth buying for this technique alone unless you had a reason to do genuine HDR images as well.

Good Luck.

Thanks for sharing John, I'll read it carefully!

Andrea

That is a very nice tutorial. Thank you. Photomatix will also automate the process of creating an "HDR" image from a single RAW file but I have found these images to be quite noisy--have you used this technique?
Thanks
Dave

David, Yes but got poor results so I like to create the 3 TIFFs myself in the RAW converter as I can do a few minor tweaks there myself to WB, exposure etc before creating the TIFFs, you also have control over the difference in exposures as well.

Christian, I think I will try -1 and +1. Do you blend to original in PS or in Photomatix? I know people like to blend the original for the shadow areas to keep the realistic value.

John

Bravo! and well done John. If only the great photographers on this site were so forthcoming many of us would greatly enhance our skills. Whilst I constantly see comments that this is an "art" site instead of a 'learning" site I really do not understand the need for secrecy on how an image was created. I use Photomatrix with varing results and applaud not only your tutorial but the spirit behind your desire to share your techniques. From the bottom of my heart you get a sincere thank you. Kindest regards, John

Thanks John, hope you get something out of it.
I must say I am confused by the site's aim and philosophy, there seems to be contradicting messages. I understand it is a showcase for photographic/creative image art and isn't touted as a learning source but then the critique section and forum threads 'How to' seem to suggest an element for learning and improvement?
No problem though, still a good place to be.
Anyway as for me, I only took up photography two years ago and learnt from books and the web so I'm always willing to give something back if I can.
John

WOW!!! Great post!!

Very interesting John, I am discovering a new world, I come from the old film era and all these things are really new to me, but I want to learn and your tutorial is really well written and clear. Your photos are wonderful. Thank you for sharing.

No problem Paolo, hope it helps. Actually of late i haven't used it and just relying on good old levels tweaks in Elements 5 for my last few uploads.

John

always looking to try new things out, cheers John much appreciated.

Thanks för this tutorial, John. I'll try it out soon. But as you say, the original picture is what counts, /Leif

I appreciate your help and essay. S/H ; according to my experience, S/H has effect on the image preventing the ghost around the objects and especially in the highlighted areas such as clouds. I used to use Photomatix very often but i left it long time ago actually i left the HDR mainly. I find photoshop more useful comparing to Photomatix results. I saw your works and realized that you have your perfect dose, so what i've said is not for you. Thanks again.

No problem Uzay, I haven't actualy used this tone mapping technique for quite some time now as the results I'm after are actually coming straight out of camera with just the slightest and subtlest levels tweaks in Elements 5.

Cheers

Thanks John, a very good tutorial, nice to meet someone who will share with others so openly.

Thanks a lot too, John!

Great tutorial, John! I use the main part of this technique as well, and can find like only 2 major differences:
- I've used bracketing on the camera so far, instead of taking one RAW image and creating 3 out of it
- I've been working with more "extreme" differences in exposure (-2, 0, +2)

You have any idea if any of these two differences would reduce the quality compared to your technique?
I'll definitely try to "redo" one of my HDR's with the "middle" RAW from the 3 I shot!

Regards,
Johan

Doing this John you are creating a genuine HDR image to increase the dynamic range of exposures outside of the cameras capabilities as you would be taking three separate exposures. I don't do this because all the dynamic range is available inside one RAW file when shot and I just use Photomatix as a kind of processing engine to give me my desired results.




Haven't tried more than 0.5EV but no reason why it wouldn't work and would need to experiment on the quality.

I think the important think to realise the way I do them is that i'm not using Photomatix as a HDR program to gain a wide dynamic range, I'm just using it instead of say PS to process a correctly exposed single RAW, if you see what i mean.

Let me know how you get on.

JP

This may be a useful reference some of you... http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

thank for this helping tutorial
i was using Photomatix just for HDR with 3 differents shots but i'll try that

Thanks John, I think I will be using the blend option.

Regards
Ian

You are welcome Ian although I don't tend to use this technique anymore and haven't for quite a while. Just simple RAW to TIFF conversion and levels tweaks these days.

JP

Nice, John, thanks! Makes me think Photomatix is worth experimenting with. I think there are occasions when it could pull off what you are wanting.

brose

thank you so much for all wonderful tips.

Since you are no more using HDR processing, could I kindly ask if you still remain the camera setting? I am new and is struggling with the camera setting. I am using similar camera, a D300s, and find the colour differ from the original my eyes see. My setting is:

W/B : Auto

Set Picture Control: Standard, but according to your post above, I adjusted the sharpening to highest, i.e.: 9. Then bring my saturation to +1, Hue at 0.

Active D-Lighting : High

All NR: OFF

Image quality: NEF 14bit Uncompressed

Could you kindly explain a bit on the camera setting or refer me to any site that you think is correct? You images are very attractive. Thank you very much and have a wonderful day.

Hello Ray, my camera settings on my D300 are:

Picture Control Standard but with Saturation +1, Contrast +1 and Sharpening +9.

Active D-Lighting is usually OFF unless I have a tricky exposure to achieve then I may set Low or Medium as the scene dictates.

All Noise Reduction Off

Image quality: NEF 14bit Uncompressed

WB either Auto or Cloudy depending on the scene.

If you are having trouble with your settings then I'd sugest to start with a Neutral Picture Control and the default settings then slowly modify one setting at a time until you make improvement and eventually your prefered setting. I had to do the same when I first got mine as it was quite a bit different from what I was used to from my previous camera.

JP

Ray Yang, can you post samples where you think that your camera is not good enough as others? I think if you give it more time to understand and use it properly then you will be able to have nice images, it doesn't matter what settings you have to know as i change settings due to the situations, so even if i use same your camera and give you same my settings it doesn't mean you will have same my results, also you should know if you need to retouch or post processing your images later as improvements, after experience i found that any camera with decent features is capable of producing amazing results, so show us and we will see what's wrong with your camera or settings.

Dear John and TareqPhoto,

Thank you so much, in fact a million thank you for your great suggestions. I will try out with the setting with my camera and experiment with it. Also, I will post my test result later as I am currently in my office :).

This truly clear a lot of my doubts!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a brilliant and wonderful day!

Best:
Ray

You welcome, and good luck!

Waiting to see your results.

Hi John,

let me congratulate you for this great tutorial you have here! And off course thanks for sharing it!!

If you don´t mind i would like to know how do you deal with the typical darker areas we get everytime we photograph something that is above the horizon line using ND filters. Almost all of your photos have great and beautifull high mountains and they all are very well light balanced (even in the peaks above the horizon line) and we don´t see those dark areas caused by ND filters (even the soft edge ones). How do you do that? I really would like to know because many times i have that problem and i don´t have PS skills to solve it. Is there a "no PS" solution for that? :)

Thanks a lot and congrats for your great landscape work that is inspiring!

Best regards,

RD 

Hello Rui, firstly let me say that I never use this method above any more for quite a few years now. I find it takes too long and only produced reasonable images on a few ocassions so now I use a very simple streamlined processing technique that only uses a few levels layers to adjust local area contrast.

For controlling wide dynamic range in an image even with mountains above a skyline I still use soft ND grads even upto 5 stops of graduated filter. I am though very careful how I position them to avoid the dark areas at the top of mountains and often have to stagger the two grads I use to make the transition smooth. If I finf that the tops are a little too dark then I may gently alter the RAW file to lighten up the area a bit.

JP

Thanks John. Always nice to be reminded of this thread. :)