On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:40:54 +0100, Jared ''Danger'' Earle <[email protected]> wrote: > I've given it a try, but I think I was using one of my "dramatic" > sequences of three shots (+/-2ev). > > The aligning works well here and I believe I can turn the Enfuse > workflow into a droplet/Applescript/Automator thingy in a very short > time. Drop the images from iPhoto on it and sit back. Still, I think > the Photoshop version may be better.
For this one, with those settings the Photomatix tonemapping looks much better... definitely more dramatic. Based on the little jpeg it's hard to say, but you might have a lot of recoverable detail with a nice S-curve in the enfuse version - it came out flatter, which may in fact not be a bad thing. I'd always feed/output 16bit to enfuse so I can curve the results. That said, typically for a shot like this I'd just blend it in Photoshop by hand with layer masks and be done with it - - since there's really just three exposure regions (the foreground/grass, and the sky, plus maybe the shaded side of the stone structure) which have nice clean separation. I'd bring the raw files into to Photoshop as Smart Objects; attach layer masks to each of the SO's to define the blending... and then tweak the exposures of each SO to get just the right look. No real need for HDR tools - sometimes traditional methods are more direct and controllable. This way you also avoid the noise enhancement and general softening of the image you tend to get with most blending processes. There are some parameters in enfuse that can affect the results - the easiest way to learn how they work is interactively with Bracketeer - that would improve the results too. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
