Tag Archives: Lightroom

Pano Experiment with a Fisheye

I will freely admit this is not my idea. It is something that I read about recently on an astrophotography post that caught my attention. I was about to make a visit to a museum where I thought I might end up taking some interior images in confined space. My 16-35mm lens was probably going to do the trick but I wondered whether the fisheye might be a better bet if things were really tight. My only concern with that is the distortion is such a feature of that lens that it might not be worthwhile.

Then I came across the aforementioned article and it talked about shooting panos with a fisheye. The article was concerned with wide sky shots for astrophotography, but I thought it might work for me too. Supposedly, stitching together multiple fisheye shots takes out a lot of the distortion while still giving you the wide reach. I decided to experiment with this in advance to see if it worked.

I played with this indoors but taking a sequence of shots with good overlap between them making sure to catch as wide an image as possible. I was using the fisheye with full frame coverage rather than the circular version of the image. In Lightroom, I had to turn off the profile correction since that plays with the shots a lot and then set the pano function to work. It combined the images very easily and, sure enough, the verticals across the shot were not all vertical and not distorted at all. This could be something I now use a lot in the future when working in confined spaces. I will need to test it for closer subjects first since I suspect that will be a lot more testing for the alignment issues in pano stitching.

Generative Remove in Lightroom

Leave a Reply

As with all software tools, Lightroom has been constantly evolving since the initial release. If I were to see the original version of the software, I would probably be shocked at how limited it was. I do come across old edits and, when I convert it to the latest develop presets I have created, it is shocking how much of a change can result. One area that has gone through various updates over time is the tools for healing or cloning. They have been okay but definitely had limitations – not least pulling in odd artifacts from other areas.

A recent addition to the tools has been Generative Remove. This is an AI driven method for selecting and removing elements of the image. I try to do any of this before any cropping because I have previously found cropping to confuse the healing tools by leaving stuff out of sight that it tries to reincorporate. I don’t know whether this matters for Generative Remove or not, but I have stuck with the same sequence just in case.

The selection process is really simple. Brush around an area and it will fill it in. You can refine the selection with brushes to add or remove areas. I have used it a lot to remove power lines where a click at one end and shift click at the other gives you a quick straight line. Then let it do its thing. It will provide three options for the solution, and you can decide if one of them works or make it try again. Generally, I have found the results to be very good and no obvious artifacts as a result of the healing. No doubt they will continue to refine the process, but I think it is a big step forward in cleaning up elements of images that you don’t want and is now something I will consider for images that I would otherwise have cast aside.

Wrong Lens for Night Photography

Leave a Reply

I had a trip that took me to Los Angeles and, while it wasn’t a photography trip, I did take a camera in case I had the chance to get some images. I took the 200-800 as my one lens since I didn’t know what my shooting options would be so wanted maximum flexibility. The only downside to this choice was that this is a slow lens with small maximum apertures. As it turned out, I got to my hotel at the airport in the evening and the roof terrace was open so I had a chance to get some shots of the planes arriving to the norther complex.

Having a slow lens when doing night photography is not the ideal plan. However, you work with what you have. Also, since I know the R3 can produce some good results at silly high ISOs, I figured I would see what I could get. Even at the the max ISO of 51200, the shutter speeds were very low. While I wasn’t always at the full extent of the lens, this was not going to make things easy. There were areas where the ambient light provided more illumination for the planes, but I still went with high frame rates to see if I could get a few sharp results.

Surprisingly, things worked out pretty well. There was definitely a very low hit rate but the fact that I was getting sharp shots at all was very pleasing. The Enhance AI noise reduction in Lightroom could then do its thing provided the shot was basically sharp to start with. This combination gave me results I was very happy with. If I were to be back at this spot another time, I would definitely bring other lenses along that would provide better light gathering capabilities. Even so, knowing that this can work was a pleasant surprise.

Experimenting With Enhance Levels in Lightroom

Leave a Reply

In one of the bigger updates of Lightroom and Photoshop, Adobe introduced the Enhance functions adding either resolution or noise reduction. The noise reduction has been very effective for some of the shots I have taken with very high ISO levels. I decided to edit a shot with varying levels of noise reduction to see how things look. Since I had a bunch of cheetah shots taken in low light, I figured that would be a good subject.

You can vary the noise reduction level from 1-100. I made five edits with one unchanged and the remainder at 25, 50, 75 and 100. I then layered them in to one file to show the comparison. The unchanged edit is on the right while the 100 noise reduction is one the left. I felt like my previous experience had been that a level around 50 was a good outcome for much of what I had shot. When I looked at these results, I again concluded that the middle level was the best compromise. The 100 was just too much and 75 looked like things were a bit smudged. You can judge what you think. I shall experiment with levels each time I use it but it does give me a good idea of what to start with.

iPhone RAW Image Exposures

Leave a Reply

When RAW capture first became available on my phone, I started to use it. Initially, I had to use a third party camera app which was fine but it did have some quirks about it and some things that just didn’t work right, despite some extensive communication with the developer. Then the camera app of the phone got updated to allow RAW capture and I have been using that ever since. There is something very strange about it, though. When I import the images in to Lightroom, they are always about one stop overexposed. I am curious whether this is a function of the raw format for Apple in order to preserve details in the shadows or whether it is a weirdness with my phone. Included are two images – one with the base settings after import and one edited. This is representative of what I get. It doesn’t hurt the end result but it is rather strange. Anyone have similar results?

Re-Editing a B-2 Shot

Leave a Reply

Periodically, when I am looking through my image catalog for a specific subject for one project or another, I come across some images from a while back that look okay but might benefit from some of the more recent approaches to processing that I have adopted. This doesn’t always help but it can be fun to start from scratch on a raw file and then see whether the final version is any better than the previous attempt. I created a new virtual copy in Lightroom and zero out all of the sliders, upgrade to the latest processing version and give it a go.

I did this a little while ago on a shot of a Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. I shot this jet at Palmdale many years ago on a visit with my friend, Paul. The shots were okay, and I was happy with them at the time. Here I shall show you the current version first and then the next one down is the previous result of my processing from when it was shot. Do you think it is a significant change?

Lightroom Noise Reduction Update Testing

Leave a Reply

One of the software tools that I find a lot of people talking about these days is DeNoise from Topaz. I have never been terribly bothered by noise in my images. Modern cameras do a pretty remarkable job of handling noise and, for most usage purposes, the noise is not really an issue if it is there. I have posted my efforts with PureRAW in its various forms where I have tried it out to see how the noise reduction comes out and, while I have seen strengths and weaknesses in it, I have never seen it as something I needed to spend on.

Lightroom Classic had one of its periodic updates recently. The big new feature was their own denoise functionality. Much like my experimentation with PureRAW, it analyzes the shot and creates a new DNG file with the noise suppressed. I was curious to see how it would perform and, seeing as it is included in the price of my subscription, I have it anyway. I decided to take some shots I had recently used for the PureRAW3 trial I had done and compare with the Lightroom version.

It defaulted to a 50 level of noise reduction. I don’t know whether this is a percentage and what of but it is a scale so I played with it. I did some at 50 and some at 75 to see whether more aggressive noise reduction had detrimental effects on other parts of the image. Comparing these things and then sharing the results is a touch tricky so I have created a single image from four layers. They are the original Lightroom develop settings, the PureRAW3 version, the 75 denoise settings and the 50 denoise settings. I mask them to make the image into four sections. Then, to make it useful on here, I have zoomed in to show the borders between them to provide some sort of comparison.

The PureRAW3 result is very aggressive on noise reduction. However, I find it can make some odd artifacts in the images where details were not that clear to begin with. The 75 setting in Lightroom provided a very similar level of noise reduction to PureRAW3. It is slightly noisier but barely enough to matter. A setting of 50 does show more noise. It is still a significant improvement over the basic Camera Raw settings and very usable.

What do I conclude from all of this? First, as I have said before when testing the PureRAW trials, it provides some interesting results but it is not relevant to enough of my work to matter to me sufficient for me to spend a bunch of money on buying it. Having denoise in Lightroom now provides me with a very similar option but within the existing price I am paying for Lightroom. Therefore, I will make use of it when the situation dictates. It would be a regular part of my workflow because really high ISO shots are only an occasional thing for me but having it there when I want it will be handy.

Air Canada Special Early Sunday Departure And Lightroom Masking Options

Leave a Reply

Air Canada brings a pair of A220-300s in to SEA each evening – one from Toronto and one from Montreal. They leave the following morning with the Toronto flight heading out early and the Montreal flight following a couple of hours later. The Toronto flight one weekend was the TCA special aircraft so I decided to head out and catch it departing.

The day started very overcast and gloomy but there was a sign that things were going to get better. This did happen but things were still not great when the jet departed. The light had improved a bit but the cloud was still there. When looking at the shots, I figured it was time to make use of the masking options that Lightroom offers. The latest update has improved their usability somewhat. First I drop the exposure of the shot overall to get the sky looking roughly how I want it. Then I select the aircraft suing the Subject option. It does a pretty reasonable job but I do then refine it with an addition brush to bring in the bits it has missed and a subtract brush to take out the detail areas where the mask has overlapped.

The new option is the click on this mask and choose the Duplicate and Invert option. This gives me a sky selection that matches what I have got for the aircraft. For the sky, I can work on the white balance to bring it back to something more cool which suits the overall look of the shot. I can similarly work on the white balance for the jet to make the reds pop more in the livery. The exposure can be brought up a bit with the shadows helping a little while bringing the blacks down while improve the contrast.

All of this is pretty straightforward. One nice feature of the latest update is that you can actually apply the same settings to multiple images. The brush adjustments are not going to work well for this so it is best to do the overall selections and sync to the various images and then, if a shot is worthy of further work, the refining of the mask can be done afterwards. If you know which shot is the best, you can just focus on that one.

Lightroom’s New Content Aware Remove Tool

Leave a Reply

The latest version of Lightroom Classic was recently rolled out. It comes with a bunch of new additions and refinements. The one that caught my eye was the addition of content aware remove. There was already the cloning tool and the healing tools built in and these could do a lot of what you might want. However, these have now been supplemented by content aware removal. The tool is really straightforward to use but you can customize it if you like, both by choosing what area to use as a reference and also the ability to get it to try again if you don’t like the result by hitting Refresh.

The thing I wanted to try out was using it to remove power lines. These can sometimes be a bit of a pain when taking shots but, rather than use an aviation shot with some power lines crossing it, I happened to be looking at a photo I took in California of some railroad which had a bunch of lines strung across it. I wasn’t bothered about making a great shot. I was just interested in what the tool would do with the power lines. It was surprising effective. Too close an inspection would show the flaws but, if you look at the overall image, it came out quite well with very little effort. I have the before and after shots here for comparison.

DxO PureRAW2 Review

Leave a Reply

This post might look like it is an aviation post but, while the examples I am using are planes, this is about software. A while back I downloaded the trial of DxO’s PureRAW product. I liked it but didn’t see enough use for me to justify buying the full version. I was also a little put off by the lack of integration with Lightroom. You had to start in the app and then the output DNG file would be exported to Lightroom.

PureRAW2 has been released so I downloaded the trial version of that to see how well it works. I was interested not only in the processing capabilities but also the new Lightroom integration. Now it is possible to use the application as a plugin so I can go to a file in Lightroom and take it out to PureRAW before the DNG returns.

First, what is my experience of the integration? It is okay but not great. Taking the file out works well and you can get the processing sorted out. The return to Lightroom is not ideal. First, it gives you the option to either put the new files in a DxO folder or to go to a specific folder you choose. I would rather it went to the same folder as the original. That is not available. The second issue is that the re-import process takes a very long time. It was a couple of minutes after closing the file that it showed up in Lightroom. No idea why it takes so long.

Now for the processing. It is very impressive. I was working with some shots from very dark conditions with B-1s taking off. The exposure was heavily driven by the afterburner plumes so the rest of the airframe was very dark. When I tried to bump up the exposure in Lightroom to get something that showed the bare outline of the fuselage, the noise was really bad. The PureRAW DNG was so much cleaner and allowed me to move the exposure around quite a bit. For an ISO 51,2000 shot, this was very impressive. I think the processing is not massively changed from before but it clearly works well.

However, as before, the number of times I would want to use this are not many. The full version is now $129 which is a step up from where the original was priced when I reviewed it. I am still not sure I need it enough to justify the investment. No question, though, that it is a significantly improved tool from the original version.