The real problem with doing HDR’s well is the fact that just a few years ago, their were only a few decent programs available, and those were hard to use without getting these unwanted “trippy” looking results or bad image artifacts as a result of the HDR processing and “tonemapping”. Fast forward to 2010 and 2011 when HDR started to get mainstream attention from software companies with new apps like Nik HDR EFEX Pro, Oloneo PhotoEngine and HDRengine and even Adobe added HDR functionality within Photoshop. Not to mention dozens of other, smaller software companies making HDR apps such as my friends at Ohnaware HDRtist among some of the older, established apps like Photomatix Pro from HDRsoft. All of which I have used, most I own and all I highly recommend for different reasons.

I just want to make a single “raw” file with more dynamic range than any one exposure could otherwise do in-camera.

With that said, any HDR program has either limited controls to simplify the process for “new” to “average” photographers to doing HDR images. While the other half have advanced controls, but may be difficult to learn or understand. I’ve been using Photomatix Pro for as long as I can remember and I still don’t understand what every slider and control does to the final image. (Though they’ve come a long way in making it easier to use in recent versions.) But in reality, what I’ve wanted for as long as I’ve used any HDR processing program is the ability to “process” the image just like I would process any camera RAW file format in Lightroom, Aperture or Adobe Camera RAW. After all, I just want to make a single “raw” file with more dynamic range than any one exposure could otherwise do in-camera.

LR4.1 32bit HDR Before & After Processing

Enter Lightroom 4, or more specifically, version 4.1 which is currently (at the time of this article) only available from Adobe Labs website as a “release candidate” as Lightroom 4.1 rc2. This is a fully functional Lightroom (though I believe does still require a valid software license to install and use it) but has several new features added that were not initially included at release. One feature is new advanced color “defringing” controls which I feel is a vast improvement over the old sliders. The other feature is the ability for Lightroom to process 32bit image files. While it may work with 32bit PSD or other HDR specialty formats, I’ve created my base 32bit files in TIFF format from within Photoshop CS5 (using the process shown in the video) and find that it works perfectly good this way.

As much as I enjoy using the array of HDR applications for various “look and feel” that each gives me, I’ve found that I can do everything I could have ever wanted with my 32bit TIFF image from within Lightroom. I can essentially process it just like any other camera RAW file, but with far more dynamic range and even improved detail over any single exposure. On top of that, I don’t get the unwanted halo’s, increased noise (in some cases I had reduced noise) or other odd and unwanted image artifacts that most if not all of the other HDR programs can have. And because I am very adept in Lightroom, I find it completely fits in with the remainder of my image processing workflow without jumping from program to program any more than necessary. In fact, I only needed Lightroom 4.1 and Photoshop CS5 to do any of the work. (I’ve found that versions of Photoshop as early as CS2 have the Merge to HDR function, although earlier versions may not work as well as CS4+ for this purpose.)

In any case, I’ve created a detailed video on how to do this yourself using only Lightroom 4.1 and Photoshop to create the necessary 32bit TIFF files and how to process them in Lightroom and export them back into Photoshop for any further edits you may like to do.

As usual, all of my videos are in HD so for the best quality I recommend watching them full-screen in 720p.

Night photography requires a few “different” tools than

day photography. The most important is a very steady tripod. Obviously you want to park your camera somewhere sturdy regardless, but with night photography your exposures may be anywhere from 1/2 second through 30 seconds and more. While the shutter speed in the featured image was only 1/25 second, I was using a fairly fast f3.2 with a 14-24 f2.8 lens to capture the dimming light. However, once the sun fades and the stars show up to the party, shutter speeds will need to get much much longer. With that, the second “tool” that I recommend for night photography that you may not find necessary during the day is a good headlamp. (At least a few people just went “HUH?”)
By headlamp, I’m basically talking about a flashlight for your head. They come in all sizes, prices and with a variety of features. But before you spend your money on a headlamp, let me make a recommendation… You will want one that has a RED light mode. While fairly dim for walking around and such, the red light will not interrupt your night vision or of others that may be around you. You may also want to be sure it has a good SPOT beam which is perfect for hiking to and from your campsite or vehicle, and a wide angle mode which is perfect for digging around in your bag or during setup and breakdown. I personally picked up a Black Diamond Storm headlamp (pictured) from a local REI store after comparing many other models online and in person. While it may set you back $45-$50 for the headlamp, you could opt for the slightly less waterproof Black Diamond Spot headlamp which is about $10 less but has a slightly lower peak light output and less battery life, though still very capable.

Not to be left out, another thing that I suggest you keep in your bag for night photography is a good remote release. It can be a cable type or a wireless release, but a remote release will allow you to trigger the camera without the possibility of even the slightest camera shake. If you happen to be setting up to do a night HDR bracket, this is even more critical as even the most steady tripod and head will move ever so slightly when you press the shutter without a remote release. And if you are using a longer, heavier telephoto lens, the odds that you will have camera shake that will blur your image goes up by magnitudes. I typically use fast wide angle lens for night landscape where very minor shake isn’t amplified much, but I have been known to use up to a 500mm lens for moon captures and even the mirror slap can cause the slightest motion that gets amplified highly by the huge focal length of the lens.

I would suggest bringing along any “fast” lenses you may have.

As for your lens selection, this is going to depend obviously on what you have access to, but also what your intentions are. If you want a nice wide-angle landscape shot at night, clearly you should opt for the appropriate lens. But I would suggest bringing along ANY “fast” lenses you may have. By fast, I mean max apertures of f2.8 or less. While the depth of field at f1.4 is very shallow when shooting close to your subject (portrait distance), when focused on a point several hundred feet away or greater, the range of image in focus will not be as much of a limiting factor. Additionally, lenses with faster max apertures will allow for the camera to meter and auto focus better in this very low light than similar lens with a slower max aperture. (since the camera opens the lens to the max aperture until the shutter is pressed) I almost always pack my 85mm f1.4 lens and the wonderful 14-24 f2.8 lens, but for super-telephoto images (such as moon closeups) the Tamron 200-500mm f5/6.3 lens proves satisfactory since my subject is “well lit” anyhow. Any f1.2 to f2 prime (such as 35mm or 50mm) will be a great option for night photography as well.

So now on to setup. This is what separates the novices from the experienced night photographers. Depending on your camera, you may be able to get away with using higher ISO settings and lower shutter speeds, however I typically find that I “prefer” the longer shutter speed and stick with lower ISO settings whenever possible. Also, your white balance settings can prove tricky depending on what light may be left over. If you are in a more urban setting with street light glow, you may prefer the “colored” light look of the street lights, in which case I would stick with a Daylight white balance (which is what I use for “most” of my night photography anyway), but if you want to neutralize that cast, you may need to create a custom white balance which can prove tricky in very low light. Your best bet is often to simply take a reference image of a target such as the X-Rite Color Checker Passport in these various light settings and work out the color later in your RAW editor. (Just remember, you want to take the picture of the target with the same settings, including exposure time, aperture and ISO, as you are taking pictures as the various ambient light can mix differently depending on the length of the exposure and so on.)

Back to the featured image at the top, that was set up at ISO 200 with the aperture set to f3.2 and shutter speed of 1/25th. While not the darkest time of day, the sky was still fairly well lit while the ground was barely visible. But as long as I get “decent” information in the shadows, I know that I can pull that out later from the RAW file. But in some cases, you can only get very little light on the ground or your subject matter to even out with the light of the sky. This was much the case with the image “Storm Warning” above. While the moon was full and very bright (it was the 5/5/12 “Supermoon” evening), clouds obscured the majority of the moon most of the time so very little moon light was available. So a longer exposure was necessary. While the image doesn’t appear to have any movement, the fast moving storm created a very strong steady wind of at least 60mph while we were taking pictures. This posed new problems, movement… Both of non-stable objects, clouds and so fourth, but also the camera itself was being blown around slightly, even with the stable tripod. To counteract this, I braced the two tripod legs through a sturdy wooden fence and added a bit of ballast to the center post to help keep the tripod upright, but also to “absorb” some of the tiny movements causing any potential motion. This allowed me to use a long shutter speed. In this case, 30 seconds at f5 with the ISO at 160 for low noise. While dark (far darker in person considering we were in an otherwise completely dark Colorado open space parking lot), the image almost appears to be taken at dusk not unlike the sunset picture. But it may surprise you to know that this was taken at 10:41pm.

I’m sure a few people just asked themselves “why a 30 second exposure at low ISO and not a shorter exposure and higher ISO” and that would be a valid question. In fact, their are several reasons why to go with a lower ISO and longer shutter speed. First, as long as you keep the exposures under 30 seconds, you will get very little added “sensor” noise that you could get from a very long exposure (such as exposures of several minutes and up). But also, the image will have less ISO noise which in some cameras may jump dramatically from your base ISO settings (ISO 50 to 200 depending on the camera) but I also feel that the longer exposures help “unfreeze” some of the moving aspects such as cars (note the highway in the background of the “Storm Warning” picture), clouds and even stars if that is what we are after. More on star trails in a later post. While “freezing” the movement of stars may be ideal for some pictures, when using a wide angle lens, the movement is typically not picked much and you can get away with much longer shutter speeds before the “star trails” are noticeable.

Now when it gets extremely dark, such as when no moon or stars are visible, sometimes we simply cannot get enough light to bring any detail out of the foreground objects. Such was the case with the above night shot of the lake reflections. Unless I did a very long exposure and/or raised the ISO settings considerably, the trees and grass in the foreground and background were essentially a silhouette. Rather than fight the lack of light, I embraced the beautiful reflections of the sky and background in the water. (This was a 20 second exposure at f2.8 and ISO 200.)

Histogram vs Image Exposure

Now that we have a capture, how should we process it?

Honestly, we first need to consider how we want to convey the “look and feel” of the image. With the image above, I wanted a very cool blue “twilight” feel to the image. But if you look at the histogram for that image, either on-camera or in your image editing software (in this case Photoshop CS5), the image appears highly underexposed. But because this is the feel that I am trying to get, the exposure is exactly where it should be. Don’t over-correct the image just for the sake of a histogram. While the histogram is a GREAT tool for judging if you have lost detail in highlights or shadows during the time of capture and I highly suggest paying attention to it while editing in Lightroom, Aperture, Capture One or Photoshop, it is only a “graph” to help you judge where the majority of the image falls in terms of exposure (in this case I have it set to Luminosity). Because I want a “deep dark” feel to the image, I can clearly SEE that on the histogram and easily tell that I have not lost much in terms of black clipping. This is especially important if your screen isn’t calibrated extremely well or has a tendency to clip shadow details that may otherwise show up in a print, or vice verse.

I am currently utilizing Adobe Lightroom 4 for all of my RAW processing before exporting images to Photoshop for final tweaks and other edits that I cannot easily handle in LR4. The main objective of Lightroom is to get the “most” out of the camera RAW files without hurting details or clipping highlights or shadows. And while the imported file may appear nothing like the capture on the camera, this is largely because the camera is displaying the embedded JPEG file (part of the RAW file) while Lightroom is processing and displaying the essentially un-modified RAW image data. Additionally, if your default “import” develop settings are set poorly or wrong, it may even give you a very crazy preview that is even worse than it should be. So be sure to either reset all of the settings for the default import, or have minimal “tweaks” so to not mess up the image previews that are automatically generated. (You can fix it later, but it saves time when culling images to have decent previews depicting each file.)

Again, when it comes to editing the RAW, this is all about how we want the end result to “look and feel”. This largely comes down to personal preference and your creative vision. But I can say that it is quite easy to “bring back” some of that shadow detail and once you master the controls in Lightroom, you can easily manipulate the images to fit your initial vision for the scene.
As for doing this, I highly suggest watching some of my Lightroom tutorial videos on my YouTube channel: http://www.YouTube.com/ModifiedPhoto

I hope this was helpful and informative. Please feel free to share any night photos you try out after reading this! And as always, use the “Share” links below to share this post with friends. Happy night shooting!

First off, I am fairly new to Pinterest (link to my own Pinterest boards), having only started an account in April and have not fully experienced the scope of what it can do yet. But, based on what I have experienced so far, I don’t see how or why anyone can be mad at what is essentially “graphic social media” on such a scale that great ideas, images and inspiration can be shared with anyone and everyone with essentially no limit to the reach of this media. Sure, copyright owners might think “it’s stealing” or whatever. But look at it from another perspective for a second… Instead, it’s free marketing, free exposure, free social media on a super-massive scale.

How about those copyrights?

Quite frankly, if you are worried about the copyrights to your image, idea or art, the internet is definitely NOT the place to share it, period. People will find a way to use or “steal” your ideas, images and art regardless of any countermeasures you may feel you have taken to prevent that. Sorry to say, but it’s the raw truth. I have run numerous websites with different interests in the past, some with membership in excess of 100,000 people covering the entire globe. It was only a matter of time before I found my images, from my site, on other sites, in peoples profiles, even being used on Ebay… Watermark and all! People just don’t care because what are the odds they will get caught right? (Funny thing is, when I approached one person about the images, they didn’t understand what they had done wrong and honestly felt that it was OK to use.)

So what about Pinterest?

Pinterest does what it can to help “give credit” where credit is due, the best it can anyhow… For example, when someone “pins” an image from your site, it saves the link to refer people who look at that image back to your site. (If you know ANYTHING about social media, this is a benefit to you no matter how you spin it.) Additionally, the image is limited in size when “pinned” to someones board, meaning even if your image is larger on your site, Pinterest scales that to be more “share friendly” on their site. (Thus, reproduction from the fairly small “pinned” image is virtually useless for anyone else.) And again going back to my perspective on it, I see Pinterest as one of the best and fastest ways to get exposure on a massive scale. And what artist DOESN’T want as much exposure as they can get? Heck, we LIVE, even THRIVE on exposure… Without it, people who aren’t already in the limelight may never get noticed. And nobody else is out there giving you free exposure on your behalf, until now.

In short, Pinterest is something we should embrace as artists and “pin” your own work, sharing it with as many others as you can. This could be what makes the difference between maybe making a sale once in a great while, to making a sale monthly, weekly or even daily! Social media and social marketing is where it is… I say, get on before you get left behind!

In the meantime, enjoy this capture taken with a Sigma 150-500mm on a Nikon D7000 at ISO 500, F6.3 at 1/400th second exposure. Focused manually on a sturdy tripod, disable lens vibration reduction, mirror lock-up enabled and a remote release to minimize even the slightest amount of shake.

On that, I will be testing it out for myself and will likely have some videos explaining some of the differences and how to use some of the new features. Look for that soon!

Download the Beta here:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom4/

According to this blog post by Adobe http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/adobe-creative-cloud-and-adobe-creative-suite-new-choices-for-customers.html?PID=2159997 you will be required to have CS5 or CS5.5 in order to upgrade to CS6. *Whoa, wait a minute!* Do they expect everyone to run out and upgrade to the CURRENT version just so they can purchase the UPGRADE in a few months? What a waste…

I see this as a little greedy on Adobes part. After all, how many people have been using the older version because they can’t afford to upgrade to the current version every year or two? (Considering the cost of the suite, it’s simply not practical for some people to keep it up-to-date every time they release an upgrade.) I can understand that they could clearly stand to profit from it because upgrading from several versions back at a discounted price is somewhat “unfair” for them as well. But why not just have a tier based discount, giving current version users the best discount and older versions a slightly reduced discount rather than forcing them to keep their versions up-to-date?

For what it’s worth, I’ve been using and supporting Adobe products since Photoshop was in it’s infancy, clear back to the early 1990′s. (Yes, Photoshop is over 20 years old now!) And I know so many other people have been doing the same. Heck, I’m currently using CS5, but not everyone is, nor can afford to keep upgrading their software every year or two. (Which often requires new hardware to keep up with the “improved” versions.) While Adobe does offer student discounts and such, I don’t see this change helping them sell more copies or upgrades. In contrast, I suspect this will only encourage more people to download hacked versions and thus costing Adobe money in the long run. (Seems counter productive to me, but I’m only a business student still so…)

Will Adobe fold like Bank of America did recently after announcing a $5 monthly service fee for “using” a debit card? Hopefully they will reconsider. More so after people like the well known Scott Kelby and others have voiced their feedback directly to Adobe about their concerns. (Adobe doesn’t listen to me yet, but I’m not a published master of Photoshop making a living essentially selling their products for them either.)

In any case, I think the more people that KNOW about this and voice their opinion to Adobe, the more likely they will reconsider and allow users to continue to upgrade from ANY version of the software without penalty.

None the less, I’m still working on a number of reviews, tests, tips and tutorials. On top of that, I hope to have all of the Adobe Photoshop actions ready for purchase soon. I have also recently updated Color Cloud to version 1.2 which now has quite a few new features and higher resolution reference images with the ability to scale and even collapse the app making it more user friendly. While I am still working on more “user requested” features, the next version will be awhile still so don’t hesitate to order Color Cloud now. (Plus, updates for the same major version are free for registered users!)

In any event, I would like to thank those people who find my blog helpful, share my articles on other sites and all those who have joined my little “fan club” on Facebook. And if you haven’t already, go “Like” us on Facebook now to get all the latest updates, freebies, contests, giveaways and other great stuff!

However, I recently had the chance to try out the best of the best, though that may be disputable to some. But regardless of how you see it, the Phase One IQ180 IS CURRENTLY the megapixel and image quality winner, hands down. The IQ180 is just part of the “kit” that makes up the amazing camera that I had the luxury of using hands on. Phase One formally only made the digital backs for “other” camera manufacturers, thus you would use their digital back on a Hasselblad or Mamiya camera body. However, since Hasselblad began making their own digital systems, Phase One was left with Mamiya. So, they joined forces (technically, Phase One bought a controlling interest in Mamiya) and are now offering what is the highest megapixel count medium format digital system in the world.

And then I woke up…

Combine the Phase One IQ180 digital back and the Mamiya (now Phase One) 645DF along with a dash of high-quality medium format lens (such as the Schneider-Kreuznach 55mm LS f2.8 lens) and you get one unbelievably fantastic digital capture in one unbelievably expensive package. I was actually told that the setup I was using was roughly $47,000 which is probably 10x the value of my current Nikon setup. But when held, rather than looking like a tourist with a fancy camera, instead I had the feeling that I should hold it above my head He-Man style and yell “I have the power!” but refrained from doing so considering all things.

While the Phase One setup IS a digital camera, that’s nearly where the comparisons stop with a “standard” DSLR. Ok, ok, I exaggerate a bit… The controls are actually very similar, the grip feels much the same, and although it’s no featherweight, I was quite surprised at how light it really was, thus making hand-held shooting quite possible in the right light. However, to really open this baby up and take advantage of the best parts, you really need a sturdy tripod, remote release and even better yet, switch it to mirror-up mode to get that out of the way before the capture starts to eliminate any possibility of even the slightest shake. As the megapixels climb, even the slightest of movements can cause the most tiny blur, thus a horribly out of focus image. (It’s not THAT bad, but it makes a huge difference when taking longer exposures.) I’m somewhat amused after reading so complaints from Nikon fans about the rumored 36 megapixel Nikon D800 that “oh that’s too many megapixels (referring to the D800), give me this and that instead.” But after using the IQ180, I must disagree… More IS better, as long as you can put them to proper use! However, I do wonder how many Nikon lenses can actually take full advantage of a 36mp sensor.

100% Crop on Full Image

Being somewhat limited on where and what I could do while I had access to this megapixel monster, I set myself up for what *to me* is a critical test of the system… A scene with a great deal of dynamic range, contrast and bucketfuls of detail to be had. Needless to say, a unique variety of buildings down a busy, downtown Denver street yielded the test parameters I desired. Thus, the test image with 100% crop sample to the right (click the image at the top of this post to see the photo without the crop sample). Sure, it’s not artistically appealing (actually I kinda like it to be honest), but it gave me everything I needed to put this thing through it’s paces. And it captured everything, and then some, with dead accurate, flying colors. Despite the strong contrast of the setting sun reflecting off the glass building windows to the dark shadows between buildings and on the darkest of objects, nearly every bit of the image has detail to spare. And it should considering the 16bit RAW captures, 13.6 EV dynamic range and unbeatable color depth (based on DxOMark test results). While several Nikon and one Pentax camera have a greater dynamic range, I feel that the Phase One gives a better “unmodified” RAW file.

With the below sample, I took these shots minutes apart using a similar focal length, position and equivalent exposure. The IQ180 sample is from a 100% crop, the Nikon sample is from the same crop, scaled up to match. Detail anyone? This is only a tiny fraction of the full image. The full size file is a jaw dropping 10328×7760 pixels! That’s more pixels HIGH than many of my multi-shot panoramic composites are WIDE, and that’s just ONE shot! For comparison sake, that would be a nearly 35″ x 26″ print at a full 300ppi. (Or roughly a 70″ x 53″ print at almost 150ppi still!) Click thumbnail for full size sample.

IQ180 at 100% crop, D300 scaled to match.

As with any super-high performance product, it has some drawbacks other than the cost. (Hey, a Ferrari is a terrific car for going around a track or to get a drink at the overpriced bar down the street, but it’s not exactly something I’d drive to the hardware store.) With that said, the drawback list is short, in my opinion. The ISO performance, compared to modern DSLR cameras, is considerably lacking. Then again, this isn’t your typical “chase brides around in a dimly lit church” type of camera. Odds are, you won’t be taking it to photograph from the sideline of a sporting event either. (If you are, more power to you!) However, they do offer several features to help when you do need to push the ISO. The first is “pixel binning” which combines the information of several neighboring pixels into a lower resolution, but lower noise final image. It also has the usual “dark frame” (frequently known as High-ISO noise reduction) which “captures” another dark-frame shot to allow the camera to calculate and remove excess noise. The last “drawback” is the fact that the RAW files are easily 50+ megabytes EACH! Process that with Capture One (Phase One’s version of Lightroom or Aperture) and export a 16bit TIFF at a full 80 megapixels and you get a computer seizing 480 megabyte file! Even my fairly up-to-date Mac Pro tower with power to spare had an issue once I took these into Photoshop, making editing quite a slow process. Don’t even think about loading these on your laptop to edit. In fact, I wouldn’t even begin to edit these without a dual processor system with at least 16GB of memory or more. (Even then you’d probably still be waiting on the Photoshop swap disk frequently.)

Phase One IQ180 on 645DF, processed in Capture One 6 Pro

What I DO really like about this system is the fact that as a photographer, it *SLOWS YOU DOWN* to think about your capture two or three times before you even reach for the shutter release. At which point, you inspect the file on the touch screen after capture to be sure it is sharp, in focus and their are no other artifacts. Their is absolutely no point in going rapid fire with this, it’s about careful planning before the shot and inspection after the shot. Honestly, I almost wish I could find the reason to do that with my DSLR, but it’s to easy to simply over-shoot and cull them later. (Even my modest 8MB CF cards hold 300+ 12mp 14bit RAW captures from my Nikon.)

My final thoughts… Well, I wish I had $100,000 or so to invest in a setup like this plus a nice array of lenses, a considerably faster computer and some travel money so I could come back with a handful of images worthy of Peter Lik. (Then wake up from the dream.) It’s far from being necessary for *MOST* photographers. In fact, unless your clients are paying you handsomely, chances are this isn’t for you. But if I had money burning a hole in my pocket, you bet I’d get one!

Since then, Adobe TV has put out their own high quality video which CLEARLY shows how well the module works (watch in full screen HD), and I’m clearly impressed. Obviously this works best with images blurred due to a motion path rather than being entirely out of focus. However, one image they demonstrate at the end does appear to be more OOF rather than motion blur, and it is recovered very well.

Personally, this could save some of those “almost perfect” shots that I had to skip due to the focus being just a bit off. Or while using a long telephoto, I end up with a tiny bit of camera shake which translates into a huge amount of motion blur. Which honestly is VERY difficult to avoid, even with the most sturdy of tripod and mounts.

None the less, here is the link to the Adobe TV video: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2011-sneak-peeks/max-2011-sneak-peek-image-deblurring/