Sorry, I wasn't clear. The top top image is a finished panorama from stitching multiple photos and zoomed in on the blown-out region. The bottom is the original raw, showing that there is a lot of detail in the highlights. These are sunset panoramas, and I am experimenting with different ways of capturing and processing them. In this case I have fixed the parameters in manual mode, so there is a big difference in brightness between the files facing the sun and those facing away.
I was just reading the manual for Enfuse, and it mentions this under "Common Misconceptions": A single image cannot be the source of an exposure series? *Raw-files in particular lend themselves to be converted multiple timesand the results being fused together. The technique is simpler, faster,and usually even looks better than digital blending(2)) (as opposed tousing a graduated neutral density filter) or blending exposures(3)) in animage manipulation program. Moreover, perfect alignment comes freeof charge!* 2. https://luminous-landscape.com/digital-blending/ 3. https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Blending_Exposures/ I guess this is the way to go, so I am working on that now. I have multiple raw profiles done and everything scripted up, but enfuse doesn't want to work for me, yet. It is just producing an empty, or 8byte pano file. You asked about mask adjustments to brightness. I don't like the look of most hdr and tone mapped images, but I have used enfuse on a series of exposure bracketed, single images (not panos). The results where much more natural and pleasing than typical HDR photos. But I've never created my own masks, I just used enfuse on mostly default settings. On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 12:43:11 PM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > Your last two posts seem to be about one image. I assume you have more > than one to combine via hugin. > > So when I asked about the different exposures across the multiple original > images, I think that was important. I don't see any answer. > > I'm still guessing that hugin is adjusting the exposures to eliminate that > differences in original exposure across the images, and that is where the > highlights are lost, meaning 4 bits added (to the original 12) are not > enough to bridge the exposure differences. > > You seem to have already figured out that a different conversion from raw > to tiff would result in protecting those highlights from subsequent > destruction. > > I know far less about Rawtherapee than you know. So my terminology is > likely wrong. But logically, a less linear mapping in the original > conversion from 12 bits to 16 bits would provide the extra room to protect > the highlights from the subsequent adjustment (that normalizes exposure > between photos). > > > > -- A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/a939b592-cea9-440a-93cc-53c1808ca017n%40googlegroups.com.
