My first real HDR attempt ... How did I do?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/04/2007 10:55:51 AM · #1

Edited to correct typoed thumbnail number.

Message edited by author 2007-02-04 10:56:57.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

02/04/2007 11:37:33 AM · #2

Looks like a scene well, well within the dynamic range of a camera.

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/04/2007 11:48:25 AM · #3

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Looks like a scene well, well within the dynamic range of a camera.

I agree. it doesn't really look like a hdr image and i don't know why you would use it on this image.

Message edited by author 2007-02-04 11:48:37.

Mulder

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/04/2007 12:37:29 PM · #4

I've done a few HDR myself, but am in no way 'experienced.' HDR is more often done on scenes when there is a great range of shadows, highlights, and midtones. And when put together, the 3 different shots with different exposures will blend these all together to make everything seem correctly exposed.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/04/2007 01:12:06 PM · #5

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Looks like a scene well, well within the dynamic range of a camera.

I agree. it doesn't really look like a hdr image and i don't know why you would use it on this image.

We'd have to see an original. Y'all are probably correct that HDR is not needed, but we also don't know if Greetmir is actually using true HDR on this or whether he is just tone mapping (a lot of people think tone mapping is HDR). IN any case, I do give credit, whatever means was used to obtain it, for great luminosity and tonal range in this image (bearing in mind that it's just a technical study).

The yellows, the whites, the greens, see the subtle luminosity changes? That's very nice. Of course it can all be done with perfect lighting as well, but...

Anyway, Greetmir, you've at least avoided the excesses of the technique. But now go outside and shoot some scene with extreme tonal range, like backlit trees at sunset or something, and try doing HDR on that :-)

R.

02/04/2007 01:34:49 PM · #6

Yeah ... it is real HDR ... I could not get the tones I wanted so decided to try out HDR in (my newly upgraded from Photoshop 7 to Photoshop CS2) HDR merge function. I used 7 exposures here.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

I am not even sure exactly what tone mapping means ROFL! Maybe you could explain in a nutshell? ... You are not just talking about playing with curves, I presume.

Edited to add ... yeah, Bear ... I will be going outside with my tripod as soon as the sun comes up tomorrow ... don't worry.

... and thanks for the comments, gang ...

Edited again to add: lighting was a quartz halogen desk lamp (left side) with a diffuser in front of it. A regular 60 watt incandescent bulb lamp (left front) and my living room and dining room ceiling fixtures for ambient light. (Living room and dining room are open plan and I was between them set up on a small table)

Message edited by author 2007-02-04 13:39:43.

02/04/2007 02:33:49 PM · #7

... and here is the original series requested by two or three of you ...

... I tagged it onto the result.

Message edited by author 2007-02-04 14:45:57.

02/04/2007 10:49:42 PM · #8

... after Superbowl bump ...

RainMotorsports

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/04/2007 11:00:04 PM · #9

I think ur kinda pushing this whole got to get an HDR image thing way too far.

My advice go outside with your camera and a tripod.... LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE INSIDE. NO STUDIO! FInd somethign that doesnt have moving objects in the background (Tree's cloud's) give it a shot okay?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/04/2007 11:44:23 PM · #10

One thing you want to look out for: more exposures does not always translate into a better image. Or, at least, a wider RANGE of exposures doesn't. I haven't played with doing a whole bunch of exposures in very small (1/3 stop) increments yet. But I do know this for a fact: if my original scene is, say, one stop over on the bright side and one stop under on the dark side, when viewing a mid-range image, then processing with -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 actually produces MUCH worse results than sticking to -1, 0, +1, which completely covers the gamut of tones I need to work with.

Presumably, -1, -0.5, 0, +0.5, +1 would produce even smoother results, but I haven't gotten to that point yet. nevertheless, when you produce end-range images for your composite that are TOO bright int he shadows and TOO dark in the highlights, you screw the whole thing up big time.

Regarding tone mapping, in CS2 that function is covered with the shadow/highlight adjustment dialogue box.

R.