| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2007 01:37:59 AM · #1 |
I went back and revisited a panoramic shot that I took a few months ago and tried to apply HDR to entire panorama (stitched from 7 frames). (This is my first HDR posting). I split each frame into three exposures from the RAW file and generated a HDR file in photomatix then tonemapped each one using the same parameters. Finally I stitched them all together using panorama factory. I think I like the HDR version more than the normal version due to the enhanced details in the rocks and sky. Any suggestions that people have for using this technique would be greatly appreciated!
Before:
After:
 |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 01:40:51 AM · #2 |
| Too bad 800px is not enough to check out the details :( |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 01:46:57 AM · #3 |
| I put a link to a larger version on the picture now :) |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 05:43:27 AM · #4 |
In many ways the HDR is superior, especially in sky and cloud detail, but the straight version also has its strong points. The HDR version has sucked all the life out of the beach and the rocks, flattening them to a dull level that's quite unappealing.
Here's something for you to try: Open BOTH versions in photoshop, copy the straight version, and paste it as a new layer over the HDR version. Then set the layer mode to "lighten". See what that does? Everything that is lighter in the in the straight version is now overlaid on the HDR version.
Now fade the opacity of the overlay layer to whatever works best for the rocks and the beach. Finally, wherever necessary use the eraser tool at partial opacity (maybe) 25% and start erasing some of the overlay in areas where you think it has lightened too much.
When you have all that done, you can consider doing another straight overlay in "darken" mode to recover the clouds in the upper left, which are much better in that version, and simply erase everything but the clouds from that overlay. You can probably most easily do that by selecting the clouds inverting the selection, and deleting everything but the clouds.
I tried to do this as an example from the low-res versions but they are not cropped the same and don't overlay properly, almost as if you have also stretched the image vertically...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 07:27:18 AM · #5 |
| Looks nice. The change is subtle but nice. Great location for a pano, good job! I bet it wold look spectacular at sunset or sunrise. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 08:22:27 AM · #6 |
Damn, they're both beautiful versions. What an beautiful spot for a pano! I'd love to see some results from Bear's suggestions. He's the Master.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 09:23:03 AM · #7 |
I agree that both have strong points. The reason that the HDR is not head and shoulders above the old version is because it is made from one raw file. Since that is the case then all that stuff that Bear does with "lighten" and "darken" may be necessary.
A true HDR image made from indivudually shot frames should not need to be "overlayed" by other images...etc...
From what I understand from HDR websites is that your single "raw" file "is" your HDR image. By adjusting it's exposure...saving...adjusting darker...saving....adjusting again...saving..etc etc....just breaks up the image to its' lighter and darker parts. At that point, Photomatix is simply putting your Raw file back to gether for you with little difference from the original.
With all of that said, your new image shows lighter details but does lose some detail and tone on the beach. So like Bear said, both have strong and weak points.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In many ways the HDR is superior, especially in sky and cloud detail, but the straight version also has its strong points. The HDR version has sucked all the life out of the beach and the rocks, flattening them to a dull level that's quite unappealing.
Here's something for you to try: Open BOTH versions in photoshop, copy the straight version, and paste it as a new layer over the HDR version. Then set the layer mode to "lighten". See what that does? Everything that is lighter in the in the straight version is now overlaid on the HDR version.
Now fade the opacity of the overlay layer to whatever works best for the rocks and the beach. Finally, wherever necessary use the eraser tool at partial opacity (maybe) 25% and start erasing some of the overlay in areas where you think it has lightened too much.
When you have all that done, you can consider doing another straight overlay in "darken" mode to recover the clouds in the upper left, which are much better in that version, and simply erase everything but the clouds from that overlay. You can probably most easily do that by selecting the clouds inverting the selection, and deleting everything but the clouds.
I tried to do this as an example from the low-res versions but they are not cropped the same and don't overlay properly, almost as if you have also stretched the image vertically...
R. |
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 09:27:19 AM · #8 |
The 'before' picture is miles better.
I love it.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 10:10:43 AM · #9 |
The After has more details on the closeup rock near the left, but I like the beach and wave crests on the Before shot.
I took 7 shots of an area not as interesting, a resort lodge on a hill overlooking a lake and hills in the background. I did this during Thanksgiving, just past the Fall season here. I will get a panorama stitcher (or attempt it manually) and show you the results.
My first experiment was about 5-6 frames 180-degree view, on a sunny day. Each frame was bracketed with about 7 f-stops. I used the high speed mode of my D200, probably set to shutter-priority.
I did a comparison of my first frame, using the 7-bracketed shots with Photomatix and then by splitting a single raw file in Photoshop. The first choice gave me a bigger range of colors and more variety of light-n-dark areas on parts of the photo.
I like the idea that true HDR can bring equal exposure possibilities to all parts of a photo, even surpass what the human eye can see. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 10:50:51 AM · #10 |
| Have you tried making 3 panos (light, middle and dark) and then running them through Photomatix? |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 12:20:12 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by md8speed:
... Any suggestions that people have for using this technique would be greatly appreciated!
Before:
After:
|
Bear_music's suggestion is remarkably straitforward and looks like it would work very well if the two panoramas matched. His is a good idea.
Another approach you might consider if you had matching panoramas is to simply add a layer mask to the 'original' layer above the HDR layer and airbrush back in the detail you want from the HDR layer with a feathered 20% or less opacity brush. That method gives you greater artistic freedom how you merge the two layers. (You could do that either in 'normal' or 'lighten' mode on the top layer).
In future panoramas you might consider two or even three horizontal rows of images to stitch. The panorama will have much greater vertical height and will retain incredible detail.
Message edited by author 2007-02-20 12:24:58.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:48:18 PM EDT.
