Scrub Pines by the Winter Marsh - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/29/2006 02:18:15 PM · #1

I'm working on "gentler", more glowing HDRI right now. Comments?

I Enjoy Ham

Canon EOS-30D

12/29/2006 02:20:04 PM · #2

seems harsher to me... its a nice scene though, how does it look without the halos around the trees?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/29/2006 02:26:14 PM · #3

It isn't bad Robert. it certainly has "that look" which is either good or bad depending on your taste. I wonder if the 640 pixels doesn't make HDRI tough because all the localized contrast turns into oversharpening.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/29/2006 02:28:16 PM · #4

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Oh for sure. It's WAY too busy for this small size. It looks real sweet in full size, soft and mellow with a nice subliminal glow.

Hamster, if you think THAT'S harsh you should see it without the glow :-)

R.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

12/29/2006 02:28:28 PM · #5

Bear, I've been experimenting a lot with HDR and tone-mapping, so I'm not picking on you or saying stuff because I "hate whatever". I actually have an fake HDRed/tonemapped image entered to a challenge at this time.

Your image here image looks really overdone on my screen. It looks very flat (physically flat), and at the same time it looks sort of like one of those pounded copper images, where there are little bubble shapes throughout. To me, it doesn't look at all like a "gentler, more glowing" HDRI. It's like the light has gone totally flat somehow.

Although, in light of your post right above (that you posted while I was typing), I should probably just take this down and say, "I guess it needs to be viewed larger".

Message edited by author 2006-12-29 14:30:30.

jfriesen

Panasonic LUMIX GH5

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/29/2006 02:29:32 PM · #6

It looks tons overdone here.

Are you feeling ok, Bear?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/29/2006 02:30:04 PM · #7

Robert do you have a version that is not sharpened or local contrast enhanced? I do like the direction you are going with this photo but I agree with sneezy and hammy that it looks too sharpened.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/29/2006 02:31:02 PM · #8

thanks, uh, yankee

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/29/2006 02:36:55 PM · #9

How many of you are viewing on an LCD? It looks WAY overprocessed on my neighbor's LCD, but it looks fine on my CRT and it prints fine also, within limits; I have some fringing problems I need to get rid of. This is sort of a throwaway image anyhow, I'm just trying to work some things out.

Ursula, the "flat" is intentional, for better or for worse. I'm trying to get some glow out of flat processing, I have an end goal in mind. This is a long ways from there, though :-)

To do it better I am going to need to reprocess from scratch, with a new HDR composite set to different parameters and a new tone map from that. I'll work on it soon. To a certain extent I'm getting sidetracked by CS2-CS3; it wouldn't look like this if I'd used PS7, but new paths are opening up...

R.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

12/29/2006 02:40:34 PM · #10

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

iMac LCD here.

This is HDR/tone mapped, somewhat similar subject, one of my first serious experiments in the matter:

I haven't seen it on a CRT.

Why is the "flat" intentional? What is the ultimate goal?
I've been experimenting a bit with "flat" also, as in this:

Makes it look somewhat like a very detailed watercolour.

Message edited by author 2006-12-29 14:42:43.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/29/2006 02:46:52 PM · #11

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

QUESTION: When you say, "different parameters" for the HDR composite, what are you referring to? The exposure values? Or what?

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

12/29/2006 05:14:14 PM · #12

I don't know what I have, but it is a 17 inch monitor. I believe it is not one of those newer ones, if that is what an lcd is. Anyway, I liked the very painerly feel to it and as a print on my wall, I would say it would be very beautiful. You know, of course, that as far as expert editing goes, it probably won't fair well.

Anyway, I have a question regarding mulitiple exposures. When you took your four exposures how did you do it? I tried with three for the current expert editing challenge and when I combined them they were not aligned. I had the camera secure. I did not have a cable release. If you use a tripod for stability, do you also need a cable release? I am wondering if the pressure of my finger may have jarred the camera. It was also bloody windy when I shot it. Would that have possibly affected it as well?

Message edited by author 2006-12-29 17:15:10.

12/29/2006 06:08:45 PM · #13

Originally posted by JunieMoon:

Yes and yes. Tripod and cable release. Wind is a major hassle, especially when you have foliage blowing around.

R.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/29/2006 06:13:55 PM · #14

Originally posted by ursula:

QUESTION: When you say, "different parameters" for the HDR composite, what are you referring to? The exposure values? Or what?

I am discovering that the selection of which of the multiple exposures you use has a significant effect on the generated HDR tone map. I have been exposing 5 exposures as my standard workflow: +2, +1, 0, -1, -2. If the scene does not have that much dynamic range (5 stops), then combining all 5 exposures does not work as well as combining the middle 3. I can imagine circumstances (this is probably one of them) where generating and HDR tone mapped image from just 2 exposures might be better.

That's my next step. But I had a heck of a lightfall this afternoon and I'm working on something else right now. I tell you, the number of variables is mind boggling when you include CS2 shadow/highlight capabilities. By this time next year I should have it nailed :-)

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/29/2006 09:48:22 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by ursula:

QUESTION: When you say, "different parameters" for the HDR composite, what are you referring to? The exposure values? Or what?

I am discovering that the selection of which of the multiple exposures you use has a significant effect on the generated HDR tone map. I have been exposing 5 exposures as my standard workflow: +2, +1, 0, -1, -2. If the scene does not have that much dynamic range (5 stops), then combining all 5 exposures does not work as well as combining the middle 3. I can imagine circumstances (this is probably one of them) where generating and HDR tone mapped image from just 2 exposures might be better.

That's my next step. But I had a heck of a lightfall this afternoon and I'm working on something else right now. I tell you, the number of variables is mind boggling when you include CS2 shadow/highlight capabilities. By this time next year I should have it nailed :-)

R.

So what's your in-camera workflow? Do you always take the photos in the same order or is it based on what the light is? For example, if the histogram is mostly to the right do you then start on that end first and work your way to the shadows?