| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2009 11:10:34 AM · #76 |
A couple more using the same method as the previous two.
 |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:26:48 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by DCrest01:
Joanna - in your steps you said "I bracketed this in PS in increments of 20 as follows: -60, -40, -20, 0, +20, +40, +60." How do you do that in PS? |
If you work in Photoshop CS3 you can use the exposure control to bracket a single image. I work in PS Elements so I use the Brightness control to bracket an image. It works ok as long as the quality of your original image is good. What this does is creates 7 different intensities that can be generated in Photomatix and then edited in PS. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 04:48:11 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Originally posted by DCrest01:
Joanna - in your steps you said "I bracketed this in PS in increments of 20 as follows: -60, -40, -20, 0, +20, +40, +60." How do you do that in PS? |
If you work in Photoshop CS3 you can use the exposure control to bracket a single image. I work in PS Elements so I use the Brightness control to bracket an image. It works ok as long as the quality of your original image is good. What this does is creates 7 different intensities that can be generated in Photomatix and then edited in PS. |
Does this produce a different (better) result than opening a single RAW file in Photomatix?
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 07:11:47 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by jimness:
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Originally posted by DCrest01:
Joanna - in your steps you said "I bracketed this in PS in increments of 20 as follows: -60, -40, -20, 0, +20, +40, +60." How do you do that in PS? |
If you work in Photoshop CS3 you can use the exposure control to bracket a single image. I work in PS Elements so I use the Brightness control to bracket an image. It works ok as long as the quality of your original image is good. What this does is creates 7 different intensities that can be generated in Photomatix and then edited in PS. |
Does this produce a different (better) result than opening a single RAW file in Photomatix? |
I've tried it both ways and never seen much of a difference, frankly... But I never have explored the concepts in a disciplined manner. In theory, all the info is present in the RAW file and it ought not matter...
R. |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 05:57:02 PM · #80 |
Here are three I took on a recent business trip to LA ...
|
|
|
|
05/08/2009 06:35:26 PM · #81 |
After 5 consecutive days of rainfall, this is the best I could come up with..
 |
|
|
|
05/09/2009 07:31:09 AM · #82 |
Again, single RAW, taken into Aperture and stretched to 5 images ..... -2, -1, 0, +1 + 2. This is a full 20mp RAW from the 5D MKii so it is possible to stretch to a certain extent. |
|
|
|
05/09/2009 10:34:59 AM · #83 |
New to the HDR process, having only done a few. Here is one that I did yesterday.
Original correct exposure:
Here is HDR using 3 images, -2Ev, 0Ev, +2Ev.
Generally happy with the HDR except for the light "glow" of the sky at the tree edges.
Message edited by author 2009-05-09 10:36:36. |
|
|
|
05/10/2009 12:34:24 PM · #84 |
dswann,
Nice photo! The glow on your edges is definately a halo. There is a great tutorial in the tutorial section of this site that tells you how to reduce the halos of photos such as this. It has really helped me in those times where the halo just kills me!!
Basically, use the clone brush, but instead of using the Normal setting, use Darker Color setting. Works like a charm!!
b |
|
|
|
05/11/2009 12:16:52 AM · #85 |
HDR 02:
 |
|
|
|
05/11/2009 12:27:19 AM · #86 |
My recent freestudy entry was an HDR. 3 shots, 1 stop apart with a monopod. The initial objective was to try and get a nice clean orange disk out of the sun. I didn't achieve that, but instead it brought out some patterns in the clouds that I really like.
 |
|
|
|
05/11/2009 12:20:38 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ken:
HDR 01 (What not to do):
 |
I noticed this comment of yours in the photographer's notes:
"Just a comment here on bracketing. Some believe in bracketing just enough to have something not underexposed and not overexposed. Others believe to bracket as wide as possible and combine as many as practical. The reasoning behind this is to average the noise."
For what it's worth, it's an absolute fact that using individual images "beyond the range" in your merge is a bad idea in HDRI imaging. Let me try to explain:
The basic idea is that the darkest image in your merge should be the one that correctly captures the bright areas as you want them to appear, and the brightest image in your merge should be the one that renders the dark areas as you want them to appear. Now, in this hypothetical "optimum merge", the middle tones now have the largest possible tonal range into which they are being compressed.
If, hypothetically, you included a dark frame that was a full stop darker than it needed to be, and a bright frame that was a full stop brighter than it needed to be, then what you've accomplished is twofold: you've produced a merged image that requires contrast enhancement to brighten the brights and darken the darks, both of which will tend to be muddy otherwise, and you've robbed the rest of the tones of two full stops of expression in the center of the range, as the merge software will compress between the extremes into the same middle-gray tonalities. So what's going to happen is that the local-area contrast in tone mapping will have to be pushed to extremes to separate those tones, and as a rule excessive noise in HDRI comes mostly from excessive tweaking of the local-area contrast, which causes altogether too much enhancement-of-noise-as-contrast-details in what ought to be the smooth areas of the image, like the sky.
Now, if what you're suggesting is that it is usually beneficial to include more exposures between the established "correct" extreme exposures, then yes, that's true, with the caveat that (as you pointed out in your notes), additional exposures often introduce additional blurring in areas of motion, like moving clouds, water ripples, or wind-tossed foliage. So, in my experience, when working with landscapes, it's usually better to minimize the number of captures, using only enough of them to cover the range adequately with a 1-stop differential between exposures, and I've found that this often means you can get away with two exposures comfortably, and usually three is sufficient. If there's a lot of mid-dark tone detail to be captured, half-stop exposure differentials can be quite useful, however.
Hope this is helpful...
R. |
Catching up on this thread.
Well written explanation, Robert. I think the key here is your line about exposing both the dark and light areas "as you want them to appear".
|
|
|
|
05/11/2009 02:05:52 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Well written explanation, Robert. I think the key here is your line about exposing both the dark and light areas "as you want them to appear". |
I'm glad SOMEONE took note of this and found it useful... :-)
R. |
|
|
|
05/11/2009 07:47:18 PM · #89 |
I have two challenge entries that utilised HDR that I thought I'd share.
 |
|
|
|
05/11/2009 09:18:29 PM · #90 |
Here's one my conservative HDR images exposed with 3 files with just a few stops difference in aperture settings. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 10:39:37 AM · #91 |
Weekend wedding HDR fun!
All from single RAW files using Photomatix with various later Photoshop edits.
Message edited by author 2009-05-12 10:40:35. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 02:29:49 PM · #92 |
any thoughts on HDR options for OS X/ Mac ? Is everyone pretty much just using Photomatix Pro (which is cross platform) or are there any other interesting options?
Message edited by author 2009-05-12 17:12:16. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 03:31:12 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
any thoughts on HDR options for OS X/ Mac ? Is everyone pretty much just using Photomatix Pro (which is cross platform) or are there any other interesting options? |
Dynamic Photo HDR
FDR Tools
HDR Max
Hydra
Qtpfsgui |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 05:09:15 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by Gordon:
any thoughts on HDR options for OS X/ Mac ? Is everyone pretty much just using Photomatix Pro (which is cross platform) or are there any other interesting options? |
Dynamic Photo HDR
FDR Tools
HDR Max
Hydra
Qtpfsgui |
Thanks for the list. Any of them any good though? I've found Enfuse to be quite useful as well, so far, particularly with the Lightroom plugin. Doesn't suffer from the same look of photomatix/ tone mapped images with all that added local contrast.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2009 05:22:23 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by Gordon:
any thoughts on HDR options for OS X/ Mac ? Is everyone pretty much just using Photomatix Pro (which is cross platform) or are there any other interesting options? |
Dynamic Photo HDR
FDR Tools
HDR Max
Hydra
Qtpfsgui |
Thanks for the list. Any of them any good though? I've found Enfuse to be quite useful as well, so far, particularly with the Lightroom plugin. Doesn't suffer from the same look of photomatix/ tone mapped images with all that added local contrast. |
I don't really know how good they are since I use Windows, but I did try fdrtools a while back and really liked what I saw. |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 05:26:33 PM · #96 |
|
|
|
05/12/2009 11:38:28 PM · #97 |
As some of you know,  ozerad and I photograph homes for realtors and we have recently begun working in HDR. The cost of HDR photos is higher and the demand is better for high end listings in today's market. We also work differently, whereas, I shoot handheld and process my shots as single image HDRs and Eric brackets his shots with the camera. In working this way we can cover more views. Eric has also devised a system where he takes aerial shots with a boom pole camera rig. You can see samples of our latest shoot and compare the differences in our finished photos:
//www.dpchallenge.com/portfolio.php?USER_ID=80096&collection_id=33662
We welcome all comments and questions. You can also contact Chuck Dr.Confuser about his HDR Real Estate Photography in Seattle, WA.
Message edited by author 2009-05-13 21:13:49. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 06:19:55 PM · #98 |
These are two HDR images that I merged together in Photomatix to create this unique effect..
 |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 11:36:37 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
05/19/2009 01:04:41 AM · #100 |
|
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: 07/30/2025 03:14:16 PM EDT.
