Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post


    I see a lot of you in this forum have been experimenting with HDR lately. I haven't seen many photos here labeled as HDR, that, well, just aren't. Here are some tutorials and some fine to downright gaudy(even the gaudy ones look pretty cool)images.
    Vanilla Days

    Luminous Landscape

    Andre Gunther

    .
    thats a great shot.

    i'd also be looking at valpo's incredible shots on flickr. his stream ranges from extreme HDR to the more "realistic" style as TenD descibed above.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/valpopando/

    i dont have a preference. i like both styles. i cant do HDR for shit so i just sit back and enjoy the work from masters like valpo. Prospero and herc on this forum also have HDR downpat.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Yes...but

    Thanks Rooz. I am still learning. Thanks for the link... good stuff.

    Don, I don't think I am going to extreme, do you?
    The "concept" you mention is in the title: H(igh) D(ynamic) R(ange). If you are ending with an image that is still at the same 5-8 stops that a sensor can capture, the H part is missing isn't it? Your eye can see about 14 stops of light in a single view, even more if you are scanning. If your camera can capture 8 stops, and your eye 14, then are you altering the scene by applying HDR to bring the scene to 14 stops, or is your camera altering the scene by lowering it to 8 stops?

    I maintain HDR is an attempt to restore the scene to what our eyes capture, and it is our equipment that is altering the scene.

    I may be too blunt at times, but I believe in the truth, and I will state the truth, or I will say nothing.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-20-2008 at 07:43 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Like I said, if you go beyond reality ... I guess you've crossed that threshold. Why dance on the line ... you are either over it ... or you are not. Plain and simple. Black & White?

    I think Rooz got the idea. I've already stated my position on it. How much more clear can I make it?
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Ahhrrrgggg.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Like I said, if you go beyond reality ... I guess you've crossed that threshold. Why dance on the line ... you are either over it ... or you are not. Plain and simple. Black & White?

    I think Rooz got the idea. I've already stated my position on it. How much more clear can I make it?
    Yes but your statement is false, your HDR photos aren't even near the line. You are saying the camera is reality, it's not. Our wonderful sight organs are reality. What you capture with a camera is a false representation of reality well short of the dynamic range of reality. HDR makes an attempt(although still not near perfection)to capture something close to what our eyes really see.

    I know that original lake scene in this thread looked nothing like the photo that is posted here, HDR or not. I have never seen a clear white sky in my life. And that is exactly what HDR is trying to correct. Your HDR technique is flawed, it produces NDR(normal dynamic range for a camera)images.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-20-2008 at 07:55 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    don, TenD is right here. the camera is limited in DR from the sensor and doesnt pick up anywhere near the amount of tonal range as the human eye. the idea of "realistic" HDR is to create an image from a number of exposures that refelcts what your eye sees. this effect is at the moment well beyond what a camera can capture in a single frame. the closest camera that can do this is the fuji s5 which can grab close to 12 stops...and even that incredible DR doesnt match our eyes.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Oh, sorry OP

    Sorry this descended into a rant. I am not on my own machine. I'll take a wack at your lake photo when I get back to my machine. Truly this is instructional, I am usually too blunt, but I want you to be able to capture all of the dynamic range you possibly can and get that range to your printer.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Question and your point is

    No ... I'm respectfully not arguing that point. Sure, I may be perfecting "normal" looking images, using the HDR process. I know I turned out one heck of a "moonshot" the other night, using the ordinary 200-500mm f5-6.3 zoom lens. Even I was so surprised that it came out the way it did. Did I need 12-14 stops of light to make it look great? Uh, no! Just needed a couple. Still, I could not have acheived the image without the HDR layering. Forgive me for not being spectacular! I just wanted a great shot of the ol' moon ... and I think it did the job.

    BTW ... here's some "unsharpened" Moon Pie!

    Name:  Moon-9-16-08_HDR2.jpg
Views: 62
Size:  367.8 KB

    Here's some really sharpened Moon Pie! LOL Go ahead and touch it ... but, don't cut thyself!

    Name:  The-Sharper-Moon_HDR2.jpg
Views: 51
Size:  400.2 KB

    Look, concerning the lake image, I had also considered "beefing up" the original images (before HDR) ... to render the sky and the cloud ... but, I was working with what was posted and ran it through the mill, just as I had instructed. Now, if you are going to go and get fancy about it, fine ... but, you are ramping what was to be an instructional effort into ... advanced techniques. That certainly exceeds the scope of the initial discussion.

    Oh yeah ... don't you think there's a little too much "unnatural" light on those little yellow flowers?
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-20-2008 at 09:07 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    But do you see, Don you are illustrating my point, this moon shot is well within the DR of your sensor. I have seen the original thread with this photo. When I saw it I said "why is he labeling this HDR?". It's not. It's an OK shot of the moon. It's not HDR. And now that you've edit added the sharpened version of the Moon , with corrected WB and what looks to be a tone curve added...it's a very good shot of the moon.
    There is another moon shot from another thread(4 Dragon)that looks fantastic, but it's not pseudo HDR. One was stacked, although I am not sure why, and the other was a straight exposure. HDR technique wasn't necessary here. Experiment with layering? Yes! Experiment with tonal blending? Yes! HDR...no.
    I am not attacking you Don, OK, maybe a little, but actually the start of this wasn't aimed at you at all, you stuck your nose in it. The start of this was to teach everyone that wanted to learn the proper technique for HDR blending and tonal mapping to produce an image closer to what the human eye can see.

    Edit:
    I just re read the thread on the moon shot and saw your "base" exposure. I see why the HDR technique became necessary now. Your base exposure was about 1.5 stops underexposed, which made your +2 EV about right for the tone of the moon.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-20-2008 at 09:11 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Red face I bow to the master ... have at it

    OK ... I''m cool with leaving the discussion.

    The Moon was rendered with standardized HDR techniques. It is what it is ... a +/- 2 EV bracket shot. Viola!
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Yes maybe too bright... still learning too.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Now, if you are going to go and get fancy about it, fine ... but, you are ramping what was to be an instructional effort into ... advanced techniques. That certainly exceeds the scope of the initial discussion.

    Oh yeah ... don't you think there's a little too much "unnatural" light on those little yellow flowers?
    Yep, maybe there is a little too much light there, but, like I said above, I am still learning. That's one of my main problems with HDR, there is an unnatural evenness to the light. That was about the 5th or 6th HDR image I've produced. I am still trying to get the tone curve right. I still like the blend, I just should have dodged the flowers a bit, maybe the whole foreground, but I get lazy quite often.

    Read Michael Reichmann's Tutorial on HDR, maybe you'll learn something, I certainly did. What I am talking about is not advanced technique at all, it's what HDR is. The foreground scene is dark and the sky is bright, way too much to capture in one exposure. Lets take two or three and blend the parts that we need to to make one photo with blue sky and dark green trees....HDR.

    You need to add a tone curve to the end of the blend, to tell PS where to put all of the data you just added to that blended photo.

    I looked at the original files that Sparkie used for his HDR, and the dynamic wasn't increased at all in either HDR attempt. Both of you are missing something in the technique. In both attempts the EV closely matches what the overexposed of the 3 original photos was.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-20-2008 at 09:09 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •