Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: HDR Attempt

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Look ... having a contrary opinion is not necessarily negative, Rooz. We do not have to see eye-to-eye on everything, otherwise ... we'd probably go blind ... or at the very least, get bored. There has been a pretty good attack going on since I divorced myself from Canon (and you know darn well I was right, all along). No one enjoys being told that their baby is ugly as hell and they should do something about it. But, truth be told ... Canon made their bed ... they had a chance to put IS in their camera body and absolutely insisted (on a corporate level) that they were not going to do it. Even their own engineers shook their respective heads about this rather muddled idea.

    Well ... negative or not ... I saw that as pretty negative to the photographer using their product. Minolta ... had it right. SONY saw it and bought into it. We are where we are ... my camera is stable with every lens I mount ... well, you can fill in the rest of that statement for yourself.

    Negative ... nah, let's keep it real.
    the conversation had nothing to do with in body IS, so dont know why you are raising it again. but while we're on it...whats the percentage of photos you have posted lately, (or anyone in the sony forum), where in-body IS has been the difference between getting a shot or not ? i'd put it at around 1%. not really much of an advantage now is it ? as i have said to you b4, sony are falling into the trap of relying SOLELY on in-body IS and they will be paying dearly for that now.

    anyway...what i WAS referring to is this comment...

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I'm looking to simply improve the shot, not make it a painting.
    which basically is you making snide remarks about HDR and valpos stream. it wasnt about whether or not you liked it. you could've just said, "i dont like that stuff." which would've been cool. but you didnt' you had to make a snide remark like you're looking down on it as somehow beneath you and NOT actually photography. thats complete horseshit.
    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

    HDR as I know it

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    so are you saying that you did the HDR in LR or you processed the HDR in LR ? i'd like to see what the HDR should look like before you do the PP. cos mine all look crap.
    As I understand it, when you first generate the HDR image the resulting 32 bit image is too much for your screen to display, and it looks downright ugly. At that point you must generate an 8 or 16 bit image. And as I understand it, the most versatile way to do this is with the "local adaptation" option and producing a custom tone curve.

    Photomatix does the same thing, producing an ugly 32 bit image with tons of headroom. Then the program will tone map the photo which is the same type of down sampling. In the tone mapping process there are several options such as strength, luminosity, saturation, gamma, white point, black point, etc. etc.

    I generated the HDR in Photomatix, but processed the single RAW file in LR. I processed the single file first at +2 then at -2 exporting each file with a unique name. Then I uploaded all three files to Photomatix to generate the HDR. I really did no PP to the file at all, Photomatix added a lot of the warmth you see. I could have cooled it down again, but I was just lazy. I generated the HDR in this post just as an example, I would have taken more time if I was serious about it.
    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
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    which basically is you making snide remarks about HDR and valpos stream. it wasnt about whether or not you liked it. you could've just said, "i dont like that stuff." which would've been cool. but you didnt' you had to make a snide remark like you're looking down on it as somehow beneath you and NOT actually photography. thats complete horseshit.
    There has been a quite a bit of looking down one's nose in Don's posts since he joined this site. His debating style is a series of snide remarks, strange 90 subject changes, and back handed comments. Instead of offering comments as his opinion, he avers his "facts", there is no other side, or admitting wrong.
    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Cool One man's garbage ... is another's ...

    Imaging can take all sorts of avenues ... from a solarized nightmare of color ... to tranquil pastels of a light brush. The choice is yours to make, as the artist. How I choose ... (or anyone else, for that matter) to use my camera is ... MY CHOICE. How I view something ... is still MY choice.

    I certainly do not approve of a variety of issues that occasionally rear their respective heads, but then again, there are those I do. Again, MY choice. So criticize my opinion as only you know you must ... that's YOUR choice.

    Just do not pretend to know MY mind ... and I will return the favor. My motivations are my own. I came to this forum to participate and I offered no guarantee that it would be with YOUR approval. So, I suggest you just settle back and enjoy the show. Participate when the motivation presents itself.

    Thanks for your ... understanding ... or lack thereof.

    This was a seven layer HDR ... handheld ... looking out from Red Pocks Amphitheater ... as the sun set behind me. The amphitheater was in shadow ... Denver, in the distance ... was not!

    Name:  Red-Rocks-Amp_HDR4.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  308.4 KB

    This was the "base EV" exposure:

    Name:  Red-Rock-Amp-Base-Exposure.jpg
Views: 59
Size:  159.1 KB

    Yes, it has issues ... and the next time I'm running around Colorado ... I bring a tripod! LOL

    Test question: What is the subject of this image? Good luck!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-24-2008 at 01:45 AM.
    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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    that doesnt look like a HDR to me Don. let alone 7 layers. i think you could've acheived as good, (if not better), results just from PP one raw file. i'm normally very impressed by your PP but that is well beneath your standards.
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Test question: What is the subject of this image? Good luck!
    I agree your vision is your vision, I won't look down my nose at yours, please don't look down your nose at mine. If you stated your "opinion" as opinion instead of condescending remarks, I would dismiss you as a kook and never interact. But when you bluster in here and call some peoples choice of cameras "toys", with the "kung fu grip" those abasing comments will always meet with comments of my own.

    This started with my helping with HDR posts on this forum: never once did I make a comment on the equipment the posters were using. I could care less, I believe my system is the best, but I am realistic enough to know that everyone's equipment is very capable. When I am presented with a photo that could be duplicated without using any special technique, and it's labeled HDR, and the forums self appointed "expert" proclaims it "great". I offer some help.

    And educated help it was. When you look anywhere at photos presented as HDR you see photos very similar to what I have posted here and others have linked to here. Blue skies, green trees, lit foregrounds, etc. Photos with a tonal range far above what a typical camera sensor can record in a single exposure. I do admit it's not a transparent technique, there are failings to it, but at least I've met the spirit of the technique: to provide a photo with a high dynamic range.

    As for your photo above, the subject is...I don't know, the foreground is in shadow, so that can't be it, the hill in the mid background is boring, so that's not it. And the sky is mid to late afternoon boring without much color, so that's not it. That photo looks like it could use a little help from HDR, since the foreground is in such shadow. Your base exposure looks to be a little dark, you must have metered on the hills.
    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
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    Here's another example, it's nothing special, it's pretty obvious that none of the three photos has much to stand on by itself. They are actually all the same photo, processed in LR for +2 and -2 and 0 EV. Put them together with HDR and it's at least passible.

    -2 EV, notice how the foreground is pretty much unusable, but the color in the clouds and sky is preserved, the barn show up too.


    +2 EV, notice how this picks up the foreground detail, and the barn is a definite light grey that suggests white. Details that are completely missed in the other examples but show up with the extreme over exposure.


    0 EV, this could be an OK snap shot with the usual detail missing in the shadows and highlights. There is too much information in the scene for a camera's sensor to capture, so they are rendered black or white.


    Finally the HDR using the parts of each exposure to fill in the holes above and below the middle exposure to give a single photo that encompasses a very large dynamic range.


    I still think all HDR photography is very noticeable, and looks somewhat surreal. But I am seeing more and more often HDR that I have to look at twice to decide if it's a single exposure or HDR. People are getting better and better at the technique.
    Thanks, I'll be on the lookout for better scenes to utalize HDR!

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    @ 'dr4gon' ... I suggest doing a +/- 2 EV and a +/- 3EV series and just see what comes out. You might be surprised.
    That's definitely what I need to do. I think these were only +/- .7EV but I did do some +/- 1EV but they weren't aligned as well and there was another at +/- 1 and 2 EV but that alignment was even worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    he does. valpo is quite incredible, one of the very best on flickr imo. i've noticed you have become quite negative lately Don. especially about things that either you, (or your equipment eg: video), can't do. not so long ago you could appreciate that sort of thing but now not so much. whats happened ? hve you become dienchanted with Sony ?

    remember dragon that at least 80% of what makes valpos stuff so good is his composition and subject matter. te HDR effect he can produce is the icing on the cake but honestly, do you think the shots would be as good if it werent for what he's ACTUALLY photographing ?

    i suspect that practice would make perfect. so practice away. i'm with you mate, just starting on this HDR learning curve...enjoy the ride. the journey is sometimes as exciting and rewarding as the destinaton.
    Practice, yes indeed. I wonder how many exposures valpo uses. Everything seems so still in his pictures. When I try multiple exposures the clouds and or trees move too much. I need to work faster .

    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    As I understand it, when you first generate the HDR image the resulting 32 bit image is too much for your screen to display, and it looks downright ugly. At that point you must generate an 8 or 16 bit image. And as I understand it, the most versatile way to do this is with the "local adaptation" option and producing a custom tone curve.

    Photomatix does the same thing, producing an ugly 32 bit image with tons of headroom. Then the program will tone map the photo which is the same type of down sampling. In the tone mapping process there are several options such as strength, luminosity, saturation, gamma, white point, black point, etc. etc.

    I generated the HDR in Photomatix, but processed the single RAW file in LR. I processed the single file first at +2 then at -2 exporting each file with a unique name. Then I uploaded all three files to Photomatix to generate the HDR. I really did no PP to the file at all, Photomatix added a lot of the warmth you see. I could have cooled it down again, but I was just lazy. I generated the HDR in this post just as an example, I would have taken more time if I was serious about it.
    LR=light room? I took my files from lightroom, sent them to PS to be merged to HDR and then tone mapped it in photomatix. I guess the clouds were the only thing that needed to really be HDRed.


    And to rooz, don, and tend, thank you very much!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    This amphitheater image was taken back in April, when I was still playing with the concept. I've really never gotten it to look "quite right", being a first attempt and all ... and no real opportunity to run back and reshoot it. I have learned a lot since then and have made some good adjustments, as Rooz has noted.

    As far as the test ... the subject? Why, "the view" itself! Nothing more. It was one of those exceptionally challenging shots ... and if anything, just an attempt to "save it." Working against time, with no real support for the images.

    Rooz, I appreciate your declaring it a failure. As a trial balloon and considering what I had done since, with the newer upgrade software ... the improvement continues. You have noted it ... and the progress is solid.

    I guess we can continue going head-to-head with opinions concerning equipment, disappointment, techniques and improvement. It is tenuous. These "toys" are what they are until someone with some skill puts them to use. Open-mindedness is not a requirement of good effort, so while you can pick and choose your "battles" in the forum, in the end the final product should be something we can all examine and find worthy of comment ... no matter what our allegiances.

    Thanks for the visit into the world of the SONY DSLR ... and what's happenin' right here, right now. A good group of folks using cameras that fly in the face of the some of most ambitious cameras ever produced. We'll probably all go broke at the rate things are coming out, but, hey ... it's a hobby.

    Thanks, dudes.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-25-2008 at 05:51 AM.
    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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    Thanks, I'll be on the lookout for better scenes to utalize HDR!



    That's definitely what I need to do. I think these were only +/- .7EV but I did do some +/- 1EV but they weren't aligned as well and there was another at +/- 1 and 2 EV but that alignment was even worse.



    Practice, yes indeed. I wonder how many exposures valpo uses. Everything seems so still in his pictures. When I try multiple exposures the clouds and or trees move too much. I need to work faster .



    LR=light room? I took my files from lightroom, sent them to PS to be merged to HDR and then tone mapped it in photomatix. I guess the clouds were the only thing that needed to really be HDRed.


    And to rooz, don, and tend, thank you very much!
    LR does indeed=Lightroom. You can practice HDR on any photo like the above using RAW files. The RAW(jpegs are used for display)file may render a part of the scene pure black or pure white, but the data is still there and processing in LR or PS a single RAW file for a +/- 2 EV is very possible. The above example is one such file.

    If you have photomatix I would use it to generate the HDR file too. I think it's very simple with photomatix. When you get the HDR file merged it's just plain ugly, but if you cursor over parts of the image you'll see the detail thats in that part of the scene.

    I'm off for Jellystone and Jackson for a long weekend. I hope there will be some fall color, the cottonwoods here on the other side of the mountain are changing pretty rapidly.
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Oh and Don, BTW, your shot of the interior of the Chapel at AFA would make a great HDR candidate using a single file to process into different exposure levels.
    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
  •