PDA

View Full Version : Some places and lighting just require multiple exposures.



Stoller
09-08-2007, 09:56 PM
D200, Sigma 17-70, 7 exposures, 1/40, 1/20, 1/10, 1/6, 1/3, 1, 1.5, f18, ISO 100, @ 24mm, Just before sunrise.

http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/MNT 022.jpg

I guess us non-scenery guy's get a lucky shot now and then... :D
Although I could not have done it with out software!

jcon
09-08-2007, 11:36 PM
That is absolutely incredible, Stoller! WOW!:eek:

That belongs on a wall.

fionndruinne
09-08-2007, 11:39 PM
Incredible shot. Dunno about you, but I love the options afforded us modern photographers!:D

e_dawg
09-08-2007, 11:44 PM
Very nice...

How much worse would it have been if you only used 3 exposures (-2, 0, and +2 EV or 1/20, 1/6, and 1 sec)? Is there that much more to be gained by merging all 7?

Why f/18, might I ask? Doesn't that seem a little smaller than ideal, given that most lenses perform best from f/8 to f/11? I assume you could get sufficient DOF with f/11-16?

r3g
09-08-2007, 11:49 PM
Theres one for the wall... Damn good picture!

Lilchilichoco
09-08-2007, 11:59 PM
I'll second that. Gorgeous!!






Best Regards

GaryS
09-09-2007, 05:51 AM
Awesome landscape!

Prospero
09-09-2007, 06:28 AM
Michael, fantstic shot. Beatiful view, composition and colours. The exposure of the whole scene is spot on, so your multiple exposure stategy worked out great.

E dawg, in most scenes 3 exposures all two stops apart will do the trick. They will usually get the whole dynamic range of the scene in the shot, and the gap of two stops is small enough for Photomatix to make a good HDR with.
More exposures is always better as it will make transitions between shadows and highlights smoother, but it has two disadvantages:

- if you hand hold the images, it will give more trouble with alligning
- the first and last shot are further apart which may give trouble if the sky is moving fast (this is especially true if you do not have a D200 and cannot bracket all the shots of the range).

If the sky is not moving fast and you are shooting from a tripod, though, you might as well use as much exposures as possible.

Stoller
09-09-2007, 09:52 AM
Thanks everyone, Thanks Dennis (Prospero) for your explaination of 7. I shot nearly a hundred shots at this one location on a tripod trying different things trying to capture what my eye was seeing. I did barcket shots in backets 3 and 7. On a tripod with D200 it as easy to do 10 as 3. Results of 3 were great but with 7 it just looks more realistic to me. Why f18? I shoot from f11 to f18 and I guess this is where this series ended up.

Here one a little different composition done with 3 exposures.

http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/MNT 002.jpg


Here is 1 normal exposure.

http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/MNT 019.jpg

e_dawg
09-10-2007, 12:14 PM
Hmm... I thought that the more exposures you use, the more difficult it is to get a very clean and clear image when viewing / printing at large sizes. For example, it's easier to make an 800x533 HDR image look great on the forums or on flickr. But how about at 1600x1050 or 3000x2000 on-screen, or printed out at 8x10 or 13x19?

Stoller
09-10-2007, 01:58 PM
Hmm... I thought that the more exposures you use, the more difficult it is to get a very clean and clear image when viewing / printing at large sizes. For example, it's easier to make an 800x533 HDR image look great on the forums or on flickr. But how about at 1600x1050 or 3000x2000 on-screen, or printed out at 8x10 or 13x19?

Not sure why more exposures would make a difference if you are using a tripod and it is not windy? Here is a crop from fullsize HDR image.
28489

Stoller
09-10-2007, 06:40 PM
Here the same spot out of single exposure.
28493

I just don't see it? The HDR looks as clean and clear as a single exposure? :D

e_dawg
09-11-2007, 07:24 AM
I guess the proof is in the pudding... I haven't had as much success creating really clean HDR from multiple images, but that's probably my fault as opposed to a limitation with HDR in general.