HDR Pano, Take 2

[Kronie]

Well, I'm getting there. This one is better I think. Did the PM first then merged in CS3. What a long process! You can see a larger version by clicking on thumbnail.


http://www.pbase.com/akrone/image/104170128/large.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/akrone/image/104170128/original.jpg)

[zacker]

coooolll...

[Bogster]

dude that is sick!! well done!

[Gum6y]

I think this is working well, I think I need to go do a pano too. I think saving the PM settings and doing each photo individually then stiching in PS is the way to go.

[Kronie]

I think this is working well, I think I need to go do a pano too. I think saving the PM settings and doing each photo individually then stiching in PS is the way to go.

Yea, the first one I was trying to process this massive file in PM and it kept crashing the program. Much better to do the PM first as individual files them merge in PS after.

[Duder]

I've a lot of experience creating panoramas using HDR images, and I always merge the exposures first before stitching the panorama. You'd be mad to do it the other way.

[CameraBuff]

Nicely done, amazing!

[Kronie]

I was mad! Mad I tell you!

[Deckham]

I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.

[Kronie]

I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.

Well, without HDR the clouds would be blown out. sometimes a little HDR will produce something close to what your eye sees. I agree that too much is too much sometimes.

read this post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=580682

Can you REALLY tell me that the before looks better than the after?....well I guess you could....

[I26]

Thats a cool image. I would have preferred less clouds but awesome none-the-less.

[Deckham]

Well, without HDR the clouds would be blown out. sometimes a little HDR will produce something close to what your eye sees. I agree that too much is too much sometimes.

read this post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=580682

Can you REALLY tell me that the before looks better than the after?....well I guess you could....

To be honest, when I saw that shot I thought the first version looked better, and wondered why others liked the second. You are saying that HDR produces something that is closer to what our eyes see. I'd dispute that for 90% of these treatments. The image up above does not look anything at all like what my eyes would see. It looks like a caricature. The clouds are surreal, the tress are blurry, the colour is over saturated, the scene lacks interest, and is not composed well, not to mention the tilted horizon.

If I had stood there that day, I would have seen something totally different. And contrary to what is bandied around, our eyes do not have infinite dynamic range. Our eyes adjust depending on where we are looking. Kinda like an auto-iso. If the sky was overly bright, my eyes would not resolve the detail.

I would love to see the original version, with exif details.

[Duder]

I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.


You're not alone. HDR imaging is primarily a technique for capturing/restoring dynamic range over what a single exposure could record, and is merely the first stage in determining the quality of detail you'll have in your final image.....but, in the past few years, seemingly because of the popular HDR software and their tonemapping features, how people are choosing to process their images/pixels is more down to personal taste, and has little to do with whether they're trying to produce a natural looking image with accurate or realistic dynamic range, or whether they going for something different - artistic/fake/cartoonish/etc.
....or, as I suspect most are, just badly processed.

[Deckham]

You're not alone. HDR imaging is primarily a technique for capturing/restoring dynamic range over what a single exposure could record, and is merely the first stage in determining the quality of detail you'll have in your final image.....but, in the past few years, seemingly because of the popular HDR software and their tonemapping features, how people are choosing to process their images/pixels is more down to personal taste, and has little to do with whether they're trying to produce a natural looking image with accurate or realistic dynamic range, or whether they going for something different - artistic/fake/cartoonish/etc.
....or as I suspect most are, just badly processed.

...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...

Art is whatever you want it to be, but surely there is some kind of limit to what is done with a photo before it is no longer - a photo.

[Kronie]

Actually it looked just like this in real life. I did very little processing.

[3Honu]

...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...

Art is whatever you want it to be, but surely there is some kind of limit to what is done with a photo before it is no longer - a photo.

That is a slippery slope

[Deckham]

That is a slippery slope

True.
I shouldn't have opened that door.

[3Honu]

I think you can open that door and discuss what you see. I also think you have a point. The problem lies in that people will take it as far as they can.

[Gum6y]

Well we are in the HDR section of POTN.

The problem lies in the fact that photographers are becoming more efficient in Photoshop and are trying to improve their photos. Some will argue whether they are in fact improving those photos!

HDR is an effect where you can definitely go to far. How far is too far? Well thats pretty subjective. I'm gonna do a pano and see the reaction.

[kirkt]

HDR is not an effect. Tonemapping an HDR with extreme contrast is an effect that can be achieved if you want to produce such an image. I think the term "HDR" gets used as a catchall phrase to describe many different things at different times in different contexts. Using a single RAW image and tonemapping it is not creating an HDR image. Using a single RAW image and producing multiple "exposures" from it in ACR, etc.and combining them is not creating an HDR image. You are not creating any more information in either of these processes than the original sensor can record in a single exposure. However, most of the posts here that use these techniques are described as "HDR" - technically, they are not; however, in this context the use of the HDR monicker is one of the description of the high-contrast, sometimes overdone, effect of tonemapping. You can tonemap any image you choose, even an 8-bit image - that is what you are doing when you make a "curves" or "levels" adjustment in PS. With HDR, tonemapping is necessary because you typically have much more dynamic range than a RGB monitor or printer can display.

Just to clarify, I don;t mean to be pissy about it, but I think when we are all using the term "HDR" we recognize that sometimes we don;t really mean a high dynamic range image, we mean the tonemapping effect that is often generated in Photomatix or other tonemapping routines required to display a 32bit HDR.

Again, with respect to HDR Panos, you can stitch together a full HDR pano in Hugin or PTGui or Photosphere without having to choose a combine-and stich, or stitch-and-combine workflow. But, suit yourself if you choose to kick it old school. Hugin (PC.Mac) and Photosphere (Mac) are free for nothin'.

Rock on.

Kirk

[Duder]

...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...

Art is whatever you want it to be, but surely there is some kind of limit to what is done with a photo before it is no longer - a photo.

I'd tend to agree, although who's to say what constitutes 'real photography' versus 'art'?
In terms of HDR, photography has always been limited by the recording medium when it comes to dynamic range. If and when technology reaches a stage where merging bracketed exposures isn't required because the entire light range can be recorded in a single shot, those digital negatives still have to be processed in some way, much like any 'negative' has to be processed, which is where personal vision and artistic interpretation comes in to play.

I specialize in infrared panoramas which has no colour and has different tonal properties than standard visible light photography, but I still regard it as real photography as well as photographic art.

HDR is not an effect. Tonemapping an HDR with extreme contrast is an effect that can be achieved if you want to produce such an image. I think the term "HDR" gets used as a catchall phrase that is used to describe many different things at different times in different contexts. Using a single RAW image and tonemapping it is not HDR. Using a single RAW image and producing multiple "exposures" from it in ACR, etc. is not HDR. You are not creating any more information in either of these processes than the original sensor can record in a single exposure. However, most of the posts here that use these techniques are described as "HDR" - theu are not; however, in this context the use of the HDR monicker is one of the description of the hig-contrast, sometimes overdone, effect of tonemapping. You can tonemap any image you choose, even an 8-bit image - that is what you are doing when you make a "curves" or "levels" adjustment in PS. With HDR, tonemapping is necessary because you typically have much more dynamic range than a RGB monitor or printer can display.

Just to clarify, I don;t mean to be pissy about it, but I think when we are all using the term "HDR" we recognize that sometimes we don;t really mean a high dynamic range image, we mean the tonemapping effect that is often generated in Photomatix or other tonemapping routines required to display a 32bit HDR.

Again, you can stitch together a full HDR pano in Hugin or PTGui or Photosphere without having to choose a conbine and stich, or stitch and combine workflow. But, suit yourself if you choose to kick it old school. Hugin (PC.Mac) and Photosphere (Mac) are free for nothin'.

Rock on.

Kirk

Right on. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[tomd]

I always merge the exposures first before stitching the panorama.

Can you explain this a little?
I have Photomatrix software. I'm not familiar with the process of merging exposures.

When I take a pano (I've only done 3 or 4) I set the camera on manual settings and don't change them over the course of the shots. I take white balance off auto and set it on cloudy or other setting to match conditions.

I've tried a pano series on Av for example and after the stitch the ski always gets variations in colors.

Maybe I just need to read more on this topic. :oops:

[Gum6y]

tomd: My method is to take your pano as per usual but you take multiple exposures to produce a HDR image which you may choose to import thru a program like Photomatrix. The trick is to save your settings in PM to use on each sequential shot which is going to be stiched later in Photoshop or some other pano program. I hope thats clear.

There is obviously more than one way to skin a cat this is just one and the way I would go about it. Watch this space for more HDR panoramics.

[Duder]

tomd: pretty much what Gum6y said.

Merge the exposures means: generating the HDRi from your bracketed exposures. Once you've created all the constituent HDR images, you then stitch the panorama together, and then do your global image processing on the complete panorama.

[Gum6y]

Duder whats your panoramic stitcher software of choice?

[Duder]

CS3.

[PFDarkside]

Do you have any links to any of the preprocessed images? I think I'd like to see this as closer to what an Grad ND filter would do to it, minus the foliage on the edges.

Nice work on it though.

[canonloader]

I like this look myself. I can see real anytime.

...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...
This is the HDR forum, but as to photography, I'd like to see you do this without a camera.

[Deckham]

I like this look myself. I can see real anytime.


This is the HDR forum, but as to photography, I'd like to see you do this without a camera.

Perhaps I lack the skills to do that. But I'm sure someone handy with a brush could do it....

[Coppatop85]

I tried doing this, and failed miserably -- How did you do this exactly.

Did you take 3 shots at one angle (left oriented), 3 shots at the middle, and three shots at another angle (right oriented) make HDR's of each, THEN do the pano? That's what I did, and I couldn't get the image to merge correctly. The exposures were all off.

[r.morales]

For anyone else looking , the HDR is under the RAW forum

[canonloader]

Got a link? Couldn't find it.

[r.morales]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18
It's not just for HDR . Just post a question and someone will probably answer .

[superdiver]

I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.


Its no different then B&W, thats not even close to what our eyes see, but some people really prefer B&W over even good colored shots!

Its art, how can you possibly ask, "what exactly looks appealing"? Thats like asking someone why he likes the look of his wife, or what flavor of ice cream they like, chill, its just a different way of looking at a picture and there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking it...

and I know you weren't saying there is something wrong with it, but to suggest someone is "wrong" for liking what they like is kinda bigoted or photo snobbish...

[JuiceBox]

Actually it looked just like this in real life. I did very little processing.

So you're saying that the clouds looked surreal and the trees all had halos around them? I'm a big fan of HDR images, but only when it's used to bring back some of the dynamic range lost from cameras' limitations. I'm sorry, but you can't tell me seriously that that is close to what you saw. Unless they're magic trees :lol:

[rsieminski]

A little like a pano, or using a fisheye, or tele. Not at all what our eyes see. I think it's the end result that matters.

[Deckham]

Its no different then B&W, thats not even close to what our eyes see, but some people really prefer B&W over even good colored shots!

Its art, how can you possibly ask, "what exactly looks appealing"? Thats like asking someone why he likes the look of his wife, or what flavor of ice cream they like, chill, its just a different way of looking at a picture and there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking it...

and I know you weren't saying there is something wrong with it, but to suggest someone is "wrong" for liking what they like is kinda bigoted or photo snobbish...

First, let me reiterate - I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested, that something has to look a certain way to be pleasing. Although you make a weak attempt to point this out, your post still implies that I have been 'snobbish' or 'bigoted'. So I wanted to clear that up...

Now, my question - and it is a genuine question, is 'what do people find attractive in this image'? I ask this, because I cannot see it as those that praise it do. I do not find anything appealing, attractive, interesting, inspiring, exciting, moving - or in fact, anything other than a distorted view of a landscape. The novelty of manipulating exposures digitally wore off on me about 3 years ago.

Is this 'art'? Anything is 'art'.
Do I like it, or think it has any value? No.
Do others like it, or feel it has value? Yes.

Therefore - I wish to understand why others find it appealing. Think of it as a learning exersise for me. I have not seen any explanation, or any kind of detailed response with regards to praise on the image.

[superdiver]

your right, what were we thinking for having an opinion on something without being able to explain it to someone who doesn't like it!

sorry your photo-honorness...

[Deckham]

your right, what were we thinking for having an opinion on something without being able to explain it to someone who doesn't like it!

sorry your photo-honorness...

Wow.
I'll try again. Would someone, who likes the image, do me a favour and tell me what it is they like about it please.

[Avi]

Wow.
I'll try again. Would someone, who likes the image, do me a favour and tell me what it is they like about it please.

I think many have mentioned this in the thread before and here it goes again...its in the taste, some like it and some do not..
some go overboard with the tonemapping, and its his/her view on how they want to see there image..

do we have definition or rule on how a photograph should be processed and to what extent it can be processed? NOPS..

I dont think anyone will explain what they like in this image...they just like it...and so do I...whereas there can be thousand of reasons for a person to dislike it...

there is a nature and landscape section in the forum, lets go there bro...why waste time on something that does not generate any interest ????

For my view on the image...its ROCKING...thanks for sharing..

Avi

[Deckham]

I guess I'm stuck with never understanding it then :)
Thanks for the effort.

[JTwin]

I'm not sure why someone would go into the HDR sub-forum and criticize someone's HDR shot, but...

I like the image for its surrealness and moodiness, and I like the 3D-esque depth HDR produces. Is it photorealistic? No. But neither are fisheye, macro, or B&W shots. I mean, you either like the look of overdone HDRs or not.

However, what I DON'T like about this photo is the horizon. It needs to be rotated 1-2 degrees clockwise. Otherwise, I really like the mood and colors.

[Deckham]

I'm not sure why someone would go into the HDR sub-forum and criticize someone's HDR shot, but...

I like the image for its surrealness and moodiness, and I like the 3D-esque depth HDR produces. Is it photorealistic? No. But neither are fisheye, macro, or B&W shots. I mean, you either like the look of overdone HDRs or not.

However, what I DON'T like about this photo is the horizon. It needs to be rotated 1-2 degrees clockwise. Otherwise, I really like the mood and colors.

Thanks - that's what I wanted to hear :)

[Lizard Frenzy]

...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...

Art is whatever you want it to be, but surely there is some kind of limit to what is done with a photo before it is no longer - a photo.

I'm going to disagree with you here. I personally USUALLY dislike this kind of "overdone" processing, but that's largely up to personal taste. It's utilized well in some cases and not well in other cases. And yeah, for certain situations, photographs that look sort of "cartoony" can actually work.

But even though I usually tend to dislike that look, I feel like it's sort of pretentious to say that it's "not photography". If it's not photography, then what is it?

HDR is just a tool. That's it. It's just a software tool that allows people to do more with their photography, and that's all it is. If people misapply it or use it asa gimmick to hide their weaknesses, that doesn't discredit HDR photography any more than crappy-ass photographers discredit photography in general.

Now, I'm not saying that this picture is crappy. Personally I don't like it, but most of why I dislike it is just due to personal taste. It feels unnatural to me when the subject seems to be begging for something that DOES look natural. But I'm not the artist. Presumably the photographer had reasons for making it look that why. I can state that I don't like it, state why I don't like it, and the photographer is free to disagree with me.


But that in no way makes this less of a photographic tool. Is black and white imaging true photography if it doesn't look anything like the scene that we visualized? Is digital imaging real photography? Is the digital photographer who makes the most out of Photoshop less of a photographer than someone who doesn't do any processing of their out-of-camera pictures?

[Deckham]

I'm going to disagree with you here. I personally USUALLY dislike this kind of "overdone" processing, but that's largely up to personal taste. It's utilized well in some cases and not well in other cases. And yeah, for certain situations, photographs that look sort of "cartoony" can actually work.

I differ from you and think that there is no well or overdone or not well - because it is art...

But even though I usually tend to dislike that look, I feel like it's sort of pretentious to say that it's "not photography". If it's not photography, then what is it?

It may sound pretentious, but only if you approach what I say as a photographer, not as an artist. The process uses photography as a base, and takes it further from there, to produce an artwork. As such, it is not exactly 'photography' as a discipline, much as 'photographic drawings' are not. This is not a comment on the value of the work as an art piece, but a delineation of disciplines.

HDR is just a tool. That's it. It's just a software tool that allows people to do more with their photography, and that's all it is. If people misapply it or use it asa gimmick to hide their weaknesses, that doesn't discredit HDR photography any more than crappy-ass photographers discredit photography in general.

Actually, HDR is an anagram for High Dynamic Range, and is not a tool at all. It has become to mean a treatment to a series of varying exposures to 'compress' the dynamic range into the visible spectrum. I disagree with your later argument also. I consider as you say 'crappy photography', 'photography', and heavily software manipulated photos as 'art' of a different type.

Now, I'm not saying that this picture is crappy. Personally I don't like it, but most of why I dislike it is just due to personal taste. It feels unnatural to me when the subject seems to be begging for something that DOES look natural. But I'm not the artist. Presumably the photographer had reasons for making it look that why. I can state that I don't like it, state why I don't like it, and the photographer is free to disagree with me.

I agree. I can't definitively say that any work is 'wrong' or 'bad', but only that I do not like it. The reason some may be upset at my approach, is because I genuinely am interested in knowing what exactly they find interesting or pleasing in the image. It is so far away from what I personally like, that it confuses me a little. I am an art-appreciator of sorts, and I do not like not knowing or understanding these things.

But that in no way makes this less of a photographic tool. Is black and white imaging true photography if it doesn't look anything like the scene that we visualized? Is digital imaging real photography? Is the digital photographer who makes the most out of Photoshop less of a photographer than someone who doesn't do any processing of their out-of-camera pictures?

It is not a 'tool'. It is a process.
Black & White photography is the capture of light - much like any other kind of photography of any genre. The difference here, is that this and other artworks like it have moved on from the photograph and gone somewhere else.

The question of how far one can take a photo before it crosses some virtual line is arguable, and each will have their own opinion. For me, it is when the image no longer looks like the subject/scene shot - and that (flame away) includes plastic-skinned so-called glamour 'photography.

[Lizard Frenzy]

So black and white photography isn't really photography?

Infrared photography isn't really photography?

Does it stop being "real photography" the second I open it up in Photoshop and do the slightest image adjustment?

[Deckham]

So black and white photography isn't really photography?

Infrared photography isn't really photography?

Does it stop being "real photography" the second I open it up in Photoshop and do the slightest image adjustment?

You obviously are not reading what I'm writing, because if you had, you would know what my opinion on this is.

[Lizard Frenzy]

I saw you opine that the person's picture doesn't even belong on these forums since it strays too far from photography.

I then saw you write "how far one can take a photo before it crosses some virtual line arguable."

So pardon me if I'm a little bit confused about your stance given these contradictory statements. I'm not trying to start a fight, but when you make statements like that about other people's work, I think it warrants further elaboration.

[superdiver]

I hear ya Lizard, and when I posed a similar line of argument I was informed of my inferior ability to read, reason and understand his thinking and posting as well.... I would recommend just letting it go as it seems every one of these types of HDR threads have always gone the same direction...

As my father says, "a fanatic is someone who wont change thier mind and cant change the subject"...lol



Now, I don't have a problem if he or anyone else doesn't like this type of photography, or any other, Photography is a very personal subjective art form. I personally dont like B&W much, that doesn't make them less valuable or "good", but I look at them/appreciate them less...lol and I dont comment on them, especially in a demeaning, snobby way.

Like I said earlier, I just really like the OP's picture!

[p-a.Foto]

this pictures is awesome !! someone have a great tutorial that show how to make pano in PS ? thanks