Vase

[J-Blake]

I haven't had much success with HDR's. Mostly it's trial and error with mostly errors. This is one that I like, so I figured I'd share. Love some feedback and suggestions. It's a 3 shot HDR and I believe I bracketed 2 stops. Thanks, Jon

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll479/j-blake/MU%20365%20Days%20of%20Photography/IMG_7495_HDR.jpg

[S.E.V.]

Nice image Jon, but I do not think this is the right scene to do an HDR with, this shot could easily be achieved in a single image. No dynamic range to capture here. I did the same thing when I first started doing HDR, did a shot of my watch, all that did was get me a little bit more familiar with the program. You need to read up on HDR a bit more, google how to shoot HDR or what ever and you can read a ton of info. You need to capture a scene with dynamic range. Keep practicing you will eventually get the hang of it.

Here is one I just finished doing.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4496366820_96e739ce87_o.jpg

The sun was behind the building and all the tagging on the back wall was not picked up in the 0ev shot.

Sevan

[J-Blake]

Thanks Seven. Really nice shot. So, when you say dynamic range is this another way of saying a shot which has extreme brights and shadows beyond what the camera can normally pick up in a single shot? Thus the bracketing to accomodate these extremes which would otherwise be lost? If that's it, I got it. If not, I'm still lost.....

[HastyPhoto]

Nice image Jon, but I do not think this is the right scene to do an HDR with, this shot could easily be achieved in a single image. No dynamic range to capture here. I did the same thing when I first started doing HDR, did a shot of my watch, all that did was get me a little bit more familiar with the program. You need to read up on HDR a bit more, google how to shoot HDR or what ever and you can read a ton of info. You need to capture a scene with dynamic range. Keep practicing you will eventually get the hang of it.

Here is one I just finished doing.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4496366820_96e739ce87_o.jpg

The sun was behind the building and all the tagging on the back wall was not picked up in the 0ev shot.

Sevan


love the fisheye thing but the halo in the sky kills it for me. Try masking back in some of the original over top with about 20% opacity.

[S.E.V.]

Thanks Seven. Really nice shot. So, when you say dynamic range is this another way of saying a shot which has extreme brights and shadows beyond what the camera can normally pick up in a single shot? Thus the bracketing to accomodate these extremes which would otherwise be lost? If that's it, I got it. If not, I'm still lost.....

Thanks Jon. Yes, the camera senor on all DSLR camera can only pick up X amount of range, that is why AEB Bracketing is used. But the scene you are using does not have a ton of dynamic range to be caught. Like I said earlier, you can replicate the same shot with a single shot from the camera. Place like rivers beds and views from a hotel room or roof top might make a better scene to shoot for HDR. Something where the cameras sensor fails to capture the entire dynamic range. Practice Practice Practice........

[Gary McDuffie]

Thanks Seven. Really nice shot. So, when you say dynamic range is this another way of saying a shot which has extreme brights and shadows beyond what the camera can normally pick up in a single shot? Thus the bracketing to accomodate these extremes which would otherwise be lost? If that's it, I got it. If not, I'm still lost.....
That's pretty much it. HDR is supposed to be capturing an image that will approximate what your human eye would see if you were there. The eye/brain combination can focus in on a dark area and pull out some detail, even though you are looking into a brighter light. And, if you look into a bright area, your eyes will adjust and pull out more detail. Combining a wide range of exposures, allows the image to approximate what the eye might see in one image.

[S.E.V.]

love the fisheye thing but the halo in the sky kills it for me. Try masking back in some of the original over top with about 20% opacity.

Never tried that, I will give it a whirl to see the outcome.

[J-Blake]

Finally had an opportunity to try again, taking your advice. This closer to what you guys are talking about?

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll479/j-blake/MU%20365%20Days%20of%20Photography/HDR1.jpg

[S.E.V.]

Finally had an opportunity to try again, taking your advice. This closer to what you guys are talking about?

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll479/j-blake/MU%20365%20Days%20of%20Photography/HDR1.jpg

Wow, a drastic improvement, you mind posting the 0ev shot? Want to see it before all the merging and tonemapping. Think your on the right track.

Sevan

[J-Blake]

Thanks Sevan. Not at all.

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll479/j-blake/Misc/IMG_7942.jpg

[Gary McDuffie]

Now that you've posted 0ev, I'll have to say it depends on what your intent was/is. If you intended to do HDR, I think you missed. You have actually DECREASED the dynamic range over the 0ev shot. Look at the detail in the stacks and in the shadows. You pulled a little out of the lower shadows but took away in the upper areas. If you intent was a wow presentation with color, I think it is a great job. It's a very nice tonemapped image, but not HDR. I like it.

[S.E.V.]

Now that you've posted 0ev, I'll have to say it depends on what your intent was/is. If you intended to do HDR, I think you missed. You have actually DECREASED the dynamic range over the 0ev shot. Look at the detail in the stacks and in the shadows. You pulled a little out of the lower shadows but took away in the upper areas. If you intent was a wow presentation with color, I think it is a great job. It's a very nice tonemapped image, but not HDR. I like it.

Good point, maybe tweak the settings a bit more, but you did pull the sky back into the picture. You did however brig out the detail behind all the little pipes and what not, but as Gary said the detail in the main stack was decreased. But it is a start! ;) Also drop the iso down to 100, always shoot at 100iso if possible to reduce the noise level.

[J-Blake]

Now that you've posted 0ev, I'll have to say it depends on what your intent was/is. If you intended to do HDR, I think you missed. You have actually DECREASED the dynamic range over the 0ev shot. Look at the detail in the stacks and in the shadows. You pulled a little out of the lower shadows but took away in the upper areas. If you intent was a wow presentation with color, I think it is a great job. It's a very nice tonemapped image, but not HDR. I like it.

Thanks Gary. I like the shot too, but my goal is to learn HDR photography. If along the way I develop a flair for tone mapping all the better. Is the decrease in dynamic range over the 0ev shot something I did inadvertantly in the processing? Or is it just because of the exposure levels of the 0ev image. I'm using Photoshop to process the HDR and then using a Photomatix plug in for the tone mapping. From there I'm saving the image as 8 bit and post processing with Photoshop: level, curve, sharpness and lens correction.

[J-Blake]

Good point, maybe tweak the settings a bit more, but you did pull the sky back into the picture. You did however brig out the detail behind all the little pipes and what not, but as Gary said the detail in the main stack was decreased. But it is a start! ;) Also drop the iso down to 100, always shoot at 100iso if possible to reduce the noise level.

How do I pull the detail back in the main stack or tweak the settings? Which settings? Is this a step I messed up in the processing of the HDR, or is it something I need to do in Photoshop, IE, I can fix now? See my above post for a quick rundown of how I got here. Let me know if I need to provide more detail of what I've done to get this far.

Agree on the ISO. The camera must have been set from a previous shot and never set back.

[Gary McDuffie]

I'm no expert on what settings to change. I usually mess with things a slider at a time, watching to see if I am "damaging" the desired look, or going in the right direction. I almost always save the settings after getting something I like and give them a name that relates to the photo. That way, I can go back and repeat it if I have a similar image to work on. As for using the plugin, I haven't done a comparison yet, to see if PM stand-alone differs from the plugin. I just bought the package recently and haven't had time yet.

I normally load my raws in ACR, save them as tif, and possibly do a light CA adjustment if necessary. Then I run them through PM completely. If I think it needs a little curve applied, or additional sharpening, I'll do that in PS after. I know some may disagree with my workflow, but it is what I'm using at this time. I may learn another way as time goes on. I don't have much time to experment right now.

Sev is right on about ISO. Use the lowest you can, and tripod it! :) You're getting a good start. Good luck.

[Gary McDuffie]

BTW, I saved the 0ev image you posted above. If you don't mind, I'll do some playing with it when I get time. I can repost it if you turn 'image editing ok' on in your profile. It may be awhile. I've got class tonight and who knows what work will throw at me tmw. ;)

[J-Blake]

Thanks Gary, this helps a lot. So the settings your talking about are in Photomatics. I'll play with it and see if I can fix the shot. TA, Jon

[S.E.V.]

Thanks Gary, this helps a lot. So the settings your talking about are in Photomatics. I'll play with it and see if I can fix the shot. TA, Jon

Yes , also you can take the image back into photoshop and play with it there, Photomatix just is the start of you HDR images, you will still need to do more adjustments afterwards.

[S.E.V.]

How do I pull the detail back in the main stack or tweak the settings? Which settings? Is this a step I messed up in the processing of the HDR, or is it something I need to do in Photoshop, IE, I can fix now? See my above post for a quick rundown of how I got here. Let me know if I need to provide more detail of what I've done to get this far.

Agree on the ISO. The camera must have been set from a previous shot and never set back.

Try taking the 0ev shot once your HDR is complete in photomatx and stacking the 0ec shot over the HDR shot in photoshop and play around with the opacity slider to see what effect you get. I too have saved the 0ev shot gonna play with both images a bit.

[Gary McDuffie]

Yes, play with the settings in PM to get the desired effect, then finalize things in PS.

Re my earlier comment about my working on the 0ev image...it has been a very stressful several days and I wasn't thinking straight. Sorry. I would need the series to make any attempt at it. I just need some sleep right now I think. Too many short nights in a row and work stress.

Sev: Hope you can make it to the HDR workshop. Sure wish I were close enough to go. :( I should talk the kid into going with Dwight, but I don't think he has time now.

[smooth monkey]

Nice image Jon, but I do not think this is the right scene to do an HDR with, this shot could easily be achieved in a single image. No dynamic range to capture here. I did the same thing when I first started doing HDR, did a shot of my watch, all that did was get me a little bit more familiar with the program. You need to read up on HDR a bit more, google how to shoot HDR or what ever and you can read a ton of info. You need to capture a scene with dynamic range. Keep practicing you will eventually get the hang of it.

Here is one I just finished doing.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4496366820_96e739ce87_o.jpg

The sun was behind the building and all the tagging on the back wall was not picked up in the 0ev shot.

Sevan

AWESOME pic just amazing bw!

[J-Blake]

Another attempt trying to pay more attention in PM to detail. I think this addresses the issue you guys raised about the detail loss, but but has a surreal quality about it. This is step forward or back?

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll479/j-blake/Misc/HDR4.jpg

[Roy Mathers]

Back, I should say.

[S.E.V.]

You brought a little bit more of the stacks out, and it is a little bit more on the surreal side now. But I like it. Brought out more detail in the lower pipes that are all clustered up. Try a different scene now, you will kill your self over trying to nail this one image. Practice practice practice will only help you out.

Sevan

[J-Blake]

Here's the final on this one. I do like it much better than the original. Thanks Sevan and Gary for your advice. I'll start a new thread on my next endeavor. Jon

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll479/j-blake/MU%20365%20Days%20of%20Photography/HDR04-09-10.jpg

[Kilrov]

That's better!

[Gary McDuffie]

Now, you've got more of the depth of exposure needed. For my own taste, I would have backed off just a bit to keep more realism-sort of a happy medium. You might be able to mix back some of the original in a layer and adjust opacity for that happy medium. That's a very detailed image to cut your teeth on. It has complex depth of light and difficult to make look just how you would like it. The finer the detail, the more this is the case.

[S.E.V.]

Now, you've got more of the depth of exposure needed. For my own taste, I would have backed off just a bit to keep more realism-sort of a happy medium. You might be able to mix back some of the original in a layer and adjust opacity for that happy medium. That's a very detailed image to cut your teeth on. It has complex depth of light and difficult to make look just how you would like it. The finer the detail, the more this is the case.

Agreed, now move on to the next challenge.

Sevan