Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes
Thread started 24 Mar 2007 (Saturday) 16:13
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

HDR - San Francisco at sunset

 
sirsloop
BigFoot
940 posts
Joined Oct 2006
South River, NJ
Mar 24, 2007 16:13 |  #1

I was out in SF on business this past week... I didn't get any time to sight see or anything, but I did manage to snap a couple HDR stacks from my room on the 15th floor of the JW Marriot in San Francisco...

This is an HDR shot from 17 images...


IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.jdhaesloop.​com/SF3.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

no gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
macroshooter1970's Avatar
7,491 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Arizona
Mar 24, 2007 19:20 |  #2

wow 17 images. did you really need that many?




LOG IN TO REPLY
sirsloop
THREAD ­ STARTER
BigFoot
940 posts
Joined Oct 2006
South River, NJ
Mar 24, 2007 20:11 |  #3

lol... why not...

probably could have done it with 4 or 5 :)


no gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
folville
Goldmember
folville's Avatar
1,022 posts
Joined Dec 2006
MN
Mar 24, 2007 21:01 |  #4

I think that the massive number of images may have contributed to the softness visible in the buildings, especially those in the lower left hand side of the image.

It's a nice idea, but I'd say that ambition was detrimental here.


135mm f/2.8 SF for sale

LOG IN TO REPLY
JaertX
Goldmember
JaertX's Avatar
2,018 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Amarillo, Texas
Mar 24, 2007 21:07 |  #5

folville wrote in post #2925263external link
I think that the massive number of images may have contributed to the softness visible in the buildings, especially those in the lower left hand side of the image.

It's a nice idea, but I'd say that ambition was detrimental here.

2nd that. Although maybe it helped add some motion to the sky...that many stacked hurt the buildings more.


Jason - I use Canon and stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
macroshooter1970's Avatar
7,491 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Arizona
Mar 24, 2007 22:19 |  #6

sirsloop wrote in post #2925073external link
lol... why not...

probably could have done it with 4 or 5 :)

like the others, it hurt the image I think. 3-4 at the most should be more than enough.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sirsloop
THREAD ­ STARTER
BigFoot
940 posts
Joined Oct 2006
South River, NJ
Mar 25, 2007 03:59 |  #7

I actually went back and limited this to 5 shots and recreated.... results were no better or worse than before. In fact, I think having so many images helped with editing. The tonal curve and histogram was much wider... holding more info. FYI, all 17 shots were hand held so that explains a lot about softness. I also never added any sharpening during post processing..

a quick usm and its a bit different...

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.jdhaesloop.​com/SF4.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

no gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
kenyc
Cream of the Crop
kenyc's Avatar
15,425 posts
Joined May 2005
Denver, CO
Mar 25, 2007 05:13 |  #8

The second one is definitely better. Look at the air conditioning unit in the center, much crisper, sharper.

Nice sunrise.

KAC


Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Pageexternal link - Photo Galleryexternal link - Art Print Galleryexternal link - Writing&Poetryexternal link
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

LOG IN TO REPLY
folville
Goldmember
folville's Avatar
1,022 posts
Joined Dec 2006
MN
Mar 25, 2007 10:22 |  #9

Now i think it's been oversharpened, so you have both the softness caused by slight differences in camera placement as well as the appearance of jpeg compression.

For this sort of shot you'll definitely need a tripod, even just a cheap one to keep your camera in place. Then you'll be golden.


135mm f/2.8 SF for sale

LOG IN TO REPLY
sirsloop
THREAD ­ STARTER
BigFoot
940 posts
Joined Oct 2006
South River, NJ
Mar 25, 2007 11:24 |  #10

fyi... here's one exposure from the middle of the stack...

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.jdhaesloop.​com/sfs.JPG (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

no gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
5,128 posts
Joined Jun 2005
san jose
Mar 25, 2007 12:42 |  #11

How did you do it? You bracketed 17 shots with different settings and use PS2 HDR Merge feature? Did you use different TV or AV values?

The second one with 4-5 shots seemns to have some kind of ghosting around the edge of the building (or is it my laptop screen :) ).


Sonny
websiteexternal link|Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sirsloop
THREAD ­ STARTER
BigFoot
940 posts
Joined Oct 2006
South River, NJ
Mar 25, 2007 16:39 |  #12

Yep... HDR Merge, then used the mode: 8bit feature to bring it back to a viewable jpeg.

Both full size images are from all 17 images... the cropped shot of the mountain range was just a single exposure.

These are all ISO 800, F11, 10mm and vary from something like 1/400 to 1/5th handheld out of a Rebel XTi and ef10-22


no gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
folville
Goldmember
folville's Avatar
1,022 posts
Joined Dec 2006
MN
Mar 26, 2007 20:44 |  #13

Obviously you can't go back and shoot these, but if you were to try the same type of thing again, it'd be suggested that you lower the iso rating and keep the shutter at a tolerably high level so that you can hand-hold without so much trouble (1/5th is really pushing it, even with a wide lens). Seeing them now, i'd say that you should definitely have opened the aperture just to give you more working room for other settings.


135mm f/2.8 SF for sale

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alec ­ Trevelyan
Senior Member
Alec Trevelyan's Avatar
679 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Providence, RI
Mar 26, 2007 22:25 |  #14

2nd one is much better, though now jpeg compression is killing it ;)


5D, 17-40mm f/4 L, 24-105 f/4 L IS

www.nhowephotography.c​om/Urbanexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,522 views & 0 likes for this thread
HDR - San Francisco at sunset
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00092 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is bennettmatt
726 guests, 404 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016