I'm too new to Photomatix to answer properly, but in theory, you should have LESS noise than from a single image, unless maybe your images are very noisy to begin with. What size is our image?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography - post your HDR
- Thread starter valdore
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have to shoot at a very low ISO. When you combine them it really boosts the noise (not weakens it). I haven't been able to successfully shoot a night scene and do HDR to it. Then again, I don't own a digital camera either so I haven't given it many tries. When I did my HDR stuff I lowered the ISO to 200, sometimes less depending on the light. Anyway, give that a shot.
i have been trying to get an hdr from some pictures i have and i keep getting this... what am i doing wrong?....
Wow! Thats an awesome photo!
Just kidding, you have to have different shots with different exposures. If your exposures do not deviate much from each other than it wont work. What program is that? Photoshop? I recommend using Photomatix if you arent.
haha,, i got the exposures to -2.00, 0 and +2.00 yes i am using photoshop.. i may get the trial version of photomatix and see how it goes.... since i already have photoshop... thx
Did you strip the EXIF info from the photos? I don't use Photoshop for HDR but other HDR apps use the EXIF to determine exposure. If it's not there it will often have you manually enter it.
It's pretty obvious- if you study the surface lighting carefully- that the 6 and 7 exposure composites include images that were shot as various times of day as a sequence. For clues, look at the variance between the clouds and the surface 'sunset' lighting raking the buildings at 90º. I'd say there was a spread of between 1 and 3 hrs between the first 'frame' and the last. So something like this maybe...
1) 2 hrs before sunset (Just the clouds)
2) 1 hr before sunset (Ambient)
3) 30 minutes before sunset (90º lighting)
4) 15 minutes before sunset (glow)
5) sunset (Glow)
6) 1 hr after sunset (even mix between sky & artificial light)
7) 2 hrs after sunset (windows & exterior street light only)
1) 2 hrs before sunset (Just the clouds)
2) 1 hr before sunset (Ambient)
3) 30 minutes before sunset (90º lighting)
4) 15 minutes before sunset (glow)
5) sunset (Glow)
6) 1 hr after sunset (even mix between sky & artificial light)
7) 2 hrs after sunset (windows & exterior street light only)
My fast guess would be- you probably didn't need to do it on a shot that was made in broad daylight with overcast sky. Remember that HDR is really a modern-day 'compaction', that is, compensating for dynamic range that is beyond the scope of the sensor + processor ( typical in night scenes ). So speaking in Zone System terms. If the range between the brightest white area and the darkest one is 14 stops for example, shooting two or three frames and running the HDR algorithm brings the range down to 10, or as we've seen here, even 8 or 9.
If however you're faced with a scene that's only 5 stops from blackest black to whitest white (That's flat) , then HDR will actually flatten your image even more (notice that it has in your mansion shot). So in fact what your particular scene needs if anything, is an expansion of the range- that you do by simply increasing contrast on ONE image. I typically do that with PS levels or curves.
If however you're faced with a scene that's only 5 stops from blackest black to whitest white (That's flat) , then HDR will actually flatten your image even more (notice that it has in your mansion shot). So in fact what your particular scene needs if anything, is an expansion of the range- that you do by simply increasing contrast on ONE image. I typically do that with PS levels or curves.
I am nowhere even close to being as good as you guys, but practice makes perfect. I just made my first attempt at HDR photography, and I would love some advice.
Taken with a Nikon d40/tripod. 18mm, +2,0,-2 exposure. Photoshop/Photomatix Pro. Dying flowers from Valentine's Day. What can I improve on?
Taken with a Nikon d40/tripod. 18mm, +2,0,-2 exposure. Photoshop/Photomatix Pro. Dying flowers from Valentine's Day. What can I improve on?
Attachments
In that composition, there isn't much range in the lighting. It even looks like there was a flash at the outset. Outdoor photos have a much greater degree of variance because there isn't consistent lighting.
What story is your photo telling? What are you trying to express? What emotion do you want to evoke?
Shoot with a goal in mind--a feel, a motive, whatever. To have success you have to define it first.
I was watching a photography show the other night, I can't remember the photographer's name but he said that when he was taking pictures he would have one word that described the photo he was trying to take. It's something that I'm being trying to do lately, a lot of time I only see interesting shapes, colors, etc. I get caught up in composite but miss the important story behind the photo that really grabs the viewer.
Anyway that was the long way of saying I agree with termina3.
I don't want to comment on any individual pic... but rather an attitude. People saying things like "The light was bland", "the pic looked kinda boring", "The composition wasn't great"... and then, instead of just deleting their pix, they try to give them the 'kiss of life' with HDR. They wonder, of course, why their efforts don't match up to the best they see on these pages.
The best pix, IMO, require a bit of pre-planning, and HDR should be part of that planning... not merely an afterthought. Have an aim in mind before you press the shutter. And there's really no point in using HDR where the dynamic range produces a good photo without it (and that's the great majority of photos).
Use HDR sparingly, with a bit of taste and discrimination... like you'd use chilli powder in cooking. Just my two-pennorth...
The best pix, IMO, require a bit of pre-planning, and HDR should be part of that planning... not merely an afterthought. Have an aim in mind before you press the shutter. And there's really no point in using HDR where the dynamic range produces a good photo without it (and that's the great majority of photos).
Use HDR sparingly, with a bit of taste and discrimination... like you'd use chilli powder in cooking. Just my two-pennorth...
Use HDR sparingly, with a bit of taste and discrimination... like you'd use chilli powder in cooking. Just my two-pennorth...
What!?! Cooking!?!
First of all, THANK YOU Valdore. This technique is fun! Attached is my first HDR that is way over the top. I have some great potential photo's that would blend real nice, but I'll save that another night to play with. I'll tone down future HDR, this was just so fun to do.
Single RAW, 1/60 - F5.6 - ISO100 - 17mm
Single RAW, 1/60 - F5.6 - ISO100 - 17mm
Attachments
im confused, how are some of you making hdr shots with only 1 raw photo? are you takin it and changing the expose of that one pic then combining them?
thanks
espo
thanks
espo
Yes. Usually adjusting the exposures to +2, 0, and -2. And then combining them in Photomatix just like you would multiple shots straight from the camera.
Very impressive photos iDave1984. You went the subtle route, rather than the over the top HDR. I personally like both types, but your pictures are well suited for the more subtle use of HDR. Well done.
MC, great colors! Dont ya just hate power lines now? Every time I think of a good place for a photo, I see power-lines in the way.
Aint that the truth