I just love this pic. the colors are just amazing. I love clouds like that and the grass is so green. where was this taken?
I have a question. I keep seeing the word RAW when it comes to photos. what is that?
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
I just love this pic. the colors are just amazing. I love clouds like that and the grass is so green. where was this taken?
I have a question. I keep seeing the word RAW when it comes to photos. what is that?
This is Clifford Tower at York Castle in York, UK. I'm in York for the next week finishing up some work at the University (I've been here as a visiting scientist for about a month).
RAW is basically the 'raw' image as it comes off of the image sensor. All cameras shoot RAW, but many (including most P&S cameras) convert to jpeg in the camera, giving you limited flexibility in how to process the image (maybe a little contrast, saturation, brightness).
On DSLRs (and some higher-end P&S cameras), you can use the RAW directly and then do your own processing to jpeg in a program like Lightroom or Aperture (even iPhoto handles RAW now, though it doesn't allow you the same degree of flexibility of processing, which is the whole point of using the RAW).
RAW files offer much more latitude in processing; white balance, for instance, can be set afterward. I leave mine on 'auto' and then use Lightroom to fix things later. You also have the ability to play around with exposure to a much greater extent with a RAW file.
The downside is that post-processing takes a lot of time. but if you want the best out of your images, RAW is the only way to travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
Note that each manufacturer has their own RAW format; Adobe has developed the DNG format as a 'universal' RAW, but it hasn't been widely-adopted yet.
Hey, do you normally use multiple shots and combine, or a single RAW, or do you use single for action and then multiple for tripod shots? Also, i have a d50, and if you knew how to make it take more than 3 shots in a row i'd like to know, but i think my buffer limits it to 3.
If you've got a completely still scene and a tripod, definitely go for three bracketed shots. But I've found that HDR from one RAW is almost as good, most of the time for when there's movement/people or whatever, or you're handholding the camera.
I agree. There really is a great deal of flexibility in changing exposures on a single RAW.
That said, 3 (or more!) exposures still works better in the end, but requires more work to get right.
Is it me or does this photo remind anyone else of African swallows...or were they European swallows?
I have a D50 and you can only set the bracketing to do three photos....to set the bracketing go into one of the manual modes and in the menu there is a BKT option, i think...I never saw it until i connected the camera into Nikon Camera Control....but i assume it is there...
First attempt. Not a good picture to start but I was just playing with the software and it's what I had readily available.
I've enjoyed the many excellent examples posted in this thread. The technique is something I definitely would like to explore.
I was just wondering if this portfolio was using HDR? Aside from the painting-like saturation of colors, I especially liked the treatment it gave to monochromes (if indeed HDR was utilized).
I was just wondering if this portfolio was using HDR? Aside from the painting-like saturation of colors, I especially liked the treatment it gave to monochromes (if indeed HDR was utilized).
I looked under details and it looks like she mostly uses dodging and burgning, I haven't checked all the pics but I found at least on HDR, the purply sunset with the "fisherman"
The silhouette of the fisherman with the purple sky? I don't think those are HDR either. The lighting is too soft for HDR. And the silhouette would need to be somewhat artificial if the shot were HDR because the process would display details in the figure and boat.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5178975
she says, under details Technical Details This an HDR photo shoot two times for 1) water&fisherman and 2) sky. Merged in PSCS2 .
I just thought the process could be considered close to the merging in Photomatix..
Is HDR supposed to be considered less than a "regular" post processing than burning/dodging, or even brushing of any kind and merging in PhotoShop and more "cheating" than these? I personally find myself considering a lot of HDRs closer to reality than the other results..in the end maybe it doesn't really matter
My first attempt...
Not sure if I like it, it's the same house that is in my 'how do I avoid photos like this' thread. For some reason the chimneys didn't align right and I couldn't figure out how to manually align the 2 photos in the photomatix demo (they were 2 handheld RAWs)
Not sure if I like it, it's the same house that is in my 'how do I avoid photos like this' thread. For some reason the chimneys didn't align right and I couldn't figure out how to manually align the 2 photos in the photomatix demo (they were 2 handheld RAWs)
dynamic range
Hi seeing this post made me keen to try this out. However I keep getting to the merging point (PS CS2) and get th emessage that the pictures lack dynamic range and will not produce a good HDR. I am making 3 copies (-2ev,0ev,+2ev) from the original RAW file. It's well exposed. I am saving the files as TIFF files. What am I doing wrong? Ta
Hi seeing this post made me keen to try this out. However I keep getting to the merging point (PS CS2) and get th emessage that the pictures lack dynamic range and will not produce a good HDR. I am making 3 copies (-2ev,0ev,+2ev) from the original RAW file. It's well exposed. I am saving the files as TIFF files. What am I doing wrong? Ta
My first attempt...
Not sure if I like it, it's the same house that is in my 'how do I avoid photos like this' thread. For some reason the chimneys didn't align right and I couldn't figure out how to manually align the 2 photos in the photomatix demo (they were 2 handheld RAWs)
If you're doing multiple shot HDRs, you really need to use a tripod OR have very fast shutter speeds OR have incredibly stable hands. Photomatix can align things, but I find that even using a tripod doesn't always get things perfect.
The best setup would be camera on tripod plus shutter release cable AND mirror lockup; this would eliminate all source of camera shake (although my 10D doesn't do burst mode with mirror lockup enabled, so I get two of three).
EDIT: You've got a lot of dynamic range here (blown highlights in the sky); this one probably calls for at least three exposures, if not five (-4, -2, 0, +2, +4); assuming 6 stops of DR for each exposure (which is probably conservative), this would give you a 14 stop DR (from -7 to +7)
Thanks for the tips! When I took the photos, I wasn't planning on using them for an HDR image, I was just outside and happened to take one photo with the building exposed properly, and one with the sky exposed better (following some advice from the other thread).
Noticed when I got them onto the computer that they were pretty similar so decided to try out the photomatix, and was just a fluke that they nearly line up.
This may be something I will have to have a more serious stab at when my exams are out of the way, although I still cant decide whether I like the effect; like others have said I think I am more a fan of the not too overcooked HDRs, although crazy ones can be fun.
I agree; HDR, when used as a "proper" technique, can be very useful. Unfortunately, digital cameras have even less DR than slide file (which, in turn, has less than negative film), so DR is always an issue. I think HDR has gotten a bad reputation because of the "overcooked" element. This can be nice on occasion, but gets old quickly. But mild HDR, to help with legitimate DR issues, will always have a place in my PP toolbox.
My contribution for the month 
Simple, but im happy with the way it turned out. I have a non-HDR vers of this pic, but i like the way the hdr gave nice shadows under the red leaves, and also a nice colour. Also, it gave a neat little fade starting on the left side. (see my flickr photostream for more)
Simple, but im happy with the way it turned out. I have a non-HDR vers of this pic, but i like the way the hdr gave nice shadows under the red leaves, and also a nice colour. Also, it gave a neat little fade starting on the left side. (see my flickr photostream for more)
I read somewhere that you had to make sure all the meta/exif data was out of there first. Have not tried it myself yet. g'luck