Yeah, me too. This was the best I could do. Tough job getting these mutts to stay still even for ONE shot, never mind five.
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
Yeah, me too. This was the best I could do. Tough job getting these mutts to stay still even for ONE shot, never mind five.
And here is a few more down the road. In my computers and art class we had to redesign a magazine article, so I decided to do an article from Climbing. I wanted it to have a more erroded or natural feel to it. Granted the HDR shot isn't "natural" I couldn't help but love how much the chalk stands out on just about everything, and the texture of the walls I thought was amazing. This is one of the shots I used in the article. Again, an original and an HDRI.
Attachments
A couple of experiments from yesterday: Lake Windermere. 'Standard' HDR: 5 auto-bracketed shots, Photomatix...
This is aimed at anyone who can help...
Okay, so I have been fiddling with HDR and Photomatix Pro, but can't seem to get any thing near the results of Valdore
Here are my three source images:
http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/35063/2000699212882380452_rs.jpg
http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/38125/2000642042411763501_rs.jpg
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/36865/2000612014592124117_rs.jpg
But every time I try to make turn them into HDR with Photomatix they look awful. I try to fiddle around with the Tone Mapping but it results in ugly images, Eg. Over saturated and the clouds are ruined. Anyone want to give it a go and see if they can get good results? Are my source images the problem or am I not using Photomatix correctly?
Here is my attempt using your images. I think you need to get something a little more underexposed. Those shots were all fairly bright in the sky area. Very lovely shots and location though. Keep playing with it and you'll get it eventually.
Attachments
Here's one of my crazier ones...
Empire State Building, New York City
HDR | D40 | 1/500 at ƒ/7.1 | 18 mm | ISO 200
HDR | D40 | 1/500 at ƒ/7.1 | 18 mm | ISO 200
First HDR
My first attempt at HDR...Suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated!
I'm Using photomatrix and some help with adjusting the settings would be greatly appreciated...maybe someone could outline the basics of each slider and radio button if they have the time and the know how!
Anyways, klymr all I have to say it wow, what a great shot...your brothers wife is gonna get a sweet piece or artwork! It would probably look awesome in B&W too.
My first attempt at HDR...Suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated!
I'm Using photomatrix and some help with adjusting the settings would be greatly appreciated...maybe someone could outline the basics of each slider and radio button if they have the time and the know how!
Anyways, klymr all I have to say it wow, what a great shot...your brothers wife is gonna get a sweet piece or artwork! It would probably look awesome in B&W too.
My advice on this would be to drop the Strength slider to maybe 70 or 80, and maybe drop the Luminosity slider to somewhere between 0 and 5; possibly move the Light Smoothing slider up one notch. I say this because of the "halo effect" around the skyscraper, and because the top of the building appears darker than the lower portion.
I try to get away with as much as I can in the tone mapper, but quite often, the photo and the software don't always cooperate - and you have to adjust.
thanks to you all
Thanks to you all for your help and examples... esp Valdore and klymr!
Without further adieu, I hereby present my first real HDR attempt:
From a single RAW, (so not a TRUE HDR but hey, what can you do)
Before:
After:
Let me know what you all think.
WooT! I think it turned out quite nicely actually!
Cheers,
Chris
Thanks to you all for your help and examples... esp Valdore and klymr!
Without further adieu, I hereby present my first real HDR attempt:
From a single RAW, (so not a TRUE HDR but hey, what can you do)
Before:
After:
Let me know what you all think.
WooT! I think it turned out quite nicely actually!
Cheers,
Chris
Took a few shots this morning on the way out of the house. Downloaded Photomatrix just to see what all the fuss is about. I'll definitely have to practice to decide if I want to drop the C-note for the full version. Very first attempt, and without any real playing with the settings. What should I do differently (other than not shoot with the sun right above my subject, and not get so many clouds when the wind is blowing hard)?
Attachments
A single exposure cannot capture the range of tones found in a proper HDR image. Good HDR's are just like any other photograph: if the composition and technical shot are bad then HDR will not necessarily save things.
You need to combine good shooting technique with good post processing. That's true of any style of photography today.
Well said. There is nothing wrong with post processing. Its perfect to really make the colours stand out and also get your desired look.
Dont get started with the "1 image HDR isnt a true HDR" debate. Its just as silly and futile as the HDR isnt real photography debate. They are all perfectly equal IMO, as no matter what you do, you start with a real photo.
I think the entire argument that HDR is not real photography is a result of photographers sticking to traditional methodology. Lots of people dont like it simply because they dont know how to do it, I'm not saying everyone is like this but I bet a few are.
Photography is an art. Many painters add linseed oil to their painting resulting in a more vibrant outcome with better saturation of color; it's still a painting. Many people take photos and adjust the contrast in post processing; it's still a photo. A flower can be pink, red, orange, black, big, small, nice, or ugly but no matter what, it's still a flower.
It takes skill to take a good photo to serve as a foundation for an HDR image, you need to see it in HDR before you take the shot.
Photography is an art. Many painters add linseed oil to their painting resulting in a more vibrant outcome with better saturation of color; it's still a painting. Many people take photos and adjust the contrast in post processing; it's still a photo. A flower can be pink, red, orange, black, big, small, nice, or ugly but no matter what, it's still a flower.
It takes skill to take a good photo to serve as a foundation for an HDR image, you need to see it in HDR before you take the shot.
I suspect most people who think that HDR is not real photography still think that photography is more of a science than an art. If Ansel Adams were alive today, I think he would be using HDR. Photography is about creating the image that the photographer had in mind when taking the shot. I made creating bold because that is the central point of artistic photography.
[stake burning]
How is doing HDR work any different than taking a negative into an enlarger and dodging and burning it, using contrast filters, toning them, etc? There is no way to take a digital picture into a darkroom and use traditional darkroom techniques on it. That's what the "digital darkroom" is for. I consider any photo editing program to be a "digital darkroom" personally, whether it be Photoshop, Photomatix, or whatever. That's my personal take on this.
And like has been said before, you cannot capture the amount of detail you can with HDR, even if it's with film. In fact, I remember my photo teacher showing us an image he printed where he had to use many different bracketed negatives perfectly aligned in numerous enlargers in order to get more even lighting in his final print. There were a lot of shadows and washed out areas otherwise.
[/stake burning]
Of course we do. To say we don't is just plane silly. Let the dead live on.
Ansel Adams even commented on it already, not HDR per say, but that digital photography would have its own set of issues and techniques (to paraphrase). He discussed and wrote about the zone system as well, a system that had a theoretical dynamic range that exceeded the technology of his day. You really think he would not have at least explored HDR?
Explain why he had zone XI when pure white was X? That alone should tell you HDR would have interested him.
here are some of my HDR photos... the exterior photos are a 3-shot composite taken with bracketing at 3 stops, the interior shot taken at 1 stop intervals combining 7 shots:
