This is my first attempt at HDR taken with my D50. I was really happy with the results. I would love to hear your critiques and thoughts.
Peace,
Matthew
Peace,
Matthew
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.
My First HDR Attempt: 56k beware, large photos
- Thread starter shieldyoureyes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice! 
Did you take multiple exposures or from one RAW image? The first photo with the rippling water might pose a problem with bracketed exposures but it looks really nice! Do you use Photoshop HDR or Photomatix?
Did you take multiple exposures or from one RAW image? The first photo with the rippling water might pose a problem with bracketed exposures but it looks really nice! Do you use Photoshop HDR or Photomatix?
These were from 3 exposures. I merged them into HDR using photomatrix Pro. I tried using CS2, but I could's get it to turn out very good.
Yes, I'd like to see them as well.
The 1st and 3rd photo were obviously HDR to me, but that 2nd photo doesn't look like an HDR. I don't know if HDR photos are supposed to clearly look like HDR photos, or whether you're supposed to go for a more natural look and trick the viewer into thinking that you really took the photo that way.
The 1st and 3rd photo were obviously HDR to me, but that 2nd photo doesn't look like an HDR. I don't know if HDR photos are supposed to clearly look like HDR photos, or whether you're supposed to go for a more natural look and trick the viewer into thinking that you really took the photo that way.
I'm not really sure either, but I like the finished product. I think they look like a mix between a painting and a photo, but they definately look more "fake" than other HDR's i have seen. I will post the originals in the morning when i get up
Gee said:
Seeing as nobody is answering our question, I figured it out myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
The question of how its done still remains though!
mfacey said:
Ok, and I found out how it's done - see http://www.cypherxero.net/blog/?page_id=436. The example photos don't look nothing special though.
Essentially, you take several photos of the same scene at different exposures, then merge them together....
Nice work!
Now we can see just how limited our camera's sensors are today. Their dynamic range is less than that of film, which in turn is less than that of the human eye.
There is plenty of R&D money invested in increasing the dynamic range of digital sensors...patiently waiting for a breakthrough to make its way to market.
Now we can see just how limited our camera's sensors are today. Their dynamic range is less than that of film, which in turn is less than that of the human eye.
There is plenty of R&D money invested in increasing the dynamic range of digital sensors...patiently waiting for a breakthrough to make its way to market.
Great photos! There a weird but cool effect with the reflections on the water.
I don't really understand that. If that's the case, then how come HDR photos can be generated from a single RAW capture (according to Photomatix's page, anyway)? That suggests to me that the camera's sensors can capture plenty of dynamic range. Am I misunderstanding something?
ksz said:
I don't really understand that. If that's the case, then how come HDR photos can be generated from a single RAW capture (according to Photomatix's page, anyway)? That suggests to me that the camera's sensors can capture plenty of dynamic range. Am I misunderstanding something?
If you guys have CS2, you can play around with an .HDR file that I created in Photoshop.
Open the image in Photoshop, and go to Image > Adjustments > Exposure. Move the Exposure slider around and watch as the image darkens and lightens in the same fashion if you were to change the aperture on a camera.
HDR File (640x426)
Open the image in Photoshop, and go to Image > Adjustments > Exposure. Move the Exposure slider around and watch as the image darkens and lightens in the same fashion if you were to change the aperture on a camera.
HDR File (640x426)
maximile said:
The single-image approach is in a way artificial, since it essentially adds gain to the very dark areas, but there is a great loss of detail when going this route. The better way is to take multiple pictures as the OP has done, then merge them together.
I'd never heard of HDR imaging before. This is very interesting work - these images really do seem to 'pop' out at you. I can see myself using this in some of my artwork. Thanks for the tip!
Just had a thought - I want to use this technique on moving objects (a deaf person signing in sign language) - I imagine I would need to have 3 or more cameras close together and reasonably far away (say 2m) so that parallax isn't a problem.
What sort of cameras / setup would I need to have all three cameras go off at the same time?
Just had a thought - I want to use this technique on moving objects (a deaf person signing in sign language) - I imagine I would need to have 3 or more cameras close together and reasonably far away (say 2m) so that parallax isn't a problem.
What sort of cameras / setup would I need to have all three cameras go off at the same time?
Sweet
Those are some sweet photos! The reflections are wicked cool.
I read the HDR article!
KSZ: I do agree that Film has a better dynamic range than the current consumer digital cameras. I work in both mediums and find that the images I develop in Film have a greater visual range than anything I have ever put out on all my digital cameras.
I suppose we all have done HDR in some form if we never heard of HDR.
I shoot in RAW then export two or 3 different exposure levels of the file and airbrush out the parts I don't need. In the Film Darkroom...that is a long process that I just give up and do the usual Dodge and Burn.
This HDR would make the process easier. I'm going to give this a try.
Kudos shieldyoureyes!
Those are some sweet photos! The reflections are wicked cool.
I read the HDR article!
KSZ: I do agree that Film has a better dynamic range than the current consumer digital cameras. I work in both mediums and find that the images I develop in Film have a greater visual range than anything I have ever put out on all my digital cameras.
I suppose we all have done HDR in some form if we never heard of HDR.
I shoot in RAW then export two or 3 different exposure levels of the file and airbrush out the parts I don't need. In the Film Darkroom...that is a long process that I just give up and do the usual Dodge and Burn.
This HDR would make the process easier. I'm going to give this a try.
Kudos shieldyoureyes!
beavo451 said:
I'm working on getting rid of the flatness in them, these were just a really quick job and I didn't tweak too many settings or even put them through Photoshop.
Ok, I'll try to explain this as simply as I can.maximile said:
Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest light that a sensor can record without clipping and the dimmest light it can record without clipping.
Imaging sensors are based on the photoelectric effect. To see dim light, there must be a minimum number of photons striking the sensor before enough electric current is induced. Because all electric circuits have some noise (i.e. tiny fluctuations in current), if the designer is not careful, these stray currents could be interpreted as a low-light signal. In order for the sensor to be sensitive to low light while avoiding stray or noisy currents, the sensor must have an extremely low "noise floor." In industrial applications, this is often done by cooling the sensor. This is not practical in consumer applications, so the designer implements a clipping algorithm that says, "if the current induced in a particular pixel is less than x milliamps, consider that pixel off." Because x is a hard number, we say that the sensor "clips" any current below x.
The same applies to the brightest light. As the quantity of photons impinging on a pixel increases, a strong photoelectric current is induced. However, if you keep increasing the intensity of photons, the pixel will become "saturated". Every sensor has its own saturation current. Let's assume that current is y milliamps. Any pixel that produces more than y milliamps will be recorded as a dot of a fixed intensity. In other words, any intensity of light that produces more than y milliamps will be "clipped" or truncated to this fixed upper value.
Thus, the sensor cannot see light below x milliamps nor any intensity beyond y milliamps. The difference between x and y is the dynamic range of the sensor.
Film has a lower x and a higher y than digital sensors.
The human eye has an even lower x and an even higher y than film.
HDR does not expand the dynamic range. Instead, it produces an image where no part of the image is either underexposed or overexposed. In effect, HDR balances the exposure. But it also gives us a result that is more in accordance with what the eye sees. The eye does not overexpose or underexpose parts of the same scene to the same degree as digital sensors. HDR brings photography one step closer to the capabilities of the human eye, but it cannot recover clipped shadows or blown highlights.
What I am looking for is a new generation of sensors that can see more at night and more in the noontime sun. It will be able to produce fantastic shadow detail as well as fantastic highlight detail. And we'll be another step closer to matching our own eyes.
Me too! I have got to try this. I was floored by the image below on http://www.hdrsoft.com. That's a backlit scene!Bocheememon said:
And this is what happened to me when I went to Paris in 2003, yuck:
ksz said:Me too! I have got to try this. I was floored by the image below on http://www.hdrsoft.com. That's a backlit scene!
And this is what happened to me when I went to Paris in 2003, yuck:
That is a nice photo of the Eifel Tower and I see what you mean with the darkness of the ground vs. the sky.
Yeah, when it comes to a digital photo you have to find the middle ground between sacrificing shadows or highlights. The same applies for film. At least we don't have to spend hours in a darkroom, and instead spend hours in photoshop. Ha
PeterParker: That DRI is interesting. I am going to read a bit of that and see what differences are found between DRI and HDR
