Printable View
For you HDR masters out there...
I'd like some advice on this particular shot...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/...71a1c6a6_b.jpg
My question is, i shot this in raw with a 50d... Do you think this shot could benefit from HDR technique? I hate the soft cgi appearance.. . i'd do it only to increase details. any thoughts or advice?
David,
First of all, nice shot of Atlanta, a classic angle on my favorite city.
Night shots are kind of a favorite of mine.
My recommendations would be to shoot it right after sunset through until its totally dark. I always try to get some color in my skies, usually a nice dark blue, or sometimes purple, etc. Depending on how bright the sky is, you could use a kind of HDR to blend the various exposures. I would also shoot several shots in a row of the same exposure to get a variety of car trails on the road below, and then blend them in photoshop using "lighten" mode to get a good amount of car light trails on the road. Finally I would probably shoot using f22 or so to get some nice star points on those lights, but that's a personal preference.
Hope that helps.
Ocean is way too rough to shoot :( I'm back.
John, I love that shot! Where is that? East coast sunset or west coast sunrise?
And I got an email message about what my website is, but I can't figure out where I'd see that here on the site. So anyway... I don't have my latest work up yet because I've been too busy shooting/editing, but it is:
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com
I really need to pull some older shots off and update them with my newer work which is getting better as I refine my workflow.
After looking at your shot again John I realized I'm probably wrong on both fronts. The angle of that sun in relation to the shore line has me unsure where it could have been taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Selby
What were your initial settings? I suspect one of the issues could be diffraction because of too small of an aperture. According to Bryan, cameras with a pixel spacing as tight as the 50D's are limited to sharp shots at f/7.6 and larger.
Thanks Michael. The location is Kiawah Island, SC...a "sunset", or almost there.
<span class="postbody"]http://www.dennisevertse.com/fora/v8...ooiste2008.jpg
Sorry for the big © on the picture, but its nessecary on some forums I come... [:(]
In case anyone doesn't know... in Photomatix, if you are having trouble getting a photo to bring out some of what was a brighter area of the sky, there is a way to bring that back gently. Under the S/H tab the top slider "Highlights Smoothing". If you drag that slider to the right it will begin to brighten the areas that were brightest in the over exposed images.
You'll find that after doing so you might want to return back to the main sliders to retweak. Each image is different. That slider may show no results until the final section on the right or it might start lightening spots with just a small move to the right. But it is there and quite useful if you haven't touched it before.
I had never heard of this whole HDR thing and have to say that I like the images shared in this thread very much. I can't get into pixel counting with anyone or debating what HDR is or isn't, but I know what I like and this stuff is very cool. It doesn't have to be done to every photo and I wouldn't want to do that, but these pics are terrific IMO.
Hat's off to all of you who shared your creations! I downloaded the Photomatix trial-ware and gave it a run on some of my own photos. I took 4 photos of the same subject that varied in exposure from 2 to 3 exposure settings. Tried all 4 in Photoshop CS4 using the Photomerge capability and then took the same photos over to Photomatix. The Photomatix results were much better than what Photoshop produced. These photos were not intentially taken to use in an HDR method, so the results in both applications were nothing to share here, but I was able to see what Photomatix could do and it was pretty cool.
Thanks all for sharing your knowledge and the great pics.
Rick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael James
Thank you. Granted, I could have used a fill light, but with it being about 25 degrees with wind (this photo is totally deceiving when it comes to warmth lol) I just put it on the tripod and took 4 shots and merged them. I am very happy with the results. I'm also a fan of more realistic HDR images.
I would appreciate it if those of you who posted the HDRs would describe your workflow to get the final image. Thanks.
The most common problem you will encounter with HDR is noise. Controlling noise will produce a better HDR image.
I use Photomatix, CS4 and Noiseware Pro.
First, I use ACR to convert RAW to 16 bit TIFF's. Then I open them in CS4 then apply noiseware pro plug-in using default settings and save them again as TIFF. I then import all images in Photmatix and do my tone-mapping setting after which I save it as 16-bit TIFF. Open the file again in CS4 then apply another noiseware pro pass if needed then tweak the final image (levels, curves, USM).
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.53/fountain_5F00_large.jpg[/img]
Superb composition.
Wow, Lloyds of London has a very shiny, CG look to it, as though it's a screen shot from a computer game or straight out of Star Wars. And the first one looks like it's from a modern remake of Myst. I need to learn how to do HDR...
JLynch, Where is this?
varok, when you open your ACR, do you leave those settings all at "zero?" Any adjustments in ACR before you open it to the 16 bit TIFF?
What settings do you change in Photomatix? Do you change any of the brightness settings, white/black point, etc.?
I have Photomatix and it looks as if the many images posted are processed with the "details" tone mapping setting.
Thanks.
Alan
The only thing I change in ACR is the camera profile. Everything else are defaults.
In Photomatix, I rarely change those settings. I mostly play around with strength, microcontrast, luminosity and light smoothing. I do all colors and levels adjustment in CS4. You have a lots more control if you use detail enhancer.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.61/2663900578_5F00_a936e274ee.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.61/2660980794_5F00_8f3f772019.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.61/2449030198_5F00_d52b6b639d.jpg[/img]
I love HDR & here are some of my favourites. The images are from a small, very beautiful village in England.
I used the Canon 40D and 17-85 kit lens. all these HDR's are 3 images merged\tonemapped in photomatix. You can find me @ www.mauroof.com
cheers!
varok, here are my defaults for the Mk 2: blacks, 5, brightness +50, contrast +25, sharpness 25, radius 1.0, detail 25, noise reduction 25.
I want to make sure I'm doing things right.
maapu, you've got my vote! Those were done in the details tone mapping, but they sure look stunning!
Alan
My workflow is way too dependent on the shoot. Exterior, Landscape, Interior, etc... Honestly it would take me way too long to detail why I use certain apps for certain shots. In short though...
Raw through ACR and I "DO" make adjustments here. Export to 16 bit TIFFs and off to one of two tonemappers. If I am doing landscapes and want that extra pop in saturation then I use Photomatix. But for more photo real looking images I ONLY use Essentials HDR.
Essentials HDR is hands down the most realistic looking tonemapping app as of today. I couldn't do what I do without it. It takes me a fraction of the time in Essentials HDR than it does farting around with sliders in Photomatix to get a more realistic image.
And Essentials has a "Fast Toner" and a "Details" version. You can actually switch between the two on the fly. And you can view images "two up" either horizontally or vertically and make changes to each to toy with looks. This is a huge benefit to me because it really speeds up my workflow.
The Details Enhancer though is insane. It creates a micro contrast in a different way than photomatix and the resulting images out of Essentials HDR are wicked sharp, whereas I always need to sharpen up stuff out of Photomatix.
Once I export out a tonemapped image I then take it back to Photoshop for detail work and other tweaks.
Essentials HDR is here:
http://www.imagingluminary.com/
-Michael James
Michael, thanks for that link.
I'll guess spending money never ends with photography!
Okay....I'm going in! What's another 50 bucks, eh?
Alan
Ain't that the truth!!! There is always that "one more thing" needed.
Anyway... it is well worth the money. The best spent $50+ bucks IMO.
I really need to do a video screencapture of that to show why I love it. It is pretty easy to use too. Very different than photomatix in sliders. Of course, like usual... I'd like to frankenstein the two and take what I like in photomatix and add it to Essential HDR or vice versa!
Michael James
Could I slip-in a few of newbie questions?
I've seen a couple of references to something called "detail enhancer". Is this some feature within CS4 or a separate software utility?
I've also seen the term "ACR" and wondered what that acronym means?
What do you folks think about the "Topaz Labs" products ("Adjust", "DeNoise", etc) for this kind of creative work? I downloaded the trial of both Adjust and DeNoise and played with them on some of my photos in CS3. They kind of appear to so some of the same things that Photomatix does without having to use 3 or more photos/exposures.
http://www.topazlabs.com/
Rick
Here is one of my first attempt, although I don't know if it can be called HDR since its all done from one file. ACR, CS3, 40D, EF 17-40
http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/108038882/large.jpg
This is my very first attempt at an HDR image. No tripod, poor light, very very cold and no gloves. Using a 40d and the cheap and cheerful ef-s 17-85.
Does anyone have any tips on taking night shots with HDR?[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40/n517624388_5F00_1410472_5F00_886.jpg[/img]
Rick, ACR means Adobe Camera Raw.
The "details enhancer" is one of the ways a HDR image can be processed in what is called the tone mapping process. The details enhancer brings out more details, hence, the enhancer....
Al
A true HDR is multiple exposed shots. And the purists will correct me further, but I don't care. I'm not going for a PHD in this stuff. And even though technically does not fall in the definition of a tonemapped HDRI... it is STUNNING nonetheless. Love it!
Michael James
that post of mine was to rgravel
Thanks Michael. Nice of you to comment [:)]
Alan, thank-you for the explanations...I had a "duh moment" when you told me what ACR was...
Alex and rgravel...nice! I don't know how you arrived at the results, but they look good to me. Classic HDR or not, those are cool photos that I would be proud to create.
Rick
Alex, as for night shots, I'm still learning what is the proper way to do this. For me, what I've found to be helpful, is to do an auto exposure bracket but not one that is +/- 2 EV around a properly exposed image. HDR gurus recommend this, generally.
I do an AEB but have the properly exposed image, then -1 EV, and another one at -2 EV for the completed bracketed shots.
Depending on the lighting situation, you might find that a +/- 2 EV around the center point gives too long of exposure on the bright side, and give blown hightlights, despite the HDR's ability to tone it down. Plus, if there is movement, you run a greater risk of blurry HDR images, unless you're spending time to correct it.
I tried HDR with Christmas light displays. They're tough to do correctly, and I'm still trying different things with them.
Here's an example, using Photomatix, with 3 images bracketed as above.
Let's try that again. I blew the image size. Sorry!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.34/Hopkins.jpg[/img]
(Bryan, if you will, delete that first picture from the post. Thanks.) Bryan, never mind, Jeff informed me on how to edit my posts. I should pay more attention.
Thanks, Jeff.
Alan
Alan, thanks for the advice.
I'll give it a go with your method.
Still trying to find something more interesting than a pond to take pictures of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Alan, you can click on the "More" button and then select edit, and remove the photo without Bryan's help ;)
I've just been for a walk and I think I've almost got my technique sorted out.
Alan, this is a really beautiful image. very well done. If its HDR, its very natural looking as well.
John, yes, this is an HDR. I did it with Photomatix, using the "tone" process (the "details" gave too much color noise, which I find to be the case with night shots, in many examples I've tried).
I used auto exposure bracketing (0, -1, -2 EV), then did the blending to an HDR. Tone mapped it, then brought it into CS4, sharpened it with the USM, then a slight curves adjustment.
Sometimes, using the tone adjustment with Photomatix can saturate the colors a bit too much, and I'll have to back it down some. I could do the adjustment in Photomatix, but I usually don't, and bring the image into Photoshop to touch it up.
Alan