Photomatix & HDR
Savageduck
Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
reasonable results.
Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
Any suggestions?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Burt Johnson
Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
Paul Furman
The white balance is kinda funky for what appears to be a mid-day shot
with those magenta clouds and yellowy greens. I also might tone down the
saturation but that's personal preference.
In photoshop I did a curves adjustment layer (could be levels too) and
used the highlight eyedropper on the clouds and it returned to normal
looking with slightly blown clouds... then I set that layer to color
mode only to retain the hdr recovery on the clouds.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Savageduck
> Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
Thanks
>
> I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
> results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
> vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
> end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
> sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
I can see the problems you had with that shot due to the lighting.
The other thing that makes it tough & challenging, is having your lens
wide open, which screws up the DOF.
HDR definitely has its place in the digital darkroom for shooting in
difficult lighting situations, especially if you can restrain from over
processing.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> The white balance is kinda funky for what appears to be a mid-day shot
> with those magenta clouds and yellowy greens. I also might tone down
> the saturation but that's personal preference.
>
> In photoshop I did a curves adjustment layer (could be levels too) and
> used the highlight eyedropper on the clouds and it returned to normal
> looking with slightly blown clouds... then I set that layer to color
> mode only to retain the hdr recovery on the clouds.
That was the lighting issue when I took the shot around 11:00AM, I did
not have a graduated ND filter handy, and I could see it was going to
be tough to get a balanced exposure without blowing the clouds or
having the foreground lost in shadow, so I thought this would be a time
to go for the HDR experiment.
As far as the color balance & saturation goes, it got kind of weird in
Photomatix, so I didn't go much further with CS4. HDR is a new area
for me to play with and it is going to be something I think I am going
to be able to use when the circumstanes demand.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Williams
What you have now looks pretty fine to me.
If you screw with it much longer it will probably get worse
Bob Williams
wow
wrote:
>Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
>Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
Wow. And to think I was going to tell him "severely over-processed,
oversaturated, badly composed crap". But someone who is this lame with
editing tools didn't even deserve that much of a critique. I thought I'd
leave it to the beginners to tell him all that he did wrong. It's got a
really nasty red color-shift to it, the granite is supposed to be grays,
not flesh-tones. The clouds are supposed to be whites and grays, not pinks,
it's mid-day in that photo fer cripe's sake. What can one say about an
excruciatingly boring composition where the horizon runs through the
middle, the main focus dead-center, the very same mistakes that any
snapshooter does with their very first beginner's camera. It's also not
even leveled properly, off by nearly 2 whole painfully obvious degrees. He
can't even deduce something that simple let alone know how to get effective
results from HDR methods. (YO! Moron! The stratified bases of cumulous
clouds align themselves with horizontal thermoclines in the atmosphere. Can
you remember that next time? Do you know so very little about the natural
world? The one that you're destroying in your pathetically lame
editing-nightmare presentations of it?)
I don't think you could present that to some back-alley postcard company
even if they were painfully desperate for resources. Even if given to them
they'd probably be polite enough to take it but throw it in a scrapshot
drawer or waste-basket after he left. This is about as substandard from
simple stock-photo quality as one can get.
>
>I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
>results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
>vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
>end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
>sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
I won't bother going to look at your own photo. Not if you'd be proud to
have shit like the above in your own collection. It'd be a waste of time
after you having already proven what a poor eye you've got.
DRS
news:2009062723254543042-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
[...]
> HDR definitely has its place in the digital darkroom for shooting in
> difficult lighting situations, especially if you can restrain from
> over processing.
Ah, there's the rub.
Nicko
That could be a great photo, just for its composition. It's lovely.
But your post production is way overdone, IMO. This looks like the
background photo for one of those tacky animated transilluminated
Hamm's beer signs you used to see in bars around the Midwest. All it
lacks is some sort of flowing creek. I would love to see a more toned
down version of this, but as it is it's like thwacking the viewers'
eyeballs with a rolled-up carpet.
--
YOP...
Burt Johnson
> Wow. And to think I was going to tell him "severely over-processed,
> oversaturated, badly composed crap".
Gee, I am just so in awe of being in the presence of such a Grand Old
Jackass.
Oh well, one more for the kill file, since he clearly has little to
offer the discussion here.
Eric Stevens
The sky looks great.
The mountains look .... yeah?
But there is something wrong with the trees.
Eric Stevens
Ken
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062720315838165-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Interesting reading through the posts so far!!!
IMO the only thing that counts is if YOU like the end result.
I like it as it is your first dabble as I am looking at HDR as well.
I like HDR shots but I also like 'normal' shots and for me each have their
place.
It took me ages to start learning to use normal software and I have
downloaded a trial for Photomatix but my goodness there are so many options
that I am getting seriously seriously confused.
Good luck to you and keep on experimenting.
Ken
Charlie Choc
wrote:
>Any suggestions?
The WB looks a little off and it looks a little over saturated as well, not
uncommon with Photomatix if you increase the saturation. One quick fix for that
is to open it in CS4 and use the 'old style' hue/saturation preset and then
adjust the effect with the opacity slider until the colors look more normal.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
DRS
news:9dne45hcsiubn48pn...@4ax.com
I was about to say something very similar. Photomatix for some reason lends
itself to over-contrast/saturation, and as a consequence I dislike many HDR
images I've seen produced by it. The trees in the lower left particularly
remind me of old Technicolor movies, before they got colour technology
right. That said, the sky and hill-side look very natural to my eyes. On
balance I think it's a very good first try.
Savageduck
Thanks for the comment.
I think the problem is the initial lighting issue of having 3
differently lit areas with the foreground, mountains & clouds.
For the 3 exposures used metering was on the mountains, the clouds were
blown and the foreground trees were hidden in shade.
Each of the 3 exposures on their own would have been tweekable in ACR,
but ultimately nothing worth putting the effort into. This was one of
those cases where an ND Grad would have been handy, unfortunately I had
neglected to pack one, so it fell to the HDR experiment.
The tone mapping with Photomatix defaults produced the result above
other than resizing there is no other CS4 adjustment.
I a going to work on the tone mapping adjustments to try and improve
the overall balance.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Thanks Ken.
This is my first real HDR dabble, and it is all part of the Post
Processing learning curve.
I also prefer my photographs to appear "normal" I think HDR presents an
alternate PP option to create a result which is clearly "different"
from normal expectations and is worth looking at.
I resorted to the HDR experiment here as I had neglected to take an ND
Grad on this road trip (another lesson learned there!)
I was presented with a scene which demanded to be photographed, however
the lighting at that time presented me with a 3 exposured problem which
MM could not handle. So I thought it was an appropriate time to try
HDR, and took the three -1: 0; +1 exposures knowing I would have to
work on them later.
I know the tone mapped image which resulted from Photomatix processing
is "different" it is still an exercise in progress. The final result I
get to should (might) be different again, but nothing venture ......
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<charli...@gmail.com.invalid> said:
Thanks for the suggestion.
This is part of my HDR learning curve and a work in progress.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
DRS
[...]
> I was presented with a scene which demanded to be photographed,
> however the lighting at that time presented me with a 3 exposured
> problem which MM could not handle. So I thought it was an appropriate
> time to try HDR, and took the three -1: 0; +1 exposures knowing I
> would have to work on them later.
In that situation Photomatix recommend -2, 0, +2. Their preferred method is
5 images: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. I still don't like their default settings
though, and you really have to play around with them to redecude the
contrast and saturation to something reasonable.
Savageduck
Yup, that I know now, I didn't then, so I was working with what I had.
I have been working on improving the result using the suggestions I
have recieved.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
because I know in advance it's HDR, and so I am subconsciously looking
for reasons it looks at odds with other photos of similar content.
How dark was the mountain face in the 'normal' exposure?
--
John McWilliams
Savageduck
Alan Browne
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-2w.jpg
Has a 1960's postcard look to it. The whites in the clouds here are
often flat burned out.
Just shows that scenic photos should be shot in the morning or late
afternoon, not mid-day. (I know that photography was not your primary
reason for the trip).
Savageduck
Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
exposures resized only, no PP:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt about it now.
Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one minute
of editing by using curves? Are you trying to tell me that the dynamic
range of your camera's sensor is even less than that in all my P&S cameras?
Seems to be the case if you need HDR for a simple tourist's snapshot like
this one. You even have the sun to your back so the area of sky in your FOV
is already dark enough to be adequately captured by any camera on earth.
Still a boring composition, there's nothing you can ever do about that. And
it's still crooked. How much more "beginner" can you possibly get. At least
you're learning how to use simple tools like white-balance and not
oversaturate your images so much that it burns out everyone's cones in
their eyes. Again, simple beginner's mistakes unrelated to any HDR work.
Learn the basics of editing and composition before you try something more
complex like HDR. This is like watching someone trying to drive a Harley
with training-wheels on it and they keep falling over every 2 ft. It'd be
funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
tony cooper
about it now. <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one minute
>of editing by using curves?
I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing. It seems
to me that it involves taking a good photograph and making something
harsh and unappealing of it.
That said, I completely understand Savageduck's interest. Part of the
fun of photography is trying new techniques and pushing the envelope.
The process can be an enjoyable learning experience even if the
results are not something better than the original.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter
news:2009062809054597157-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
I would like somewhere in between.
The second try looks color balanced to me, but under saturated with too
little contrast on the mountain and the clouds just over the mountain look
washed out to me.
If you used layers, try some selective masking.
--
Peter
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
Yup. Timing, timing, timing.
As far as photography not being the primary reason for the trip goes
you are probably more right than wrong. It was a part of the trip.
I was last in Yosemite over 10 years ago. My wife had been ill and that
precluded any lengthy road trips over the last 10 or so years, we had
other travels, but it was limited to some cruises and some trips back
East.
She died 18 months ago and I retired at the end of February, so it was
time for me to start revisiting some of those places.
Zion NP, Kings Canyon-Sequoia NP, Glacier NP, Yellowstone NP, Lake
Louise, more Alaska & more BC next.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Robert Spanjaard
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:43:57 -0500, Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt
> about it now. <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>>have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one
>>minute of editing by using curves?
>
> I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing.
How about these?
http://www.arumes.com/photo/fullsize/CRW_2840.jpg
http://www.arumes.com/photo/fullsize/CRW_3356.jpg
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Paul Furman
I tried overlaying those in PS and used a soft-edged 200-pixel eraser
for a manual graduated neutral density effect and it was pretty easy for
this particular shot. The dark sky frame was only used for a slight
translucent overlay on the clouds, the foreground looks fine in the
overexposed shot.
Then I overlaid your new tonemapped version & tried luminosity & color
mode... I prefer the manual version. It took some fiddling to get them
to align, set mode to difference & free transform using arrow keys to
nudge & a little rotating too.
Here's the layered photoshop file: http://edgehill.net/1/temp/1119w.psd
-hdr on the top layer, turned off
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Savageduck
Very nice.
As I said, I am just starting out on the climb up this learning curve,
and I will probably find more suitable subjects for HDR in the future.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Thanks for the effort.
Not bad at all.
As I was saying this is all an exercise in solving problem exposures at
the wrong time of day using HDR (when a ND Grad might have been better)
and I (and I hope some others) can only learn from it.
Who cares about the critics if they can't add something constructive
and useful to the debate.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Burt Johnson
<noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
> >Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
> >
> >I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
> >tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
> >http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>
> Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer
Now tell us again why you are such a lame excuse for a human being?
Oh well, one more for the killfile...
Burt Johnson
>> > Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
> > exposures resized only, no PP:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
>
> I tried overlaying those in PS and used a soft-edged 200-pixel eraser
> for a manual graduated neutral density effect and it was pretty easy for
> this particular shot. The dark sky frame was only used for a slight
> translucent overlay on the clouds, the foreground looks fine in the
> overexposed shot.
>
> Then I overlaid your new tonemapped version & tried luminosity & color
> mode... I prefer the manual version. It took some fiddling to get them
> to align, set mode to difference & free transform using arrow keys to
> nudge & a little rotating too.
> Here's the layered photoshop file: http://edgehill.net/1/temp/1119w.psd
> -hdr on the top layer, turned off
Rather nicely done. I think I agree that I prefer your manual result
over the Photomatrix one.
As for the aligning though, Photoshop can do that automatically for you.
Did it not succeed here for some reason?
BobS
You are not...
Charles E Hardwidge
news:2009062810251895335-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-06-28 10:16:14 -0700, Robert Spanjaard <spam...@arumes.com> said:
>
> As I said, I am just starting out on the climb up this learning curve, and
> I will probably find more suitable subjects for HDR in the future.
Bad luck might have made the picture ghastly but I've seen a more compelling
HDR photos that were helped by having good luck behind them. It's a credit
to you that you saw an opportunity and gave it a shake. The conversation was
interesting and there's always next time.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
D-Mac
> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
> reasonable results.
>
> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
According to clients what looks right is usually right ... HDR is not
always the best method to level out dynamic range. Examples like the one
you posted are not really looking right are they?
Most of us search for something different in the way of technique in
order to establish our own 'signature look'. HDR offers an ability to
grossly over produce effects in a search for individuality and in the
process destroy what we want to enjoy.
I think if it doesn't look right, it isn't right. I've been using image
enhancing software for many years. Some I make portraits with, others I
use to make landscapes with. Here is a portrait example:
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/tutorials/in-camera-hdr.htm Hardly
an example of HDR but I used Lucisart to obtain it.
Using software to blend images is OK I guess but there are other ways.
The lower photo in this pair is done entirely in-camera whilst the top
shot is blended from 3 images. Which one do you prefer?
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/tutorials/HDR-V-WDR.htm
My favourite enhancement software is produced by "Lucis". It enhances
detail and repairs some images but it's real benefit is in tone mapping
to produce HDR like results.
There are 2 different programs. One is version 3:
http://www.lucisart.com/lucisart-3-effects-features.htm
and the other is the pro version 6:
http://www.lucispro.com/lucis-artistic/lucis-pro-home-pages/sublime.htm
Unfortunately for those looking for "free" software, this is not it. The
basic version 3 is not exactly cheap and you have to pay serious money
for the Pro version. I fought with myself for many weeks before making
the decision to buy it. Having done that, I don't regret it but it's not
for everyone.
--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!
ransley
> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
> reasonable results.
>
> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Is Photomatrix the best of these HDR programs, is there a difference
betweeen them in final results ?
bugbear
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:43:57 -0500, Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt
> about it now. <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>> have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one minute
>> of editing by using curves?
>
> I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing. It seems
> to me that it involves taking a good photograph and making something
> harsh and unappealing of it.
It's quite possible you have, but didn't know it was HDR - I'm assuming
what you don't like is the super-saturated colours and
too-contrasty skies.
Neither of these is compulsory.
HDR techniques *can* be used to simply deal with HDR scenes, beyond
the DR of the camera's sensor (the archetypal sunlit window in a church problem)
HDR techniques can also be used to reduce colour quantisation, by (effectively)
moving the images DR w.r.t the sensors DR.
For example, if a "centred" exposure is from 10-90 (on a 0-100 bit sensor) one
could use a much longer exposure (blowing the high end) to stretch out the
range of sample points in the shadows, this allowing better shadow detail.
BugBear
tony cooper
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:43:57 -0500, Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt
>> about it now. <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>>> have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one minute
>>> of editing by using curves?
>>
>> I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing. It seems
>> to me that it involves taking a good photograph and making something
>> harsh and unappealing of it.
>
>It's quite possible you have, but didn't know it was HDR - I'm assuming
>what you don't like is the super-saturated colours and
>too-contrasty skies.
>
>Neither of these is compulsory.
The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
"art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
appealing to others.
Savageduck
As far as best goes, there are several which go about blending &
aligning multiple exposures only, and there are those which do that and
add tonemapping as an option. There are benefits to both techniques for
different results.
As far as final results with HDR go, there are too many factors
involved, and I suspect there will be different results attained with
different SW, or it might be awkward to get identical results with
different SW.
Each makes it own claims and has its supporters. Since I have tested
Photomatix, Dynamic-Photo HDR, and some of the other free offerings, I
found Photomatix has an interface and workflow I am comfortable with
and chose to sped my money with them.
CS4 does a pretty good job of blending multiple exposures, but leaves
much to be desired as far as tonemapping goes.
So for now I am going to put my learning effort into doing the best I
can with what I have, CS4 + Photomatix. If something else comes along I
will try it.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Wayne R.
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>reasonable results.
>
>Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>
>Any suggestions?
To me it looks like it was shot 50 years ago and put in a magazine -
it's got something about it but dang if I know what. Maybe it's the
orange bark and yellow trees...
Savageduck
> -----------<Le Snip>-----------------------
> The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
> "art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
The horror! The horror!
>
> That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
> opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
> appealing to others.
Ken posted this link http://www.pbase.com/moorlands which gives me hope
that some subtle results are achievable with HDR processing.
What I am learning is, a fair degree of planning is needed to get
decent results with HDR. Trying to save an image or capture in
difficult light needs good preparation and I have seen examples which
led me to believe it is possible to get pleasing results.
The image I used for my initiation into HDR was not well planned as
there were several factors I was ignorant of when I made the decission
to try. I took the multiple exposures knowing this was going to be a
learning project for me, and not knowing where it was going to lead, or
the results I would get.
I just used -1;0;+1 for the 3 exposures as I knew the concept and the
ability of my D300. I did not know I should have minimally been using a
-2 to +2 range with a minimum of 3 exposures, or as many as 9.
Anyway I find the concept interesting, and I know pleasing results are
achievable (please let them be far removed from your Kincade analogy!!)
:-)
...and I need all sorts of things to keep me out of bars with this
retirement deal that I am just getting used to.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
dmoney
I agree,HDR is great if you want to make portraits that look aggesive
or angry or scenery that always looks as if a storm is coming or
leaving
Savageduck
Well, I have been working on it, and have managed to get a better
balance. It was not taken in ideal lighting and was an experimental
first attempt at HDR.
With a little coaching, advice and tweeking this is where I got to;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HRD-1119-2021_tmD1w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
bugbear
> The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
> "art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
>
> That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
> opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
> appealing to others.
Well, here's a photo I took to illustrate the lighting
I used to photograph some saw teeth (one of my other hobbies
involves hand tools).
http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/saw_how_top_close.jpg
I make no claims for "Art" in this photo, since its purpose
was purely illustrative.
However, I found HDR techniques by far the most convenient way
to capture it.
And no unnatural colours (depending on your opinion
of my room's wallpaper :-)
BugBear
Too Funny!
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-29 06:56:03 -0700, Wayne R. <wruf...@KomKast.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>>
>>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>>> reasonable results.
>>>
>>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> To me it looks like it was shot 50 years ago and put in a magazine -
>> it's got something about it but dang if I know what. Maybe it's the
>> orange bark and yellow trees...
>
>Well, I have been working on it, and have managed to get a better
>balance. It was not taken in ideal lighting
Yeah, that nasty ol' midday sunlight causes all sorts of huge color shifts
like that. I regularly use a midday-sunlight filter at all times to try to
prevent it. You should get one! LOL!
Did you mention the stone in your shoe yet. That your girdle was too tight?
Forgot your glasses? Or how about ... you don't even know how to use a
camera yet. That, at least, will be believable.
>and was an experimental
>first attempt at HDR.
SUUUUUURE it was. LOL!
bugbear
>
> Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
> exposures resized only, no PP:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
Hmm; Im not really seeing any major difficulties in that
last exposure, but just to show willing I put the images
through hugin, with default settings throughout.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/hugin.jpg
BugBear
Savageduck
Not bad considering you did not have the raw files. Those jpegs were
presented to demonstrate what I had done, and for others to see what
they might be able to do (with the limitation of the jpegs.)
...but the your result still did not provide the shadow recovery to the
point of view of my naked eye at the location.
It was one of those, "you had to be there" sort of scenes. It was 11:00
AM lighting.
The scene presented to my eye at the time did not have shadows as deep
as those in any of the 3 exposures. I knew the clouds would be blown if
I exposed to reveal the shadow detail I was actually seeing.
Matrix metering was not able to get to an acceptable solution, so
center weight was used at center of the image.
I thought this to be an appropriate time to try HDR and made that
choice, just as I made the choice to put my HDR naivety out here so I
could learn.
Only knowing the principles of HDR and not having used it before, I was
ignorant of some of what I should have done in planning the shot. Now I
know.
All in all though this has been an interesting exercise and I have
learned a lot
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
My comments are in no way a reflection on your efforts. I'm an
inveterate experimenter in Photoshop. I completely understand the
motivation to learn and master any type of technique.
I'll try things like post-processing in high key just to play around.
I may not like the results, but the trip is interesting.
I've never been one to criticize styles that I don't particularly care
for. It's kinda like anchovies on pizza: not for me, but I recognize
that my tastes are not universal.
tony cooper
If that's HDR, it's minimalist enough to not be glaringly so. I am
much more impressed by the Rube Goldberg copy stand. I've put
together some similar contraptions for straight-down photography of
objects.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:2009062720315838165-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
> reasonable results.
>
> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>
> Any suggestions?
This article on low-noise photography might help:
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Peter
news:2009062907240450878-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
To me it looks less like an HDR than the prior ones. I like the way the
shadows of the clouds are reflected in the trees. Keep the good work coming.
--
Peter
Burt Johnson
> My favourite enhancement software is produced by "Lucis". It enhances
> detail and repairs some images but it's real benefit is in tone mapping
> to produce HDR like results.
>
> There are 2 different programs. One is version 3:
> http://www.lucisart.com/lucisart-3-effects-features.htm
>
> and the other is the pro version 6:
> http://www.lucispro.com/lucis-artistic/lucis-pro-home-pages/sublime.htm
As you have said, it depends on what you happen to like. To me, those
images on the 'features' link look overprocessed. I can see where some
may like them, but I reject them if they showed up that way in my own
workflow.
The gallery shows other photographers who use Lucisarts, and some of
those images are pretty nice.
PhotoMatrix seems to be the preferred HDR / tonemapping software from
pretty much every professional I have talked to (among those that don't
dismiss HDR out of hand anyway).
In looking over the site, I can't see any reason to move away from
Photomatrix. Is there anything you can point to me that will make say
"Wow! I gotta switch!" ?
Peter
news:200906290633308930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
You have just defined "best"
I would thank that the best software is a relative term. What is best for
you, may or may not be best for me.
--
Peter
Some folks hate artichokes & spinach.
Last week we had a great meal including saut�ed artichokes.
Wayne R.
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>On 2009-06-29 06:56:03 -0700, Wayne R. <wruf...@KomKast.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>>
>>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>>> reasonable results.
>>>
>>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> To me it looks like it was shot 50 years ago and put in a magazine -
>> it's got something about it but dang if I know what. Maybe it's the
>> orange bark and yellow trees...
>
>Well, I have been working on it, and have managed to get a better
>balance. It was not taken in ideal lighting and was an experimental
>first attempt at HDR.
>With a little coaching, advice and tweeking this is where I got to;
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HRD-1119-2021_tmD1w.jpg
I like this one better too. Not being a westerner, though, I never
feel like my eyes are seeing mountains correctly in the first place,
the light's so different than where the air's thicker and has more
water in it.
Seriously, some of those old WWII color shots from Austria & Germany
or the photos in old Life (or Look - there was a Look, right?)
magazines would fit your first try's feel, I think.
BobS
"Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt about it now."
news:j16f45p721kjirj00...@4ax.com...
Wow......what an ass.
What part of "You're not welcome here" did you not understand?
l v
I too have yet to commit to HDR as you can tell by the fact that I am
still using the trial version of Photomatix Pro 3.1.3. I too would like
to know how some of those HRD images are processed. However, I
typically like the normal looking HDR images. The ones that I don't
know are HDR'd.
What I've been doing is to use the tool I know best. I use Photomatix
for what it does best and Photoshop CS3 for what it does best.
In Photomatix, I primarly have been useing Light Smoothing's #4 or #5
setting (from the left). Strength is somewhere in the 60-90 range.
I'll play with the Smooth Settings a bit if needed. The remainder of
Photomatix's settings are best left to your image editor. Mine is Adobe
RAW and Photoshop CS3.
For example, I know very well how to tone down the blown highlights in
Adobe RAW and Photoshop. Same with color saturation and Tone settings
(curves), Color Settings (white balance), etc.
My version is as follows.
http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz354/veatchla/1121w_19w_20wcopy.jpg
It's not great, but probably close to what you saw when you were there.
--
Len
Annika1980
>
> There are 2 different programs. One is version 3:http://www.lucisart.com/lucisart-3-effects-features.htm
>
> and the other is the pro version 6:http://www.lucispro.com/lucis-artistic/lucis-pro-home-pages/sublime.htm
>
> Unfortunately for those looking for "free" software, this is not it. The
> basic version 3 is not exactly cheap and you have to pay serious money
> for the Pro version. I fought with myself for many weeks before making
> the decision to buy it. Having done that, I don't regret it but it's not
> for everyone.
It's simply a plug-in for people who can't figure out how to use
Photoshop.
Folks like yourself.
Savageduck
Well as you can see things were problematic with the light, and it has
all been a good exercise. Better planning next time.
Here is what I came up with for my final tweek:
Vance
contrast and saturation for a 'natural' look. For some images that
can be very okay, but it's not really that good for landscapes and
other images where people have a certain expectation of the colors and
tonalities based on their own experience. However, if you like the
effect and it's what you are going for, go for it.
Getting a natural look out of HDR is not easy, or simple. Neither PS,
nor Photomatrix, will give you much more than a base that you then
have to work up controlling contrast and saturation in something like
PS. Comments like 'Photomatrix gives me ...' and 'Photoshop
produces ...' point out part of the problem with many HDR images,
IMHO, which is letting the software do the work and accepting what it
does as what can be done.
I am a long way from being a HDR expert, but I have gotten to the
point where I can take what PS or Photomatrix can give me as a
starting point and come up with something that doesn't scream HDR.
These are a few of my more recent images using HDR as I learn more.
The dynamic range of the images all equal, or exceed, 11 stops and had
to be aggressively post processed using a lot of local adjustments
that you have to experiment with to discover what adjusments will
bring the image into line. For example, all of the images used areas
copied to another layer, which was equalized in some fashion, and then
blended back. Sometimes those layers had attached adjustment curves,
or were inverted after desaturation and then blended back using one of
the blend modes. The trouble is that I haven't found a real set of
'rules' about what to do. Things that have worked well on one image
that you would think would work well on another, don't always perform
that way.
HDR is a lot of fun, can be very useful and can certainly produce some
images with a 'WOW!' factor.
Vance
On Jun 27, 8:31 pm, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
> reasonable results.
>
> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>
Ken
Ken
"Vance" <Vance...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54ed096a-b4c8-4715...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I'm jealous!
>
>Vance
>
>On Jun 27, 8:31�pm, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
Eric Stevens
bugbear
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:43:53 +0100, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
>>> "art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
>>>
>>> That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
>>> opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
>>> appealing to others.
>> Well, here's a photo I took to illustrate the lighting
>> I used to photograph some saw teeth (one of my other hobbies
>> involves hand tools).
>>
>> http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/saw_how_top_close.jpg
>>
>> I make no claims for "Art" in this photo, since its purpose
>> was purely illustrative.
>>
>> However, I found HDR techniques by far the most convenient way
>> to capture it.
>>
>> And no unnatural colours (depending on your opinion
>> of my room's wallpaper :-)
>>
>> BugBear
>
> If that's HDR, it's minimalist enough to not be glaringly so.
But it's not - the DR in the scene is EXTREME, from shadow to light bulb;
but the colours in the final image aren't weird. HDR is NOT about saturated colours, that appears
to be a quirk of PhotoMatix (and perhaps the people who use it)
> I am
> much more impressed by the Rube Goldberg copy stand.
Heath-Robinson, please ;-)
Wayne R.
<annik...@aol.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>Folks like yourself.
Unnecessary.
Wayne R.
>Getting a natural look out of HDR is not easy, or simple. Neither PS,
>nor Photomatrix, will give you much more than a base that you then
>have to work up controlling contrast and saturation in something like
>PS. Comments like 'Photomatrix gives me ...' and 'Photoshop
>produces ...' point out part of the problem with many HDR images,
>IMHO, which is letting the software do the work and accepting what it
>does as what can be done.
These, to me, exemplify expertise in HDR work - something ideal, right
from your mind's eye. It's only with thought that it's clear HDR is
the central tool.
Just like movies where CGI is so sophisticated that you're not even
aware it's there.
In-your-face has its place too, but this subtlety is more appealing to
me.
Annika1980
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
>
> >Folks like yourself.
>
> Unnecessary.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
tony cooper
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
Heath-Robinson drew mostly in black-and-white.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Heath_Robinson_WWI.png
John Navas
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
<2009062907240450878-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
To me the first image had a bit of an over-processed look to it, but
I prefer it to the second image, which looks a bit dull and dingy.
I'd personally shoot for something in the middle, adjusting different
parts of the image (sky, mountains, trees) differently.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Charles E Hardwidge
news:uksj45d91riam0vh5...@4ax.com...
I've been a long-time fan of models over CGI but, I must admit, the high
quality and more subtle work that's come out over the past few years is
impressive.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Eric Stevens
The best example I can think of was Gollum, in the Lord of the Rings.
Eric Stevens
Charles E Hardwidge
news:rv3l459hk7qle281u...@4ax.com...
That was certainly an advance in character rendering and animation but I was
thinking more of something like, say, Gladiator or 2001: A Space Odyssey
versus Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
Personally, I prefer the 1978 animated version of LotR. While this is
getting massively orthogonal to the topic, the Japanese pioneered use of
camera style effects in animation such as depth of field and perspective.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Peter
news:54ed096a-b4c8-4715...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Just a question. I notice in photo three on of the buildings has a white
outline around it. I have had similar issues, though usually the outlines
are black.. There must be a way to avoid this outlining?
--
Peter
Vance
> "Vance" <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[Snipped]
> HDR is a lot of fun, can be very useful and can certainly produce some
> images with a 'WOW!' factor.
>
> Just a question. I notice in photo three on of the buildings has a white
> outline around it. I have had similar issues, though usually the outlines
> are black.. There must be a way to avoid this outlining?
>
> --
> Peter
If you're refering to the the tall buildings to the right of the
image, it's probably a combination of poor masking on my part and the
fact that the buildings are outlined in lights. Anything else is
probably just poor masking. I do a lot of masking because I work
various areas separately using not only the selected area, but often a
luminosity mask within the area that controls any adjustments I am
making based on the tones in the image area I am working.
I don't know how you would totally avoid the outlining, or haloing,
because of what HDR does in compressing the tonal range. It's an
artifact of the processing. Where it's noticeable, I usually paint it
in and, depending on the area (broad, smooth tones are the easiest),
blend with a little blurring. I have been experimenting with doing a
selection on edges a little wider than normal and working with
correcting those areas, then blending back in. I'm still working on
that and can't say it is always successful. It's iffy.
I find working with no tone curve applied and a somewhat desaturated
image helps a lot. I then bring the final image up to snuff re
contrast and saturation at the end. Another thing I am experimenting
with is not exposing based on some fixed bracketing, but exposing each
frame so that it contibutes to the final look I want. All of this is
still experimental and I can't say it's worth doing, yet.
Vance
Vance
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >As others have commented, the image is a little too much regarding
> >contrast and saturation for a 'natural' look. For some images that
> >can be very okay, but it's not really that good for landscapes and
> >other images where people have a certain expectation of the colors and
> >tonalities based on their own experience. However, if you like the
> >effect and it's what you are going for, go for it.
>
> >Getting a natural look out of HDR is not easy, or simple. Neither PS,
> >nor Photomatrix, will give you much more than a base that you then
> >have to work up controlling contrast and saturation in something like
> >PS. Comments like 'Photomatrix gives me ...' and 'Photoshop
> >produces ...' point out part of the problem with many HDR images,
> >IMHO, which is letting the software do the work and accepting what it
> >does as what can be done.
>
> >I am a long way from being a HDR expert, but I have gotten to the
> >point where I can take what PS or Photomatrix can give me as a
> >starting point and come up with something that doesn't scream HDR.
> >These are a few of my more recent images using HDR as I learn more.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not doing anything that you
couldn't do. I have a professional interest in seeing what HDR can
offer so I can offer it to potential customers, which goes a way
towards explains why I would spend the time futzing with it. Then,
again, I can't help but go 'What if I ...' There are a lot of fun
things I think you can do with HDR, but I think you have to find out
about some of them by just getting in there and experimenting. Right
now, HDR is still an emerging technique and I think that sometime in
the future there will be tutorials on really using it and how
different things can be done in post to achieve specific results, but
they aren't out there yet.
Vance
Vance
Vance
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com>
I really appreciate the compliment, but, as I said, I am nowhere near
an expert. I have seen some HDR work by European photographers that I
look at, know what they must have done, but can't for the life of me
figure out how they did it. I'm still in the learning, experimenting
phase.
Still, thanks for the compliment.
Vance
Paul Furman
> Peter wrote:
>>
>> HDR is a lot of fun, can be very useful and can certainly produce some
>> images with a 'WOW!' factor.
>>
>> Just a question. I notice in photo three on of the buildings has a white
>> outline around it. I have had similar issues, though usually the outlines
>> are black.. There must be a way to avoid this outlining?
>
> image, it's probably a combination of poor masking on my part and the
> fact that the buildings are outlined in lights.
Christmas lights on the Embarcadero Center.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/HDR?authkey=Gv1sRgCLC8tZO1lp3G3wE#slideshow/5352986755994488866
really nice shot IMO
> Anything else is
> probably just poor masking. I do a lot of masking because I work
> various areas separately using not only the selected area, but often a
> luminosity mask within the area that controls any adjustments I am
> making based on the tones in the image area I am working.
>
> I don't know how you would totally avoid the outlining, or haloing,
My approach has been to use course soft-edged masks more akin to a
graduated neutral density filter. It's amazing what you can get away
with if the radius is big enough. I got turned off to hdr after not much
experimenting because of the halo effects. The halos I saw were not like
narrow sharpening halos but more like a 50-pixel glow in the sky
around the edge of buildings & trees. I found, if I mask into the
building it works out well - too obvious to have the mask/halo in the sky.
Lightroom has highlight recovery & fill sliders which I use often but
must remember to keep an eye on the results, some conditions will make
hideous halo effects. A safe formula in many cases is drop the exposure,
add fill light & increase contrast. Highlight recovery often fails but
sometimes is fine. LR has a paintbrush adjustment also so you can paint
an area and adjust all those settings for that region.
> because of what HDR does in compressing the tonal range. It's an
> artifact of the processing. Where it's noticeable, I usually paint it
> in and, depending on the area (broad, smooth tones are the easiest),
> blend with a little blurring. I have been experimenting with doing a
> selection on edges a little wider than normal and working with
> correcting those areas, then blending back in. I'm still working on
> that and can't say it is always successful. It's iffy.
>
> I find working with no tone curve applied and a somewhat desaturated
> image helps a lot. I then bring the final image up to snuff re
> contrast and saturation at the end. Another thing I am experimenting
> with is not exposing based on some fixed bracketing, but exposing each
> frame so that it contibutes to the final look I want. All of this is
> still experimental and I can't say it's worth doing, yet.
>
> Vance
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Vance
> Vance wrote:
> > Peter wrote:
>
> >> HDR is a lot of fun, can be very useful and can certainly produce some
> >> images with a 'WOW!' factor.
>
> >> Just a question. I notice in photo three on of the buildings has a white
> >> outline around it. I have had similar issues, though usually the outlines
> >> are black.. There must be a way to avoid this outlining?
>
> > If you're refering to the the tall buildings to the right of the
> > image, it's probably a combination of poor masking on my part and the
> > fact that the buildings are outlined in lights.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I use CS4 Extended and it has the same facilities. One thing I do is
pre-process the images that are going into the HDR composite using the
same brush tool that you mentioned to adjust exposure, contrast,
saturation, etc., until the tonal range I am interested in from that
frame is good. I find that the results are better than if I just
throw the raw images into the mix and go for it.
Something I am finding extremely useful are luminosity masks.
Basically, they are gray scale images that you can apply the whole
range of adjustments to and then put into an adjustment layer mask.
The level of gray modifies the amount of effect that the adjusment
layer can apply. Where it's black, there is no effect applied and
where it's white the whole effect is applied. Since you can also
invert the mask, it's extremely flexible and you can make even finer
adjustments by painting with gray tones on the mask.
Vance
Peter
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have been playing with the problem and
you have given us some direction.
--
Peter
Paul Furman
That sounds good, something I've just barely explored. I suspect that's
the approach that the hdr programs take which causes halos though I can
see how taking control of the mask with the option to paint out problem
areas makes a lot of sense!
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Vance
I've got some potentially intersting things to try with HDR. We live
in the same town, so you're probably familiar with Lands End and that
tunnel that goes through the rocks to the right of the Sutro Bath
ruins. Halfway through it is a fissure that leads out to the ocean.
I think I'm going to try getting in there at low tide and shoot as the
tide comes in using flash. The idea is that the outside exposure will
remain the same since the flash won't add to it and I can light the
inside of the fissure by increasing the flash power to get my HDR
image of the inside. I can throw some serious light if I need to. I
am hoping that the inside of the fissure will take on a surreal look
in contrast to the very normal looking outside.
Remember, you heard of doing it here first! If it turns out crappy,
someone else must have done it!
By the way, speaking of living in the same town, what do you think of
the HDR of our City Hall? After all, you've seen it up close and
personal. Of course, you may not have seen it at night. There is
something not quite successful with the composition, I think, but I am
not sure what it is. I may try a stitched panorama shot and move
closer to the building, but capturing something that covers a whole
city block is problematical no matter what I do. Any, tell me what
you think.
Vance
Vance
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> Seriously, some of those old WWII color shots from Austria & Germany
> or the photos in old Life (or Look - there was a Look, right?)
> magazines would fit your first try's feel, I think.
Hello, Wayne:
There was, indeed, a "Look" rag, once upon a time.
Wikipedia - Look (American magazine)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_(American_magazine)>
"Look was a bi-weekly, general-interest magazine published in Des Moines,
Iowa from 1937 to 1971, with more of an emphasis on photographs than
articles. A large-size magazine of 11 by 14 inches, it was generally
considered the also-ran to Life magazine, which began publication only
months earlier and ended in 1972."
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
--
Paintings pain and pun
<http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>