HDR programs
ransley
have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.
Don Stauffer
It is a way to go for CERTAIN situations, not every shot. It is a way
to effectively reduce contrast for high dynamic range subjects so that
you keep both highlights and shadows. But you do not need to do that
in, for instance, low key shots with a narrow range to start with.
Many of the popular photo editing programs now include HDR as a built-in
feature.
You must have a camera that shoots RAW, and good sized memory cards
since RAW images are very large.
Also, you MUST use a tripod for HDR shots.
Savageduck
A tripod is useful for HDR, but not an absolute must.
With a DSLR such as a D300/D700/D3 you can set up the exposure
bracketing, use continuous high speed and take 3-5 shots in around
0.5sec.
Any movement off the point of focus during that 0.5sec is easily
compensated for in software.
Having said that a tripod would be preferred, it is just good to know
you would not be completely denied HDR, if needed, in its absence.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John Navas
wrote in <4a3a49cb$0$89389$815e...@news.qwest.net>:
>ransley wrote:
>> At Dp review where people submit photos for contest, I see many people
>> have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
>> programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
>> tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.
>
>It is a way to go for CERTAIN situations, not every shot. It is a way
>to effectively reduce contrast for high dynamic range subjects so that
>you keep both highlights and shadows. But you do not need to do that
>in, for instance, low key shots with a narrow range to start with.
>
>Many of the popular photo editing programs now include HDR as a built-in
>feature.
Photoshop Elements (recommended) can do this with a plug-in:
<http://www.hdrsoft.com/> (Photomatix Basic 1.2 is free)
<http://www.fredmiranda.com/DRI/> ($15)
>You must have a camera that shoots RAW, and good sized memory cards
>since RAW images are very large.
HDR can also be made from out-of-camera JPEG.
>Also, you MUST use a tripod for HDR shots.
A tripod is helpful, but not essential.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
John Navas
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
<2009061807574144303-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
Good suggestion that works in better compact digital cameras as well --
my FZ28 will auto bracket -1, 0, +1 EV in a burst for HDR.
Charlie Choc
>A tripod is useful for HDR, but not an absolute must.
>With a DSLR such as a D300/D700/D3 you can set up the exposure
>bracketing, use continuous high speed and take 3-5 shots in around
>0.5sec.
My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures and, while Photomatix will
align features to remove camera movement between shots, it won't remove camera
blur in the single images. So yeah, a tripod isn't an absolute must for HDR, but
I'd say it's more than just useful.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
John Navas
<charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
<e4qk35hfv7ccc7smg...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:57:41 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>wrote:
>
>>A tripod is useful for HDR, but not an absolute must.
>>With a DSLR such as a D300/D700/D3 you can set up the exposure
>>bracketing, use continuous high speed and take 3-5 shots in around
>>0.5sec.
>
>My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
>multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
>
>A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ...
Why?
Charlie Choc
wrote:
Well, when I'm trying to get detail out of the shadows in a cave, building, etc.
and also want to get good depth of field is one reason the exposure is long. If
I want to get a silky look on the water in a stream or waterfall is another.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
John Navas
<charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
<a4rk359n9af2qs95a...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:31:05 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:17:27 -0400, Charlie Choc
>><charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
>>>multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
>>>
>>>A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ...
>>
>>Why?
>
>Well, when I'm trying to get detail out of the shadows in a cave, building, etc.
With a D200 why not high ISO?
>and also want to get good depth of field is one reason the exposure is long.
Fair enough, but is that really an issue when shooting buildings or even
a cave?
>If
>I want to get a silky look on the water in a stream or waterfall is another.
I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.
Charlie Choc
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:39:30 -0400, Charlie Choc
><charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
><a4rk359n9af2qs95a...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:31:05 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:17:27 -0400, Charlie Choc
>>><charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>
>>>>My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
>>>>multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ...
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Well, when I'm trying to get detail out of the shadows in a cave, building, etc.
>
>With a D200 why not high ISO?
Too noisy. The D200 is not as good at high ISO as the D300 or D700.
>
>>and also want to get good depth of field is one reason the exposure is long.
>
>Fair enough, but is that really an issue when shooting buildings or even
>a cave?
For me it is. I often like to have an object (doorway or rock formation, etc) in
the foreground and yet have the entire scene in focus. I don't always have room
to get back far enough to use a telephoto and a smaller aperture.
>
>>If
>>I want to get a silky look on the water in a stream or waterfall is another.
>
>I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.
I generally use a tripod if I'm going to have exposures longer than 1/60 with a
non VR lens. For moving water I've had exposures as long as 10-15 seconds in
heavily forested areas.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
John Navas
<charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
<b2sk35td5on289hh0...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:48:59 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>>With a D200 why not high ISO?
>
>Too noisy. The D200 is not as good at high ISO as the D300 or D700.
Have you tried it? One of the benefits of HDR is noise reduction.
>>I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.
>
>I generally use a tripod if I'm going to have exposures longer than 1/60 with a
>non VR lens. For moving water I've had exposures as long as 10-15 seconds in
>heavily forested areas.
Fair enough, but I personally don't like the artificial look of very
long exposures of flowing water.
Charlie Choc
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:01:29 -0400, Charlie Choc
><charli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
><b2sk35td5on289hh0...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:48:59 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>With a D200 why not high ISO?
>>
>>Too noisy. The D200 is not as good at high ISO as the D300 or D700.
>
>Have you tried it? One of the benefits of HDR is noise reduction.
Yes, and I just wasn't happy with the results. I only tried it when I didn't
have a tripod with me, though. If I'd had a tripod I would have used it instead.
>
>>>I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.
>>
>>I generally use a tripod if I'm going to have exposures longer than 1/60 with a
>>non VR lens. For moving water I've had exposures as long as 10-15 seconds in
>>heavily forested areas.
>
>Fair enough, but I personally don't like the artificial look of very
>long exposures of flowing water.
It depends on the mood I'm trying to create. If I want to show the 'energy' in
the water I use as fast a shutter as I can get away with, if I want more focus
on rocks or other features I tend to use slower shutter speeds to blur the
details in the water.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
daveFaktor
From what I've read of some of the other replies, few people actually
have a handle on the process of widening the dynamic range of a photograph.
With one technique of mine, you only need a tripod if you intend to make
long exposures - same as with every day shots. You do need a RAW or DNG
file to start with.
The process is called WDR or wide dynamic range imaging. You Make 3
(tiff for preference)copies of the RAW file and create a tone mapped
image from it.
Make one at 2 stops under exposed, one at 2 stops over and one in the
middle. Blend them with any program that handles blending and use them
to build your tone map - the start of a good WDR picture.
Here's a couple of quick and dirty examples of HDR and WDR.
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/tutorials/HDR-V-WDR.htm
Charlie Choc
> From what I've read of some of the other replies, few people actually
>have a handle on the process of widening the dynamic range of a photograph.
>
>With one technique of mine, you only need a tripod if you intend to make
>long exposures - same as with every day shots. You do need a RAW or DNG
>file to start with.
>
>The process is called WDR or wide dynamic range imaging. You Make 3
>(tiff for preference)copies of the RAW file and create a tone mapped
>image from it.
>
>Make one at 2 stops under exposed, one at 2 stops over and one in the
>middle. Blend them with any program that handles blending and use them
>to build your tone map - the start of a good WDR picture.
That's a fairly common technique when you don't have the opportunity to take
multiple exposures, wildlife or other moving objects, for example. I've used it
to pull out shadow details on grizzlies, but I usually only need +- 1 stop, not
2. FWIW
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
John Navas
>ransley wrote:
>> At Dp review where people submit photos for contest, I see many people
>> have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
>> programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
>> tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.
>
> From what I've read of some of the other replies, few people actually
>have a handle on the process of widening the dynamic range of a photograph.
Must you insult those who don't do it your way? [sigh]
>With one technique of mine, you only need a tripod if you intend to make
>long exposures - same as with every day shots. You do need a RAW or DNG
>file to start with.
>
>The process is called WDR or wide dynamic range imaging. You Make 3
>(tiff for preference)copies of the RAW file and create a tone mapped
>image from it.
That's only possible when the camera has wide dynamic range and RAW
output, whereas multi-image HDR works with *any* camera.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
DanP
tripod is a must, bracketing exposure helps.
did one hdr with a canon sx100 is combining
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2305.jpg
and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2307.jpg
resulting in
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/sunset%20victoria%20park%20hdr.JPG
had the camera on a table with hand pressure to keep it still.
program used is photomatix. it can align photos but the result is not
fantastic.
see this more like an example to have fun with whatever you have, i am
not bashing expensive cameras that have raw and bracketing.
DanP
Savageduck
Try this:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1003w.jpg
Exposure Time: 1 / 10
FNumber: 22
Focal Length: 24
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 36
Gamma: 2.2
ISO Speed Ratings: 200
or this:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1008w.jpg
Exposure Time: 1 / 6
FlashPix Version: 1.0
FNumber: 25
Focal Length: 34
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 51
Gamma: 2.2
ISO Speed Ratings: 200
--
Regards,
Savageduck
daveFaktor
Do you like the result Dan?
Without trying to grandstand, I've always tried to avoid pictures (you
can hardly call them photos when they had that much work) that don't
quite look right. Your example doesn't look 'natural' to me.
There's a fellow in Germany who does a lot of steam locomotives in HDR.
His pictures always look surreal and totally unnatural. Perhaps doing it
his way is like if you are going to go a little over, why not go way
over and make art from it.
I've got Lucis art which some people use for this stuff. I've had it for
a few years and only ever used it to recover images until one day a guy
came into the studio with some HDR portraits he made with LucisArt.
Strange looking for sure but he sells plenty - or so he said when he was
at the job interview!
Eric Stevens
I'm interested to see that you have specified the gamma. Are these
images intended for screen or print and, if the latter, is this the
gamma you use for printing?
Eric Stevens
Savageduck
No specific reason for including the gamma other than copying it to my post.
I probably should have cut it and included lens + camera info:
Lens Info: 24, 120, 3.5, 5.6
Lens Model: AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
Date Time: 2009:06:16 11:19:10
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D300
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J Taylor
[]
> did one hdr with a canon sx100 is combining
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2305.jpg
> and
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2307.jpg
> resulting in
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/sunset%20victoria%20park%20hdr.JPG
> DanP
I'm not sure I like the end result, Dan, although it's not as gaudy and
unnatural as some HDR photos.
David
Rich
Take a look at Dpreview's HDR contest entrants. A goofy looking
cartoonish bunch of rubbish. I thought the whole idea of HDR was to
replicate the scene as it appears to HUMAN eyes, with their dynamic
range, beyond that of current cameras,
not make it seem like hallucinogenic drugs were involved?
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=1937&View=Results&Rows=4
WoW
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
OMG! You didn't actually buy that lens did you? In your first scrapshot
experiment I've not seen lateral CA that bad since ... well, since never.
Every P&S camera I've ever used has had infinitely less CA than that, even
when adding inexpensive adapter-lenses onto them. Even worse, it's not
axially symmetric. Must be a shifted or tilted element in that garbage
glass. What a total waste of money. Don't you at least have or know how to
use a CA correction tool in your editor to try and recover semi-useful
images from that POS glass? With the CA being so asymmetric you'll have to
offset each image from two sides before applying it, then remove the
offset. I can think of no other way to recover useful images from such
garbage optics. Seeing as how the second image doesn't display this glaring
defect as badly that means your lens is barely-acceptable through only part
of its zoom range. Or what I more strongly suspect, the zooming mechanism
isn't built to very close tolerances and it shifts some elements to an
offset angle as they move from one position to another. This will cause
this annoying defect to show up at all focal-lengths depending on what
direction you zoomed last. Or more simply by what angle you happen to be
tilting the lens at the time of each shot.
Oh, wait a minute! This is a VR lens. I bet that's what's causing this
asymmetric CA. Okay. It's just a poorly designed optical image
stabilization system. You're just going to have to learn how to use a
steady hand or turn off VR at all times to make sure this doesn't happen.
Then again, this lens likely suffers from both problems. If it was just OIS
CA then it wouldn't be simple lateral CA, but the OIS would easily compound
that problem. The lens is creating the bad lateral CA, the OIS is
offsetting it and exacerbating it to make it more difficult to correct. No
two images will have the same CA in them. Each and every image from that
lens will have to be painstakingly corrected by hand by reinserting the
offset from two sides, then correcting for the lateral CA. No batch-tool
can ever help correct defects in optics like these.
BTW1: Learn to straighten your boring scrapshots. At least do that much so
they're not worse than they already are. From measuring them the first one
is off by 1.2 degrees and the second one is off by a whopping 3.5 degrees.
I'd tell you a simple way to easily and precisely discern this in any scene
with water in it (pay no attention to the angle of the trees), but ... you
don't pay me enough to give you important lessons that you can actually
use.
BTW2: Do you really waste that much shooting and editing time on scenes as
commonplace as these? Another, "Wow". You were shooting these just as an
HDR experiment, learning how, right? You could at least have composed them
better, or something. I guess it's like everyone says, the most important
equipment is the mind behind the camera. Yours is sorely busted. See if you
can sell it on Ebay and get a new one. Just don't let anyone know how
poorly yours performs or you'll get no bidders. Be sure to include the
"make any offer" and "no reserve" options on your ad too, Leonard.
It surprises me what poor quality optics that DSLR owners will tolerate and
try to use. After all, they spent so much on them they must be good, right?
You got what you paid for! Right?!? $600 worth of asymmetric chromatic
aberrations on an $1800 body. Worth every penny! RIGHT?!? :-)
Yes. Sad but true. Only idiots buy and try to use DSLRs. Just one more
glaring example from thousands, as perfect proof.
Don Stauffer
Actually, to me an HDR print looks strange, not like I see it.
When people talk about the high dynamic range of the eye, we need to be
careful. There are two different "dynamic ranges" here- one is an image
from a single "exposure" or point in time, an instantaneous view.
The other is the range over which the eye can form an image.
The iris of the eye, an adjustable aperture stop, allows us to see in
very dim light, and also, by stopping down, to see in very bright light.
But the eye does not see well, in a single glance, all that range. If
we are looking at a really bright scene, we do not see shadow detail
that well, even if there are deep shadows there.
So I personally would say that HDR is an attempt to allow us to see all
that is in a scene IF our eyes indeed had a tremendous dynamic range.
Dave S
Perhaps you missed the title of this challenge - "Fantasy... How far out
can you get? "
Dave S.
Better Alernatives
>In article
><1d3e0946-239e-4258...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> At Dp review where people submit photos for contest, I see many people
>> have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
>> programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
>> tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.
>
>Photmatax (note that there is no "R" in its name) is the only HDR
>program I have ever used so I can't compare it to any other HDR
>programs. That being said, I like it a lot. You can download a demo copy
>of Photomatix and try it for free, so give a try and see how you like
>it. If you have a camera that does auto bracketing and a tripod, you
>have everything you need to try HDR photography.
Try Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR", I find it does a far better job than
Photomatix. Much more control, features, and options. So much better that
I've never reinstalled any version of Photomatix after using Mediachance's
program just one time. I test things for myself. I never blindly follow the
lesser experienced popularity-contest-driven advice of others. Those who
blindly follow a herd's opinion miss out on so much of what's best in life.
daveFaktor
That reminds me of this joke:
An old and a young bull in the cows paddock...
Young Bull: "Let's run down ad grab a bit of sex before lunch"
Older Bull: "Nah... Let's just stroll down and spend all day doing it".
--
You don't stop laughing because you grow old,
You grow old because you stop laughing!
Charlie Groh
wrote:
I've tried 'em both, too. Dynamic-Photo HDR wins hands down.
cg