My Early Experiments in HDR

None of you apparently liked my Hawaii pictures. Maybe my new HDR
photos will be more toward your liking? For one thing, I don't have
very many of them, yet. After all, I only began shooting them a week
ago.

Please simply ignore the Hawaii photo albums, if you wish, and go
straight to the album labeled, "910 HDR."

http://photos.yahoo.com/imagebuffet

wrote in message
oups.com...
None of you apparently liked my Hawaii pictures. Maybe my new HDR
photos will be more toward your liking? For one thing, I don't have
very many of them, yet. After all, I only began shooting them a week
ago.

Please simply ignore the Hawaii photo albums, if you wish, and go
straight to the album labeled, "910 HDR."

http://photos.yahoo.com/imagebuffet

Sorry, I seem to be missing something here, what is the point of all these
shots, poor shots poorly processed to show us what exactly???

"Pete D" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
None of you apparently liked my Hawaii pictures. Maybe my new HDR
photos will be more toward your liking? For one thing, I don't have
very many of them, yet. After all, I only began shooting them a week
ago.

Please simply ignore the Hawaii photo albums, if you wish, and go
straight to the album labeled, "910 HDR."

http://photos.yahoo.com/imagebuffet

Sorry, I seem to be missing something here, what is the point of all these
shots, poor shots poorly processed to show us what exactly???


He badly needs parental approval.

Mike

Mike wrote:
"Pete D" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
None of you apparently liked my Hawaii pictures. Maybe my new HDR
photos will be more toward your liking? For one thing, I don't have
very many of them, yet. After all, I only began shooting them a week
ago.

Please simply ignore the Hawaii photo albums, if you wish, and go
straight to the album labeled, "910 HDR."

http://photos.yahoo.com/imagebuffet

Sorry, I seem to be missing something here, what is the point of all these
shots, poor shots poorly processed to show us what exactly???


He badly needs parental approval.

Mike

In an attempt to be constructive, I suggest you buy some art
photography books (Taschen) and take a look at some of the images.

I think that your images lack impact because of the subject, and
because you have shown us a fairly linear 8-bit version of an HDR
image. When you convert to a 'regular' image you need to apply some
sort of tone curve, or make a judgement call on to what highlights to
show (and lead the eye) and which to hide (make darker).

I would go find a great looking cathedral or church, and practice
taking an image of the inside with all the detail of the stonework, and
the stained glass intact.

Just converting an HDR image into an 8-bit pc image renders a rather
washed out and grey result.

Dave

wrote:
Mike wrote:

In an attempt to be constructive,

Thanks.

I suggest you buy some art
photography books (Taschen) and take a look at some of the images.

I think that your images lack impact because of the subject,

I have 11 HDR subjects on display, ranging from neon-lit shops at night
in a storm to open flames in a BBQ grill.

and
because you have shown us a fairly linear 8-bit version of an HDR
image.

They are 24-bit images. An 8-bit image only has room for 256 colors.

When you convert to a 'regular' image you need to apply some
sort of tone curve, or make a judgement call on to what highlights to
show (and lead the eye) and which to hide (make darker).

I used the recommended tone curve provided by Photomatix.

I would go find a great looking cathedral or church, and practice
taking an image of the inside with all the detail of the stonework, and
the stained glass intact.

Thanks. I am surprised that photography cannot appreciate simple
things.

Just converting an HDR image into an 8-bit pc image renders a rather
washed out and grey result.

I don't know what you are looking at, because that isn't what I'm
looking at.

I have 11 HDR subjects on display, ranging from neon-lit shops at night
in a storm to open flames in a BBQ grill.

Getting the flames to line up with perfect registration must've been a
real bitch.

writes:

and
because you have shown us a fairly linear 8-bit version of an HDR
image.

They are 24-bit images. An 8-bit image only has room for 256 colors.

Difference in terminology. Some people refer to the number of bits per
channel, some to the number of bits per pixel. Your image is 8 bits
per channel, 24 bits per pixel and can legitimately be referred to as
"8 bit" in addition to "24 bit". Particularly when working with HDR
images, you might also see "16 bit" images (48 bits per pixel, either
linear or gamma corrected), or even floating point pixels (16 or 32
bits per channel).

In the past, you might have seen colour mapped images that had an
8-bit pixel used as an index into a 256-entry colour map, while the
colour map usually has 24-bit pixel values. So the frame buffer is 8
bits, but doesn't really have RGB channels, the colour precision is 8
bits/channel or 24 bits/pixel, but only 256 colours are available. This
particular "8 bit" image format was never very useful for photography,
and has mostly vanished with the advent of cheap 24-bit frame buffers
and JPEG compression. So I think we can call this variant extinct for
photographic use at least, and recognize that a reference to an "8 bit"
image probably means 8 bits/channel, 24 bits/pixel.

Dave

Dave Martindale wrote:
writes:

and
because you have shown us a fairly linear 8-bit version of an HDR
image.

They are 24-bit images. An 8-bit image only has room for 256 colors.

Difference in terminology. Some people refer to the number of bits per
channel, some to the number of bits per pixel. Your image is 8 bits
per channel, 24 bits per pixel and can legitimately be referred to as
"8 bit" in addition to "24 bit". Particularly when working with HDR
images, you might also see "16 bit" images (48 bits per pixel, either
linear or gamma corrected), or even floating point pixels (16 or 32
bits per channel).

In the past, you might have seen colour mapped images that had an
8-bit pixel used as an index into a 256-entry colour map, while the
colour map usually has 24-bit pixel values. So the frame buffer is 8
bits, but doesn't really have RGB channels, the colour precision is 8
bits/channel or 24 bits/pixel, but only 256 colours are available. This
particular "8 bit" image format was never very useful for photography,
and has mostly vanished with the advent of cheap 24-bit frame buffers
and JPEG compression. So I think we can call this variant extinct for
photographic use at least, and recognize that a reference to an "8 bit"
image probably means 8 bits/channel, 24 bits/pixel.

Dave

I did mean 24 bit total - Photoshop refers to these images as /8,/16 &
/32 in the image title bar. In the last paragraph I mention 8-bit pc -
meaning 8 bit per channel.

I still think you need to find a better subject for your photographs,
here's one of my favorites:

http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/clived...144856-HDR.jpg

Dave

wrote:
Dave Martindale wrote:
writes:

and
because you have shown us a fairly linear 8-bit version of an HDR
image.

They are 24-bit images. An 8-bit image only has room for 256 colors.

Difference in terminology. Some people refer to the number of bits per
channel, some to the number of bits per pixel. Your image is 8 bits
per channel, 24 bits per pixel and can legitimately be referred to as
"8 bit" in addition to "24 bit". Particularly when working with HDR
images, you might also see "16 bit" images (48 bits per pixel, either
linear or gamma corrected), or even floating point pixels (16 or 32
bits per channel).

In the past, you might have seen colour mapped images that had an
8-bit pixel used as an index into a 256-entry colour map, while the
colour map usually has 24-bit pixel values. So the frame buffer is 8
bits, but doesn't really have RGB channels, the colour precision is 8
bits/channel or 24 bits/pixel, but only 256 colours are available. This
particular "8 bit" image format was never very useful for photography,
and has mostly vanished with the advent of cheap 24-bit frame buffers
and JPEG compression. So I think we can call this variant extinct for
photographic use at least, and recognize that a reference to an "8 bit"
image probably means 8 bits/channel, 24 bits/pixel.

Dave

I did mean 24 bit total - Photoshop refers to these images as /8,/16 &
/32 in the image title bar. In the last paragraph I mention 8-bit pc -
meaning 8 bit per channel.

I still think you need to find a better subject for your photographs,
here's one of my favorites:

http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/clived...144856-HDR.jpg

Dave

I would add that this one is the best of the set...

H&S Auto 4351-4352-4353

Dave,
That last photo
(http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/clived...144856-HDR.jpg)
is quite nice. Yet something about
is disturbing. I don't know if it is the perspective
or the shadow detail or the over all exposure.
I don't know if it is yours. But it
is far beyond anything you
have shown the group.

Keep working at it. Edit your work
before you show it to people. It
may mean something to you. But,
is lost on the rest of us.


Good luck.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.