My Early Experiments in HDR

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...
Beach Bum wrote:
"Draco" wrote in message

(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.

It's the freaky sky that doesn't look real. Reminds me of these old
colorized stereo vision photos I saw at my grandmother's place.

Agreed about the sky but otherwise a spectacular shot and great use of
HDR. It may have just been a freaky beautiful sky though a little less
saturation would fix that right up. Otherwise it looks natural to me.

It looks like a painting to me. - Not that there is anything wrong with
that. I like paintings, and have a number of them hanging in my house. It is
a very nice shot, but it still looks like a painting......

William Graham wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
Beach Bum wrote:
"Draco" wrote in message

(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.

It's the freaky sky that doesn't look real. Reminds me of these old
colorized stereo vision photos I saw at my grandmother's place.

Agreed about the sky but otherwise a spectacular shot and great use of
HDR. It may have just been a freaky beautiful sky though a little less
saturation would fix that right up. Otherwise it looks natural to me.

It looks like a painting to me. - Not that there is anything wrong with
that. I like paintings, and have a number of them hanging in my house. It is
a very nice shot, but it still looks like a painting......

That's a good thing.

"Scott W" wrote:
Matt Clara wrote:

Digital is great, because the images are perfect as cheap throw aways.
Some
shots are good, but their quality isn't what they could be if they were
medium or large format. So, yeah, for me, digital has replaced my snap
shooting, but for anything serious, it's medium or large-format.

Perhaps a digital photo can have much higher quality that you are aware
of.
This photo was taken with a Rebel 350D and the cheap 50mm lens, the 1.8
one.
Cost of the camera and lens together is about $650.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/high_compressed.jpg 8.4 MB.
I don't believe a 6 x 9 camera can match this image.

Note this image has been compressed a lot but still you can get the
idea of what
is posible with a digital camera.

More than compression, what's a problem there is the obscenely excessive
oversharpening. Sheesh, your halos are multiple pixels wide.

Presumably that's one of your composites. But there's no problem doing
composites with film either. I've done single-row panoramas with 6x7, and
since 6x7 scanned at 2200 ppi (actually, scanned at 4000 ppi and downsampled
to 2200 ppi) gives pixel-level detail about equal to digital, one frame is
28MP (I think this is about right: 6x7 nails the detail that the 5D just
begins to fail to capture). Stitching six 28MP images together would be a
lot of pixels, and not a lot of trouble.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Dave Martindale wrote:
writes:

I wanted to make certain that is what he had in mind, because when he
states, "converting an HDR image into an 8-bit pc image renders a
rather washed out and grey result," his statement makes no sense.

It makes sense if you assume, like I do, that "8 bit" means 8 bits per
channel. That could be 8 bits total in a greyscale image, 24 bits total
for RGB, or 32 bits total for RGBA - they're all 8 bit images.

I understand you are referring to 8-bits per channel. That does not
explain how someone can claim that images that have 8-bits per channel
(total of 24 bits per pixel) are "rather washed out and grey." In
particular, where do you get grey out of neon?

Annika1980 wrote:
Mardon, you're photo is probably the best implementation of HDR that
I've yet seen.

Oh, I don't know... it seems cliche.

http://members.aol.com/pooua/Bright_...ight_Light.wmv

wrote:

[snip]

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

Nice. But, I live in Texas, where the sun is often bright on cloudless
days:

http://members.aol.com/pooua/HDR/HDR...-001_small.jpg

In message .com,
wrote:

Nice. But, I live in Texas, where the sun is often bright on cloudless
days:

http://members.aol.com/pooua/HDR/HDR...-001_small.jpg

You need to clean your sensor, and learn to expose to the right.

There is no reason to under-expose an image in that kind of lighting.
--


John P Sheehy

wrote:
In message .com,
wrote:

Nice. But, I live in Texas, where the sun is often bright on cloudless
days:

http://members.aol.com/pooua/HDR/HDR...-001_small.jpg

You need to clean your sensor,

I think it was actually my lenses that had water spots on them. At
least, that is what I am hoping.

and learn to expose to the right.

As opposed to the left?

There is no reason to under-expose an image in that kind of lighting.

If that image were under-exposed, you would not be able to see the
facial features of the statue. If it were over-exposed, you would not
be able to see most of the background detail. A normal photograph
cannot capture both the detail of the statue's face and the background
details of the fountain, the traffic and the stores. But, the fact
remains, the photograph is not under-exposed.

Oh, and would it have killed you to acknowledge that I captured
distinct water drops in the air in an HDR image? You know that movement
does not normally work well in an HDR image.

wrote:
wrote:

In message .com,
wrote:


Nice. But, I live in Texas, where the sun is often bright on cloudless
days:

http://members.aol.com/pooua/HDR/HDR...-001_small.jpg

You need to clean your sensor,


I think it was actually my lenses that had water spots on them. At
least, that is what I am hoping.

It's dust on your sensor. You can get rid of 99% of it with just a blower.



and learn to expose to the right.


As opposed to the left?

Yes, right is generally the opposite of left.



There is no reason to under-expose an image in that kind of lighting.


If that image were under-exposed, you would not be able to see the
facial features of the statue. If it were over-exposed, you would not
be able to see most of the background detail. A normal photograph
cannot capture both the detail of the statue's face and the background
details of the fountain, the traffic and the stores. But, the fact
remains, the photograph is not under-exposed.

Oh, and would it have killed you to acknowledge that I captured
distinct water drops in the air in an HDR image? You know that movement
does not normally work well in an HDR image.


Wooohooo!

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons