My Early Experiments in HDR

wrote:

*snip*
I still think you need to find a better subject for your
photographs...

Here's my very first attempt at creating an HDR image:
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/oldphotos/h...s/HDRLamps.jpg

The only lighting for the shot was the fully lit lamps. Because of
this, there was an extreme dynamic range in the original photos that
I used to create the HDR image.

Mardon, you're photo is probably the best implementation of HDR that
I've yet seen.
Even Adobe admits that the HDR feature is sort of a work in progress.
Hopefully, it will work better in the next version.

Here's a little homemade HDR simulated test pic I made today (on one of
my famous 2-hour lunch hour breaks).
http://www.pbase.com/image/59990686

For this pic I shot 5 images, with about a stop between each one.
Using the HDR function in CS2, I got crap. Doing it myself using layer
masks I managed to come up with this version which approximates the
light out there today. This is where digital really has it over film.
Had I been shooting film either the highlights in the sky would've been
blown or the foreground would be way too dark.
By combining the images we get a usable pic.

"Draco" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.



It's not natural, and that's the HDR. The shadows are much lighter than
they would be recorded by film or digital.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Annika1980" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/image/59990686 [...]

This is where digital really has it over film.

You are so full of ****, it's laughable.

Matt Clara wrote
(in article ):

"Draco" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.



It's not natural, and that's the HDR. The shadows are much lighter than
they would be recorded by film or digital.

A lot of the "magic" of getting HDR to look right seems to be in
having the right combination(s) of exposures to work from. I.e.
how many, and how far apart they are. I've yet to see or
discover any special algorithm to get it to turn out right,
apart from trial and error.

Way too many variables, and not enough control with the existing
HDR software.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

"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.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mardon, you're photo is probably the best implementation of HDR that
I've yet seen.
Even Adobe admits that the HDR feature is sort of a work in progress.
Hopefully, it will work better in the next version.

Here's a little homemade HDR simulated test pic I made today (on one of
my famous 2-hour lunch hour breaks).
http://www.pbase.com/image/59990686


2 hours--christ, man, you must work for the state, like me!

For this pic I shot 5 images, with about a stop between each one.
Using the HDR function in CS2, I got crap. Doing it myself using layer
masks I managed to come up with this version which approximates the
light out there today. This is where digital really has it over film.
Had I been shooting film either the highlights in the sky would've been
blown or the foreground would be way too dark.
By combining the images we get a usable pic.


Forgive me if I say, you must not have much experience with film--even if it
had lost detail at either end, with five pics covering that range of stops,
it wouldn't have been a problem in any case. As it is, your shadows are
still pretty dense, though that could be the jpeg talkin'.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Annika1980" wrote in message

For this pic I shot 5 images, with about a stop between each one.
Using the HDR function in CS2, I got crap. Doing it myself using layer
masks I managed to come up with this version which approximates the
light out there today. This is where digital really has it over film.
Had I been shooting film either the highlights in the sky would've been
blown or the foreground would be way too dark.
By combining the images we get a usable pic.

There are some tricks to expand the range in the shaddows with film. One
method is to pre-expose to a dark card. I don't remember why this works -
but I guess it has something to do with increasing the density of the
shaddow areas on the film. It's mentioned in Ansel Adams "The Film" book.

Here's a little homemade HDR simulated test pic I made today (on one of
my famous 2-hour lunch hour breaks).
http://www.pbase.com/image/59990686

That funky bright-but-overcasty-difuse light in Chatanooga all last week
made it so that I had to blend with layer masks for most of the photos I
took up there. What I do is take the best single exposure I can (I hate
lugging a tripod with me), then use the Canon RAW converter to create
several versions - high contrast, low contrast, exposure compensation up or
down, etc. Then I blend these in Photoshop 6 using the layermask method I
read about at Luminous Landscapes.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

"Matt Clara" wrote:

2 hours--christ, man, you must work for the state, like me!

Aw man, yer a state employee? No wonder you have so much daytime to post.

"Greg Campbell" wrote in message
news:M1x8g.45477$TK1.34138@fed1read06...

[...]
http://members.cox.net/geonerd/images/tweaked.jpg

The luminosity in the shadows of the piers and arch is something we film
photographers die for. We (well, I) usually make it up in-camera with a
reflector out of frame, or if one is very good, with a contrast mask. Yes,
the shadows by the left are too pale, but you can fix that in another minute
or two.