[SI] U comments

On 2012-02-16 00:37:40 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric,
The "Ghosting" in that image was more extreme than I would have
anticipated in a 5 exposure HDR series. It seems more like a time lapse
series.
Your D300 is more capable with regard to taking multiple exposures for
HDR than you have here with your 1 second spacing.

With my D300 and now D300s, I leave the "Fn" button on the front of the
camera body left to the default to have it assigned to "bracketing". By
pushing and holding that button and rotating the "main command dial
(wheel)" you can select the number of exposures and pattern of
adjustment.
By holding the same button and rotating the "secondary" or front dial
you adjust the exposure increment.
Turn VR off on any VR lens you might be using.

I then set the "Release" mode to "CH", which without the MB-D10 battery
grip attached should give you about 7 frames per second, well within a
decent rate for a 5 shot HDR series. With the MB-D10 the frame fate
goes up to 9 per second. By holding the shutter release down, either
with your trigger finger, or with a cable or wireless remote release
the HDR series is completed very quickly and little hassle.

Needless to say, REMEMBER to set everything back to your normal use
settings when you are done. ;-)

I only use my remote release when I use a tripod, and I am fortunate
enough to still be able to take reasonably steady planned hand held 5
exposure HDR series. Slight camera movement and "ghosts" are handled by
NIK HDR Efex Pro. Extreme movement such as fast vehicles usually have
to be dealt with using one of the other techniques I spoke of earlier.
http://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php

Keep playing, it can still be fun.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:13:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-16 00:37:40 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric,
The "Ghosting" in that image was more extreme than I would have
anticipated in a 5 exposure HDR series. It seems more like a time lapse
series.
Your D300 is more capable with regard to taking multiple exposures for
HDR than you have here with your 1 second spacing.

With my D300 and now D300s, I leave the "Fn" button on the front of the
camera body left to the default to have it assigned to "bracketing". By
pushing and holding that button and rotating the "main command dial
(wheel)" you can select the number of exposures and pattern of
adjustment.

Yep. I do that.

By holding the same button and rotating the "secondary" or front dial
you adjust the exposure increment.

I do that too.

Turn VR off on any VR lens you might be using.

Damn! I knew there was something I forgot. Even though the camera was
on a tripod I suppose the vibration from its own operation might cause
the VR to shift between shots. However I used 'Feature Based' image
alignment in the HDR software and that hopefully would have taken care
of any small image shifting.

I then set the "Release" mode to "CH", which without the MB-D10 battery
grip attached should give you about 7 frames per second, well within a
decent rate for a 5 shot HDR series. With the MB-D10 the frame fate
goes up to 9 per second. By holding the shutter release down, either
with your trigger finger, or with a cable or wireless remote release
the HDR series is completed very quickly and little hassle.

I used 'Multiple Exposures' (5) in conjunction with 'Interval Timer
Shooting' (5 shots, one every 3 minutes). Once I started all I had to
do was stand there and look bored for the next 12 minutes.

Needless to say, REMEMBER to set everything back to your normal use
settings when you are done. ;-)

I only use my remote release when I use a tripod, and I am fortunate
enough to still be able to take reasonably steady planned hand held 5
exposure HDR series. Slight camera movement and "ghosts" are handled by
NIK HDR Efex Pro. Extreme movement such as fast vehicles usually have
to be dealt with using one of the other techniques I spoke of earlier.
http://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php

Keep playing, it can still be fun.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-15 22:06 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

That's not so bad - much closer to how the eye would see it. The
multiple exposure with the vehicles kinda works too - too bad their
lights weren't on. Could you have done this with just two exposures?

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

It seems easy to use HDR to achieve photos that have an unnatural look.
Even then some look interesting but some look very strange.

The challenge is to use it to get the image out in a way that looks how
the eye would normally see it. That can usually be done with two images
a couple/few stops apart. I'm not a big fan of HDR either, but I have
used it on a few shots.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-15 21:02 , John McWilliams wrote:
On 2/15/12 PDT 1:41 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-02-14 19:28 , tony cooper wrote:

It's like having someone say "Those
photographs of yours will never make the cover of "Paris Match".

I've seen several of yours that would be far more likely to get there
than the phots of a certain claimant around here.

How many years has it been?

Isn't it time to just let it go?

Isn't it time you submitted photos to the SI?

I certainly didn't bring it up first.

A recent unprovoked ad hominem from the great Paris Match shooter
himself raised it from the dead.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-16 12:35:05 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:13:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-16 00:37:40 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric,
The "Ghosting" in that image was more extreme than I would have
anticipated in a 5 exposure HDR series. It seems more like a time lapse
series.
Your D300 is more capable with regard to taking multiple exposures for
HDR than you have here with your 1 second spacing.

With my D300 and now D300s, I leave the "Fn" button on the front of the
camera body left to the default to have it assigned to "bracketing". By
pushing and holding that button and rotating the "main command dial
(wheel)" you can select the number of exposures and pattern of
adjustment.

Yep. I do that.

By holding the same button and rotating the "secondary" or front dial
you adjust the exposure increment.

I do that too.

Turn VR off on any VR lens you might be using.

Damn! I knew there was something I forgot. Even though the camera was
on a tripod I suppose the vibration from its own operation might cause
the VR to shift between shots. However I used 'Feature Based' image
alignment in the HDR software and that hopefully would have taken care
of any small image shifting.

I then set the "Release" mode to "CH", which without the MB-D10 battery
grip attached should give you about 7 frames per second, well within a
decent rate for a 5 shot HDR series. With the MB-D10 the frame fate
goes up to 9 per second. By holding the shutter release down, either
with your trigger finger, or with a cable or wireless remote release
the HDR series is completed very quickly and little hassle.

I used 'Multiple Exposures' (5) in conjunction with 'Interval Timer
Shooting' (5 shots, one every 3 minutes). Once I started all I had to
do was stand there and look bored for the next 12 minutes.

I believe that might be one of your problems in this case. One shot
every 3 minutes seems excessive. I get my 5 shot HDR series shot in 1
second or less.

Usually the intention when using the "multiple exposure" feature that
is to take a sequence of non-bracketed shots with specific time
spacing. Usually for interval periods of up to 30 seconds. For longer
intervals you can make custom interval adjustments via the menu.
This will, in of its self not create a decent HDR exposure set, though
it is one way to trip the shutter with the bracketing set to the number
of exposures required if you don't have a remote release. This might be
fine for a relatively static scene, but even with a landscape where you
might have moving clouds or wind in the trees it is going to cause
issues. As for dealing with traffic moving towards the underpass it
should not have been an option unless you were seeking a traditional
time lapse series.

My recommendation for creating a useful HDR exposure series is to use
the method I outlined above.

Here is 5 exposure HDR set with a +-1.0 exposure interval if you would
like to play. All I have done was convert the NEFs to JPEG with no
other adjustment. Just download from the Pogoplug link and see what you
can make of them.
http://ppl.ug/RQeFMHrgDAA/


Needless to say, REMEMBER to set everything back to your normal use
settings when you are done. ;-)

I only use my remote release when I use a tripod, and I am fortunate
enough to still be able to take reasonably steady planned hand held 5
exposure HDR series. Slight camera movement and "ghosts" are handled by
NIK HDR Efex Pro. Extreme movement such as fast vehicles usually have
to be dealt with using one of the other techniques I spoke of earlier.
http://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php

Keep playing, it can still be fun.

Regards,

Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2/15/2012 10:06 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

Regards,

Eric Stevens


Not bad for a first try. I agree with Tony Cooper's comments.
But, I view HDR as a tonal mapping technique to bring up detail in both
the highlights and shadows, in the same image. When carried to extreme
you can get a cartoonish effect. Some like it Some don't. that's purely
a matter of artistic taste.

--
Peter

On 2/16/2012 3:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.


Congratulations. We have something in common other than photography. I
had one removed by radiation on my left leg, about eight months ago. The
recovery is not fast. I wish you well.


--
Peter

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:29 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-16 12:35:05 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:13:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-16 00:37:40 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric,
The "Ghosting" in that image was more extreme than I would have
anticipated in a 5 exposure HDR series. It seems more like a time lapse
series.
Your D300 is more capable with regard to taking multiple exposures for
HDR than you have here with your 1 second spacing.

With my D300 and now D300s, I leave the "Fn" button on the front of the
camera body left to the default to have it assigned to "bracketing". By
pushing and holding that button and rotating the "main command dial
(wheel)" you can select the number of exposures and pattern of
adjustment.

Yep. I do that.

By holding the same button and rotating the "secondary" or front dial
you adjust the exposure increment.

I do that too.

Turn VR off on any VR lens you might be using.

Damn! I knew there was something I forgot. Even though the camera was
on a tripod I suppose the vibration from its own operation might cause
the VR to shift between shots. However I used 'Feature Based' image
alignment in the HDR software and that hopefully would have taken care
of any small image shifting.

I then set the "Release" mode to "CH", which without the MB-D10 battery
grip attached should give you about 7 frames per second, well within a
decent rate for a 5 shot HDR series. With the MB-D10 the frame fate
goes up to 9 per second. By holding the shutter release down, either
with your trigger finger, or with a cable or wireless remote release
the HDR series is completed very quickly and little hassle.

I used 'Multiple Exposures' (5) in conjunction with 'Interval Timer
Shooting' (5 shots, one every 3 minutes). Once I started all I had to
do was stand there and look bored for the next 12 minutes.

I believe that might be one of your problems in this case. One shot
every 3 minutes seems excessive. I get my 5 shot HDR series shot in 1
second or less.

Forget I said anything about the Multiple Exposure setting. That
doesn't come into it all. I was thinking of a different problem and
got my mental wires crossed.

As I set things, every three minutes the 'Interval Timer Shooting'
setting causes the camera to take 5 shots at 1 second intervals. This
way, with bracketing set to the appropriate program, I get 5 bracketed
sets every three minutes. Why 1 second intervals? Because when I
started I had no clue as to how long an exposure I was going to need.
Why every three minutes? Because I had no real idea of how fast the
sun was going to rise or when the light would most suit my purpose.

--- snip ---

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-16 17:19:12 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:29 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-16 12:35:05 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:13:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-16 00:37:40 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric,
The "Ghosting" in that image was more extreme than I would have
anticipated in a 5 exposure HDR series. It seems more like a time lapse
series.
Your D300 is more capable with regard to taking multiple exposures for
HDR than you have here with your 1 second spacing.

With my D300 and now D300s, I leave the "Fn" button on the front of the
camera body left to the default to have it assigned to "bracketing". By
pushing and holding that button and rotating the "main command dial
(wheel)" you can select the number of exposures and pattern of
adjustment.

Yep. I do that.

By holding the same button and rotating the "secondary" or front dial
you adjust the exposure increment.

I do that too.

Turn VR off on any VR lens you might be using.

Damn! I knew there was something I forgot. Even though the camera was
on a tripod I suppose the vibration from its own operation might cause
the VR to shift between shots. However I used 'Feature Based' image
alignment in the HDR software and that hopefully would have taken care
of any small image shifting.

I then set the "Release" mode to "CH", which without the MB-D10 battery
grip attached should give you about 7 frames per second, well within a
decent rate for a 5 shot HDR series. With the MB-D10 the frame fate
goes up to 9 per second. By holding the shutter release down, either
with your trigger finger, or with a cable or wireless remote release
the HDR series is completed very quickly and little hassle.

I used 'Multiple Exposures' (5) in conjunction with 'Interval Timer
Shooting' (5 shots, one every 3 minutes). Once I started all I had to
do was stand there and look bored for the next 12 minutes.

I believe that might be one of your problems in this case. One shot
every 3 minutes seems excessive. I get my 5 shot HDR series shot in 1
second or less.

Forget I said anything about the Multiple Exposure setting. That
doesn't come into it all. I was thinking of a different problem and
got my mental wires crossed.

As I set things, every three minutes the 'Interval Timer Shooting'
setting causes the camera to take 5 shots at 1 second intervals. This
way, with bracketing set to the appropriate program, I get 5 bracketed
sets every three minutes. Why 1 second intervals? Because when I
started I had no clue as to how long an exposure I was going to need.
Why every three minutes? Because I had no real idea of how fast the
sun was going to rise or when the light would most suit my purpose.

--- snip ---

Understood.



--
Regards,

Savageduck