• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

HDR photos are cool

Originally posted by: Xanis
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1621852/1/79124332
Click to expand...

We have a WINNAR! Beautiful pic!
Click to expand...

Hanky! 🙂

Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1621852/1/79124332

The problem with HDR is that there's a very real possibility of making the image look surreal, so if you're going for as-the-eye-sees-it HDR, one has to be careful in applying HDR methods.
Click to expand...

Why can't cameras do this kind of stuff on the fly?
Click to expand...

Believe me, some manufacturors are trying. I believe Fuji had a sensor back in the day that attempted to do this. It was only modestly successful, however, and I don't think it really caught on. Some other manufacturor is attempting to do this through in-camera processing.

The primary reason is our current camera sensors don't have the ability to reproduce the full dynamic range that our eyes can see, dynamic range being the range between the darkest part of an image to the brightest part of an image.

For a scene with a wide dynamic range, if you meter for the light part, the dark part will be too underexposed. If you meter for the dark part, the light parts will be blown out. If you meter for something in the middle, the dark parts will be underexposed and the light parts will be overexposed, although not at such a high degree as the former cases.

All because current sensors cannot record the full dynamic range that our eyes percieve.
 
Originally posted by: UpgradeFailure
fuzzybabybunny, what software to you use with your HDR pics? On avg, how many do you take to get your image?
Click to expand...

I'm actually fairly new to HDR. I've known about it for quite some time, but not until recently have I actually had the software to do it. Back in the day this stuff needed to be done by hand, and I didn't feel like taking the time to do so. At the time I took the two above pics, I used FredMiranda's DRI Pro Plugin. It's great and all, but you can only use two pictures to make the HDR image.

A better program, and one that I have just started using, is Photomatix, and with that you can use however many pics you want. I tend to do at least 3 pics, if not 5 or 7. This is called Exposure Bracketing, BTW.

Another option for people with CS2 is CS2's Merge to HDR function, but I think Photomatix gives better results.

One important note though: To do this all frames must line up, meaning you have to do your exposure bracketing on a tripod, or if you did it handheld, line up the frames afterwards in a program like Hugin. You're essentially stacking the images on top of each other, so they must line up perfectly or you'll get some really funny results.
 
hey fuzzy, lemme ask you a question here... how do you set the different exposures to underexpose/regular expose/overexpose and how quickly do you shoot in order to make them fuzz-free? it's tough to do HDR with a moving object, no??
 
Originally posted by: tami
hey fuzzy, lemme ask you a question here... how do you set the different exposures to underexpose/regular expose/overexpose and how quickly do you shoot in order to make them fuzz-free? it's tough to do HDR with a moving object, no??
Click to expand...

I use exposure bracketing. Since most lower end DSLRs can only exposure bracket three frames at once, if I want to shoot five bracketed frames, I bracket 3 shots from +2 to 0, then another three shots from 0 to -2 EV, all frames shot in burst mode. Shooting five frames this way only takes 3 seconds.

If I want to just do three shots, I just bracket 3 shots at -1, 0, +1, or -2, 0, +2, and shoot a burst of three in one second.

You're right in that HDR is hard to do with a moving subject, like waves washing up on a shore, but one way to combat water movement is to actually shoot at a slower speed, so the water gets nice and blurred, after which combining them will actually look pretty good because the fine details of the water are now gone.

As for things like a fast moving animal, yeah, there's no way to bracket successfully.

But to really make photos fuzz free, make sure to align them in a panorama stitching tool, like Hugin, even if you shot them using a tripod.
 
Originally posted by: tami
i hate tripods.

how is that sigma 50-500 btw? is it a monster? take a pic for me.
Click to expand...

I consider tripods more or less necessary. Gotta love them for long shutter speeds when you want to blur water or getting a lot of DOF at low ISO, or when using a telephoto.

Here are a few of the Bigma:

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1435010/1/68222590

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1435010/1/68222587

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1435010/1/63574191

It's definitely a beast. It's the maglite of camera lenses ie. you can use it as a weapon 😛

Here are some pictures taken with the Bigma.

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1209998
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top