My Early Experiments in HDR

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by pooua, May 10, 2006.

  1. pooua

    pooua Guest

    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
     
    pooua, May 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. pooua

    Pete D Guest

    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, May 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. pooua

    Mike Guest

    He badly needs parental approval.

    Mike
     
    Mike, May 10, 2006
    #3
  4. pooua

    kasterborus Guest

    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
     
    kasterborus, May 10, 2006
    #4
  5. pooua

    pooua Guest

    I have 11 HDR subjects on display, ranging from neon-lit shops at night
    in a storm to open flames in a BBQ grill.
    They are 24-bit images. An 8-bit image only has room for 256 colors.
    I used the recommended tone curve provided by Photomatix.
    Thanks. I am surprised that photography cannot appreciate simple
    things.
    I don't know what you are looking at, because that isn't what I'm
    looking at.
     
    pooua, May 10, 2006
    #5
  6. pooua

    Annika1980 Guest

    I have 11 HDR subjects on display, ranging from neon-lit shops at night
    Getting the flames to line up with perfect registration must've been a
    real bitch.
     
    Annika1980, May 10, 2006
    #6
  7. 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, May 10, 2006
    #7
  8. pooua

    kasterborus Guest

    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/cliveden/S/20050828144856-HDR.jpg

    Dave
     
    kasterborus, May 10, 2006
    #8
  9. pooua

    kasterborus Guest

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

    H&S Auto 4351-4352-4353
     
    kasterborus, May 10, 2006
    #9
  10. pooua

    Draco Guest

    Dave,
    That last photo
    (http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/cliveden/S/20050828144856-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.
     
    Draco, May 10, 2006
    #10
  11. pooua

    Mardon Guest

    wrote:

    Here's my very first attempt at creating an HDR image:
    http://www.JustPhotos.ca/oldphotos/hdr/images/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, May 10, 2006
    #11
  12. pooua

    Annika1980 Guest

    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.
     
    Annika1980, May 11, 2006
    #12
  13. pooua

    Matt Clara Guest


    It's not natural, and that's the HDR. The shadows are much lighter than
    they would be recorded by film or digital.
     
    Matt Clara, May 11, 2006
    #13
  14. pooua

    2 Guest

    You are so full of shit, it's laughable.
     
    2, May 11, 2006
    #14
  15. pooua

    Randy Howard Guest

    Matt Clara wrote
    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, May 11, 2006
    #15
  16. pooua

    Beach Bum Guest

    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.
     
    Beach Bum, May 11, 2006
    #16
  17. pooua

    Matt Clara Guest

    2 hours--christ, man, you must work for the state, like me!
    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'.
     
    Matt Clara, May 11, 2006
    #17
  18. pooua

    Beach Bum Guest

    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.
    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.
     
    Beach Bum, May 11, 2006
    #18

  19. There's no reason an HDR image can't have a more normal, 'natural'
    appearance.

    That image is a pictoral analoge to modern 'hit' music producing.
    Almost all the dynamic range has been compressed into a narrow little
    region. (Music would be a high key photo with almost no contrast.) 20
    seconds (clearly, it's just a crude correction) of curve tweaking and
    blue desaturation makes for a much more 'open' pic.
    http://members.cox.net/geonerd/images/tweaked.jpg

    Yea, the bush and tree have lost some texural detail. Is that bad? I
    don't think so. Does every object in the scene _need_ to be 'fully'
    detailed? IMO, HDR should allow you to catch detail in far dark/light
    subject areas that are important, not force _everything_ into a
    middle-grey soup.

    -Greg
     
    Greg Campbell, May 11, 2006
    #19
  20. pooua

    2 Guest

    Aw man, yer a state employee? No wonder you have so much daytime to post.
     
    2, May 11, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.