Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:19 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 5 exposure HDR!
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:24 pm 
I still don't have a tripod yet but I've taken a stab at few HDR's with my D300 handheld.18-200 VR used.The following 2 are the ones that I kinda liked best.Any C & C is welcome.Thanks :D




Image


Image


Click for bigger size!

The rest are here:

http://flickr.com/photos/ydaci/


Last edited by daci on Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 1065
Location: Syracuse, NY
those are pretty amazing, I took a look at your flickr as well, and those were great to. I would have liked number 1 more if it was all in focus.

Jake

_________________
Jake O'Connell, 40D Crew
Canon EOS 40D | 28-135mm IS | 50mm f/1.8 |Vivitar DF 383 | Vivitar 285hv
My Flickr
my Blog
"Photography isn't so much about the results as it is the collective experience, your interactions with people and with the world"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:50 pm 
JakeOConnell wrote:
I would have liked number 1 more if it was all in focus.

Jake


I totally agree with you.It was getting dark real quick and in absence of tripod I couldnt extend the DOF without causing movement blur so I had to compromise.Thanks for the comments.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:29 am 
Hi daci,

the colours are wonderful, as are expected of HDR images. But I thought the darkness was bringing down the vibrance of the beautifully taken images.

Just my humble opinion.

SnS 8)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:38 am 
I think a larger DOF would have been nice in 1 and there are a halos in 2 but I think they still look great! Nice shots!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:02 am 
the second picture presents halos around the buildings edges. and HDR images don't suppose to present such virant colours, as the colours can be obtained using a velvia filter. HDR images need to present detail. A whole lot of detail. Try using ps next time for HDR merging, not Photomatix!

Cheers,
HNV


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:13 am 
HNV, Photomatix is a software made for HDR images ONLY, and if used correctly will render much better results then using photoshop imo.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:54 am 
I like the first picture, the colour of the bulb is great and it works well as most HDR images come out looking like a storm is coming


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:52 pm 
I think you did a fantastic job in #1.

To be honest, I don't really mind the halo's in #2. It doesn't look bad at all.

Great work overall. I love them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:46 pm 
I also love number 1.
It has that stunning-surrealistic-HDR-look. (that I don't seem to be able to get in mine)

which bracketing steps did you use?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:17 am 
i'm sorry alex but i cannot agree with you! photomatix is made for rookies! so enybody can create a HDR image, while everybody knows that photoshop is a professional imaging software! that's why photoshop doesn't have an auto mode for merging images into a HDRI.

and Photoshop will render much better results than photomatix at any time!

Cheers,
HNV


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:37 am 
Still disagreeing with you there, Photoshop is an "all around" software for digital design from web creation, image editing etc. There are better softwares that will render better results then PS when it comes specifically to photo editing.

I done some HDR in photoshop to. But wasn't really happy about the results!

Very interesting that you say photoshop will render much better results than photomatix any time, i think that is a misleading states. If you don't know how to use the software you won't get better results, its just like saying that a expensive camera will render better images. Well it wont unless you know how to use it correctly :p

Have you HDR:ed images in PS? Feel free to share some results.

Dont mean to bash here, but there are not professional HDR photographers here on these forums.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:48 pm 
HNV wrote:
i'm sorry alex but i cannot agree with you! photomatix is made for rookies! so enybody can create a HDR image, while everybody knows that photoshop is a professional imaging software! that's why photoshop doesn't have an auto mode for merging images into a HDRI.

and Photoshop will render much better results than photomatix at any time!


HNV, that's a very elitist view you have, and is absolute rubbish. Photoshop is far more user friendly than it used to be and does have an automated feature for HDR. You've made inappropriate remarks before on the forum, and here I have to say you cannot make that class distinction. Whichever of the two software packages you use, good knowledge on how to get the most out of it will render worthy results.

EDIT: a bit on the posted images - I like neither. The first has a poor choice of subject, though composition is adequate. The second image has an interesting perspective, but severly ruined by the heavy post-processing. I can't add suggestions to assist the first image, but the second could do with less processing to balance out that dark sky.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:34 pm 
Photoj, I'm sorry, but your reply is at least subjective! I hope that all the talk here on Camera Labs isn't just rubbish! So I don't think that my point of view is anywhere near elitist! What I meant about merging files in auto mode in ps whas that the tone-mapping in ps is way harder than playing with the slides in photomatix! I hope you'll understand what I'm tryin' to do! For that to happen, I prepared 2 HDR images (one obtained in Photomatix and one obtained in Photoshop) with 100% crops from the center of the frame. Both HDRs were obtained merging 3 RAW files (f/11, ISO800, 0.8 3.2 13 seconds exposure times - 0, +/- 2 EV AEB) without fine tweaking!

Image
Image
The HDR images (above using Photomatix Pro 3, bellow using Photoshop CS3)


Image
Image
The HDR crops (100%) from the center of the frame (again, above using Photomatix Pro 3, bellow using Photoshop CS3)

So you see, with none PP made in PS other than HDR merging, PS yields better results, although the one made in Photomatix has more vibrant colours! But the one made in Photomatix lacks detail and presents more noise than the other. On none of them Noise Reduction was not used!!!

So I'm sorry for you all, but I'm just being objective. I posted my reply because I'm using both imaging softwares and I can make a subjective comparison. I wasnt surprised by Photoj's reply, as it's clear that there's a certain closed community here on CL. But I won't continue on that, because it's off topic!

Alex, as for you, I'll post some of my HDR images in the "Imaging software" forum just to give you some examples of HDRs made in Photoshop.

Cheers,
HNV


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:35 pm 
HNV wrote:
Photoj, I'm sorry, but your reply is at least subjective! I hope that all the talk here on Camera Labs isn't just rubbish! So I don't think that my point of view is anywhere near elitist! What I meant about merging files in auto mode in ps whas that the tone-mapping in ps is way harder than playing with the slides in photomatix!


That's quite a different thing to what you implied beforehand. I still stand on my point that Photomatix isn't designed purely for "rookies". Both packages have their use and if you justify your reasons by using both packages - doesn't that imply that Photomatix still has use? I also utilise both Photomatix and CS3 alone or in combination for HDR work. Sometimes an image works better in one package than the other.

Trey Ratcliff is a seasoned HDR photographer and he uses both Photoshop and Photomatix. His site with tutorials can be found here.

HNV wrote:
and Photoshop will render much better results than photomatix at any time!


Even though subjective in nature, if you look at it objectively this is why I still think your last post was rubbish. (You yourself have shown that colours can be more vibrant in Photomatix...and that might suit some photographers).

A moderator can judge whether I've stepped out of line here, but for all purposes I think you gave a wholly mis-judged opinion by the "rookie" insinuation and the comparison without caveat.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group