Camera Labs

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










Click for bigger size!

The rest are here:

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

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"

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.

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

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

_________________

.: Sony DT 18-70mm :: Sony 75-300mm :: Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 :: Minolta 24mm f/2.8 :: Sony 50mm f/1.8 :: Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye :: SLIK Pro 330DX :: Manfrotto 496RC2 :.


my flickr

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!

_________________
Graham
Flickr

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

_________________
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein

HNV, Photomatix is a software made for HDR images ONLY, and if used correctly will render much better results then using photoshop imo.

_________________
My Picasa

My Flickr

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

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.

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?

_________________
Nikon D80 - Nikon 18-70mm - Nikon 70-300mm - Nikon 85mm - SB-600

Kevin Verelst Travel Photography

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

_________________
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein

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.

_________________
My Picasa

My Flickr

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.

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/

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!



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




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

_________________
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein

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.



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.

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/