wildstallion: What do you mean by scene with more dynamic range? I have also been toying with HDR, but sad to say most of my pics turned out..how you say flat..even with loads of time spent tone mapping using photomatix... Love your HDR shots by the way.
Creating HDRI With Qtpfsgui
- Thread starter engrmariano
- Start date
- Status
Ok, take the shot above for example, most sensors in the world will be able to capture that 'hdr' shot if shot properly, there is little range, no highlights and no shadows, its all pretty even (check out his correctly exposed pic in the top right, it looks the same as the hdr photo). You need a scene where even your eyes cant see the whole range, e.g. a bright sky (helps if its colourful or cloudy i.e. sunset/sunrise) with reflections (reflections tend to blow out in water, or if you expose for them then the rest of the shot is way too dark). Shooting an array of bottles or a HDB block out of your window is just lazy and will not help you understand how and when to use HDR.
I think wildstallion has pointed out a very salient point in HDR processing and I totally agree with him. Anyway, great shots there mate~! Shooters have to understand why they need to process in HDR instead of just whacking every shot just for the sake of HDR.
Anyway, some of my own samples of where HDR would work best.
These are all processed in Photomatix then further massaged in Photoshop:
However, lately I have discovered that I can also simulate the HDR effect without having to go through exposure blending in Photomatix.
Anyway, some of my own samples of where HDR would work best.
These are all processed in Photomatix then further massaged in Photoshop:
However, lately I have discovered that I can also simulate the HDR effect without having to go through exposure blending in Photomatix.
Outstanding shots! The fourth is my favourite. Now check it out guys, look how much detail is in the pictures, there are clouds, many colours, reflections, large shadow and highlight areas etc all scenes which would be appropriate for HDR.
Cheers for sharing!
Cheers for sharing!
hazmee: nice shots!:thumbsup:
can you post the images before you blend it using photomatix? and how did you simulate HDR not using photomatix?
can you post the images before you blend it using photomatix? and how did you simulate HDR not using photomatix?
you can check out my threads in flickr about realistic hdr processing
here
and here
recently i realised that not putting full strength in photomatix will render the scene more natural, although you will not get maximum detail. but it's a good compromise.
sunset is almost always a good time to use hdr, especially if you're doing it in the traditional way, i.e. foreground with background. that said, understanding why you are applying hdr, simply for more than just the look of artificiality that so many people like - i find it ugly.. more importantly it's about getting all the details you want, while retaining a natural look. personally while wildstallion's shots can work for some people - i quite like them but not everyone can look at it without feeling that it is more digital art than anything else. but to each his own style.
an alternative is always gnd for landscapes, but sometimes you are limited by equipment (exposure range difference not corresponding to filter) or it will not work because the land is not divided by a line that is so common in gnd.
some scenes are defintely more suitable for hdr than others - but wherever possible, i prefer leaving hdr out of the equation.. it is artificial looking no matter how you do it, at best you can reduce the amount of artificiality - at least for photomatix.
take for example this versus this. the first is not hdr, the second is.
here
and here
recently i realised that not putting full strength in photomatix will render the scene more natural, although you will not get maximum detail. but it's a good compromise.
sunset is almost always a good time to use hdr, especially if you're doing it in the traditional way, i.e. foreground with background. that said, understanding why you are applying hdr, simply for more than just the look of artificiality that so many people like - i find it ugly.. more importantly it's about getting all the details you want, while retaining a natural look. personally while wildstallion's shots can work for some people - i quite like them but not everyone can look at it without feeling that it is more digital art than anything else. but to each his own style.
an alternative is always gnd for landscapes, but sometimes you are limited by equipment (exposure range difference not corresponding to filter) or it will not work because the land is not divided by a line that is so common in gnd.
some scenes are defintely more suitable for hdr than others - but wherever possible, i prefer leaving hdr out of the equation.. it is artificial looking no matter how you do it, at best you can reduce the amount of artificiality - at least for photomatix.
take for example this versus this. the first is not hdr, the second is.
yeah.. very nice:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
would be great if can see the original shot.
nitemare: do you honestly find much difference in results when using bracketing as opposed to a single RAW file? and also, jpeg/tiff? lots of argument over that.
Cheers to our similar preference. I absolutely HATE it when people play around with simple settings and go THERE U GO H-D-R when its trash. Realistic shots only, and moderate use of hdr
Cheers to our similar preference. I absolutely HATE it when people play around with simple settings and go THERE U GO H-D-R when its trash. Realistic shots only, and moderate use of hdr
Bro, your second pic is HDR from a single RAW right?
Anyway, when to use HDR for me is simple, if a single shot cannot get all the details I want (like burnt highlight/shadow), then multiple shots is the way to go (unless like you said GND can do the job). No necessary with water or sunset. One example I have is below....with normal exposure, I will either loose the highlight details (those brightly lit shops and signboards) or the shadow details (windows/wall in the shadow)...so this is the work of 3 exposures:
Anyway, when to use HDR for me is simple, if a single shot cannot get all the details I want (like burnt highlight/shadow), then multiple shots is the way to go (unless like you said GND can do the job). No necessary with water or sunset. One example I have is below....with normal exposure, I will either loose the highlight details (those brightly lit shops and signboards) or the shadow details (windows/wall in the shadow)...so this is the work of 3 exposures:
yep, it is from a single raw, looked ok on my silly lcd, which is not very accurate but i didn't quite like it after i got home so i hdred it
one more reason to shoot in raw.
oh, and i used gnd la. without gnd the sky sure would have gotten blown out, even with hdr.
graduated neutral density filter
google for articles on this very useful tool for landscapes
Thanks engrmariano. Its 3 exposure in RAW. +/- 2 EV apart. Merged and tone mapped with Photomatix and then PS to refine.
nice HDRI:thumbsup:
can you give some some details?
raw/jpg?
1 EV/3 EV?
software?
Yah, GND is a must have to landscape shooting....save a lot of PP.:thumbsup:
RAW is a must too.
RAW is a must too.
- Status
Similar threads
