freehand in a sense handheld without a tripod...
HDR to me pretty much means multiple shots of different exposure values taken off a tripod but i have seen an influx of "free-hand" HDR shots
just wondering how they are being done...
examples here...
http://flickr.com/photos/altus/367995035/
probably with autobracketing, and very steady hands + bracing by leaning on support or lowering, or placing hands on ledge, etc
otherwise believe me, handheld hdr which is literally freehand requiring you to turn any wheels, it's literally impossible.
whatever the case, hdr is still best done with a tripod. period. why be lazy and miss getting the results you want when you can get certainty?
one of the reason why freehand HDR appeals to me is the possibility of being able to take HDR shots anywhere and anytime i choose to as setting up a tripod etc isn't always convenient or even possible depending on the situation.
hmm... auto-bracketing only allows for up to 3 different exposures, is that right? so how does one attain 5 exposures? like the guy did in the example i've posted.
but its jus a tool. used only when necessary. certainly not f every shot.
hmm... auto-bracketing only allows for up to 3 different exposures, is that right? so how does one attain 5 exposures? like the guy did in the example i've posted.
HDR is a very useful tool to know.
i promise i'll master it one day (actually i ve bracketed some shots. jus havent ve time to fig out how to put them together).
but its jus a tool. used only when necessary. certainly not f every shot.
and its something deliberate. u took several exposures, with the intention of blending them together later.
if its something deliberate, then i makes sense to deliberately use a tripod to achieve what u ve in mind.
this is something very true
hdr is most commonly used when you need an expanded dynamic range - when does this happen? during the golden hours, or shooting into the sun.
for the first case, believe me, if you don't have a tripod you must be kidding me, for the second.. the chances of that happening is rare and rare.
the only reason why i can think of for you to have an excuse not to have a tripod is that you're travelling. but even then it is not really one.
if you are serious about landscapes, where hdr applies a lot.. then you should have a tripod 90% of the time. even during the day.
HDR can be applied to a large number of scenes and it isn't restricted to only the golden hours or shooting into the sun.
i do not see why one should lug a heavy tripod around for the entire day just to anticipate a single HDR moment, this is what happens to me on most of my trips, a tripod during the day is a little too unwieldy and cumbersome for me to move around freely on my feet during travels.... not to mention heavy.
Sorry to OT abit...
I was told if we took in RAW format. Then using the software provided to increase/decrease stops to make 3 different exposure pictures then making it a HDR picture. Sounds possible though.
How about using a mini tripod? like those cute 3 inch ones you usually use for PnS?
well, to be frank the hokkaido backcountry shot you linked can be done with proper exposure, just whack the shadows and highlights using photoshop cs2.
to use hdr to achieve it is like lowering your pants to fart.. giving yourself more hassle in exchange for the same result. tell me - what's so special about the dynamic range there? is it problematic even for digital? no. has he given expanded dynamic range? no. the area near the sun is still blown out massively. so what has he used the technique for? for a look. and that look can be achieved in photoshop without taking a few exposures - simple burning dodging even can do it.
as for the rest of his shots, they are so saturated my eyes hurt. the colors are so unnatural i have no idea which planet he took them on.
why do i use the example of the golden hours? because it is a period of high contrast, where the bright point in the image and the dark point in the image is so far apart that it warrants hdr to "compress" the dynamic range in the scene to fit into the dynamic range present on computers.
knowing when a tool is required, best suited, rather than trying to use a "one size fits all" solution and literally approaching photography like a headless chicken in the hopes of getting lucky is probably advisable. of course, you can beg to differ - but then that was never my problem to begin with.
i do not disagree with you that lugging a tripod can be cumbersome - to be frank heaviness is relative - if you are lugging a 2.5kg tripod when you have cheap 1 kg or so options then that's simply silliness. if you choose to indulge laziness, why not take it a step further? just use a compact lor, dslr is heavy leh. :bsmilie: