You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Computers/Tech/Photo within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets
Okay. HDR is a BITCH!!! Why can't I get it to turn out all cool and stuff?? :(
The down side of HDR is that it
Okay. HDR is a BITCH!!! Why can't I get it to turn out all cool and stuff?? :(
The down side of HDR is that it is very easy to get washed out bland looking images because you are tying to display a lot of information in a very small space. In the end it all comes down to the tone mapping, you have to find a curve that preserves your highlights and your shadows, while still being steep enough in the tones you care about to give contrast. I find I seem to get the best results when I use the Local Adaptation option when converting from 32 bits/channel to 8 bits/channel, that way you can directly manipulate your toning curve (you can click and hold with your mouse over an area of an image to see where it is on the tone curve to make it easier to steepen or shallow out and area you are interested in). It is still something that I am very bad at. It also helps to start with an image that you will care about seeing the extreme highs and lows, and as it turns out my attempt at the sunset was a very poor example as it would have looked great just in silhouette, but at least you can see it is working (and this image seems to be suffering greatly from the Lightroom export debacle)
Last edited by ValleyFan; November 30th, 2007 at 01:27 PM.
Alright. Since Sam has uploaded his crappy image, I guess I'll upload mine.
These were taken yesterday at the Reagan Library.
I think the initial problem I was having (using qtpfsgui) was that I was trying to combine too many images that had too little an exposure difference between them. I then downloaded and tried Photomatix and it seemed to work a bit better, but when I chose fewer images to combine (i.e. every fourth image in a sixteen-image bracket), it worked better yet.
I think that I shot wrong to begin with. I think a two-stop exposure difference between images is the minimum you'd want. Also, I think that maybe this wasn't the best setting/picture for the attempt. I figured it would be, what with the bright day through the windows of the building in front of Air Force 1 and that darkness inside, but I can't seem to get things matched up well enough to allow a properly exposed window-view and interior at the same time.
Sam, are you using CS3 to create your HDRs?
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Last edited by FlyBoeingJets; November 30th, 2007 at 08:51 AM.
Alright. Since Sam has uploaded his crappy image, I guess I'll upload mine.
Oh SNAP! I think I the tail shot is interesting because although it isn't immediately obvious it is HDR, you can see the highlights are under control, the one thing I feel is that I would like a little more weight to the blacks, perhaps letting the numbers and the blue portion of the flag clip a bit, but I like that shot, it has an interesting feel to it. The shot under the engine is cool because you can still see a lot of detail in the sky (and it is an interesting sky), but I wonder if you have anymore range to see what is going on in the shadows at the back of the engine, or does it just start feeling flat if you expand the range that much? With the under the belly shot, I also wonder how much room you still have in the shadows to bring them up and try and bring the sky down a little, but it seems that if you do that it might be hard to get interesting contrast in the rest of the image. This is why HDRs are hard
Quote:
Sam, are you using CS3 to create your HDRs?
Yeah, I use their little tool. But I am starting to think doing it manually (lay up my three exposures, 0, +2 over, -2 under, as layers and use layer masks, perhaps with blending options, so paint in areas I want) might be a little more user friendly, although much more time consuming.
Last edited by ValleyFan; November 30th, 2007 at 09:24 AM.
The more work I do with these things, the better I think Photoshop will handle it. QTPFSGUI is too bare-bones and isn't very user-friendly. Photomatix is more user-friendly, but doesn't seem like it can grab the contrast as well.
Argh. $199 for a Photoshop upgrade.
I really need to take a class in PS, too.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Last edited by FlyBoeingJets; November 30th, 2007 at 09:32 AM.
Don't we all! I bought the Total Training DVDs for CS and got through 3 discs and they came out with CS2. Now I have CS3 Extended sitting on the shelf but it makes me tired to just think of installing it and having to learning all the new features.
The HDR stuff you guys are doing is interesting. I've never looked into it before. I did however take some photos with the "Active D-Lighting" feature on the D300. I liked the results. Unfortunately the picures are of my 12-year-old daughter so I don't really want to post them on the internet. But I will find something else to post soon.
I highly recommend a flash. The hard part is choosing which one. The 580EX II is the caddy of the Canon speedlights, both in terms of power and features (namely the ability to act as the master flash that can control up to two groups of slaves). The 420EX is a close runner up, not as powerful, and slightly less features, but still an outstanding flash. The nice thing about the 580EX is that it has a PC port on it, so if you want to trigger it remotely using Pocket Wizards, or more cheaply, EBay triggers. Both can rotate for bounce.
There are other "off brand" flashes which are cheaper, and offer a lot of the same features, such as the Sigma EF-530.
If you don't care about E-TTL and just want full manual, it gets really cheap, such as the Vivitar 285HV
Don't call me a **** but I took these pictures at the Reagan Library the other day, too. The wife wanted to see what was there in the "First Lady's Style" exhibit.
Sort of a "nothing beats existing light and a tripod" sort of post. That being said, though...my tripod sucks major arse. It is the next thing gettin' upgraded.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Last edited by FlyBoeingJets; November 30th, 2007 at 05:25 PM.
I highly recommend a flash. The hard part is choosing which one. The 580EX II is the caddy of the Canon speedlights, both in terms of power and features (namely the ability to act as the master flash that can control up to two groups of slaves). The 420EX is a close runner up, not as powerful, and slightly less features, but still an outstanding flash. The nice thing about the 580EX is that it has a PC port on it, so if you want to trigger it remotely using Pocket Wizards, or more cheaply, EBay triggers. Both can rotate for bounce.
There are other "off brand" flashes which are cheaper, and offer a lot of the same features, such as the Sigma EF-530.
If you don't care about E-TTL and just want full manual, it gets really cheap, such as the Vivitar 285HV
I have the first gen version of that flash (the not II) and I LOVE it. Powerful, recharges quickly, lots and lots of features.
The Canon flash system seems to be a little different from everyone else's, which if you are coming from another system (namely Nikon, as everyone who has used the Nikon flash system loves it and loathes the Canon system) it tends to frustrate people, but since I have never known anything else, I find it very easy. Basically, there is a flash exposure compensation that you set with the wheel on the back of the flash. This sets the exposure for what the camera thinks the subject of the picture is (what it has focus lock on). Then on the camera itself, you have the exposure compensation, which in Av and Tv modes is changed by the wheel on the back of the camera. This controls the ambient exposure.
So, if you are trying to take a picture of someone in front of a sunset say, where you want the sunset to be a bit underexposed to get more color out of it, and you want the face of the person to be properly exposed, you dial the flash exposure to +/-0, and you set the camera's exposure compensation to -1, and presto chango you have a nice dark but not too dark sunset and a properly exposed person. If you are taking pictures in bright noon sun and you want a little fill flash, you set the camera's exposure to +/-0, and you set the flash to something like -1, and you get some nice fill on faces.
What I think a lot of people find annoying or confusing (and perhaps the Nikonians can better fill me in with this) is that with a lot of systems there isn't that disconnect between the flash and the camera exposure, which can lead to things if you are taking pictures in very dark environments, and you have the camera exposure not dialed all the way down, you hit the shutter, the flash goes off, and the shutter stays open for 15" trying to get enough light to meet the exposure requirement you set with the camera exposure compensation. So you might have situations where you want to go Tv or full manual on the camera (E-TTL will still work with the flash even with the camera in manual) to force the shutter speeds you want.
Last edited by ValleyFan; November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 PM.
ValleyFan
I think I the tail shot is interesting because although it isn't immediately obvious it is HDR, you can see the highlights are under control, the one thing I feel is that I would like a little more weight to the blacks, perhaps letting the numbers and the blue portion of the flag clip a bit, but I like that shot, it has an interesting feel to it. The shot under the engine is cool because you can still see a lot of detail in the sky (and it is an interesting sky), but I wonder if you have anymore range to see what is going on in the shadows at the back of the engine, or does it just start feeling flat if you expand the range that much? With the under the belly shot, I also wonder how much room you still have in the shadows to bring them up and try and bring the sky down a little, but it seems that if you do that it might be hard to get interesting contrast in the rest of the image. This is why HDRs are hard 
