Rich Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 Seems to be alot of people doing these ATM so thought I'd give it ago, I quite like it but it won't be for everyone. Original HDR V1 Had a tweak with the settings as there were a couple of areas I weren't happy with... HDR V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Love the picture...... But to the idiot's out there me included what's "HDR"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 High Dynamic Range (HDR) Basically you take 3 or more photos (of the same image obviously) with varying exposure levels and blend them into one. It allows the light and dark areas of the photos to become more visible. This is my first attempt at doing one and TBH I think I chose the wrong photo as the large shadow is making it difficult for me to get right. I'm going to have a play with some more though see how they come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Updated the OP with the original photo now to compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 I think both pictures look great..... Seems technology allows perfection at a price. without reading cynical isn't the actual image the real one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 I think both pictures look great..... Seems technology allows perfection at a price. without reading cynical isn't the actual image the real one. What do you mean the actual image? The first photo that I've now added is how I took the shot, that hasn't been processed. The second image was my attempt at doing a HDR, but the halo around the trees and path didn't look right so I did number 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Here's another...it was a miserable day, drizzle, cloudy and this shows in the original photo. Then I created 3 images with different exposures using the RAW file and created this, which looks alot brighter now. As sagitar said you can change it so it's way OTT but I'm trying not to do that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 Did a couple of the Lotus Here is the original from the camera's RAW data This is a processed HDR from 5 different exposures, trying to keep it looking natural This is another HDR but I have made it look less natural Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 i have to question something and it has a huge impact on the images that you will produce. Have you calibrated the screen you use to view these images? The reason i ask is because i run a samsung 40" tv as my computer screen. I have access to some level of calibration equipment and have calibrated my screen as close to 6500k as it will produce at its current running age. This means that when watching films i am seeing the colours and tone the production team wants me to see as closely as my screen can replicate. If you are creating these images on an uncalibrated screen which was for instance low on Brightness then what may look to me like a well exposed image would to you look dark and gloomy. the three images you have just posted look on my screen as discribed: image 1: a good level of exposure, the blacks of the arches are just recognisable as being darker than the tyre with accents of sheen on the tyre. it looks to be a slightly overcast day but with reasonable light. the image has depth. image 2: this one looks a little high on brightness, slightly washy and feels over exposed (possibly the wrong termanology). I can now see more detail in the under arch and i can see all the tyre tred down to the floor but the tyres now look grey. The image has lost its depth. image 3: this image has some of the depth of the first image, less washyness than the second and feels more vibrant than both other images. it "pops" but has a tangable feel to it. the first feels the most comfortable to me, the third being the most involving. These observations may be completely altered if viewing on a screen with the same colour and brighnes/contrast values as yours and is always worth considering when editing images. What you see on your screen may not always be what others see on theirs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 i have to question something and it has a huge impact on the images that you will produce. Have you calibrated the screen you use to view these images? The reason i ask is because i run a samsung 40" tv as my computer screen. I have access to some level of calibration equipment and have calibrated my screen as close to 6500k as it will produce at its current running age. This means that when watching films i am seeing the colours and tone the production team wants me to see as closely as my screen can replicate. If you are creating these images on an uncalibrated screen which was for instance low on Brightness then what may look to me like a well exposed image would to you look dark and gloomy. the three images you have just posted look on my screen as discribed: image 1: a good level of exposure, the blacks of the arches are just recognisable as being darker than the tyre with accents of sheen on the tyre. it looks to be a slightly overcast day but with reasonable light. the image has depth. image 2: this one looks a little high on brightness, slightly washy and feels over exposed (possibly the wrong termanology). I can now see more detail in the under arch and i can see all the tyre tred down to the floor but the tyres now look grey. The image has lost its depth. image 3: this image has some of the depth of the first image, less washyness than the second and feels more vibrant than both other images. it "pops" but has a tangable feel to it. the first feels the most comfortable to me, the third being the most involving. These observations may be completely altered if viewing on a screen with the same colour and brighnes/contrast values as yours and is always worth considering when editing images. What you see on your screen may not always be what others see on theirs! No I haven't calibrated my monitor but I'm going to try some different profiles to see what happens but how you've described the 3 images is how I see them as well. The second image was made using the default settings of photomatix, the third I adjusted myself. Really with these HDR images I think it's best to select certain areas and change occordingly. Adjusting various aspects that affect the whole image doesn't always work as with the tyres in the second one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 im now at work on my drone pc and the images look shocking......but thats because im using a cheap uncalibrated lcd with poor contrast i can see the inner arch on all the pictures and all the tyres look grey the profiles may provide you with some level of continuity through all stages of the photo-edit-print process so its definatly worth experimenting with. Thats what we have to do at the college when installing new scanners or printers, else we find the difference between on screen and on paper output barely resembles what the user believed they had captured! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Funny you say that cos looking on my work monitor the first photo shows a slight hint of grey, the second is the worse and the third not as bad as the second. On my monitor at home the tyre in the first photo looks dark black how it should be. When I get a minute I'm going to have a look at getting some profiles for home and see how they affect the look of the photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Funny you say that cos looking on my work monitor the first photo shows a slight hint of grey, the second is the worse and the third not as bad as the second. On my monitor at home the tyre in the first photo looks dark black how it should be. When I get a minute I'm going to have a look at getting some profiles for home and see how they affect the look of the photos. Maybe you just need a new printer operator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 lmao! "f**kin Lexmark sh*t!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooflessdriver Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 I know its resurrecting an oldish thread but only just read this and was interested in the calibration conversation. I used to run a photo competition at work and one of the topics was Dark. I took a long exposure photo in a church graveyard at night, and it came out really well. Unfortunately when it was judged at work, the screen was so badly set up, I got last place! I showed the picture later on my work desktop that was a lot better set up, and the judge said if they had seen it on mine, I would have won! (She was a hells angel biker chick. know your audience!). I was robbed! Like the HDR pics. its something I have been meaning to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 I'm not in graphics, image manipulation and what not anymopre but TBH the final version of each image just looks processed, like it's been though photoshop, but the first version of each looks natural ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 I know its resurrecting an oldish thread but only just read this and was interested in the calibration conversation. I used to run a photo competition at work and one of the topics was Dark. I took a long exposure photo in a church graveyard at night, and it came out really well. Unfortunately when it was judged at work, the screen was so badly set up, I got last place! I showed the picture later on my work desktop that was a lot better set up, and the judge said if they had seen it on mine, I would have won! (She was a hells angel biker chick. know your audience!). I was robbed! Like the HDR pics. its something I have been meaning to try. That must've been disappointing It's amazing how some people don't even do the basics of brightness and contrast! I've not used my camera for the last month or 2 as not had the time...I feel like doing some more HDR's now...wonder what subject I can choose. I'm not in graphics, image manipulation and what not anymopre but TBH the final version of each image just looks processed, like it's been though photoshop, but the first version of each looks natural ? Don't open that can of worms again!! You can add to the discussion here if you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 Been playing with HDR again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Another one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.