Discussions (6168)
High dynamic range
|
Beyond Forgetting says:
What is the easiest program out there when one ventures into this thing called HDR? & what in your opinion is the best available at this time? I am going to use my Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens and see what it could do. |
|
All Glass Photo says:
If you've got Photoshop CS2 (I think CS2 is the only version that does this) you can make HDR's with that. A better solution is photomatix. It's a piece of cake to use and not very expensive to buy. here's a tutorial.
|
|
Ben McLeod says:
Have you seen 99.9999999999999% of the HDR people post? And you still want to do it? Most HDR looks like it belongs on black velvet. |
|
brett in japan (back in Australia) says:
i'll second a vote for photomatix. easy to use and the results are much better. you can also use a single raw file to automatically make 3 exposures.
|
|
johndohrn says:
photoshop's HDR blows. I always end up using masks manually to do HDR because it sucks so bad
|
|
Computer Science Geek says:
@brett in japan: making 3 images from a single RAW file is not the same as taking 3 real separate exposures. You cannot do HDRI from one file.
|
|
resmith85 says:
I third the motion for Photomatix. And HDR does not have to look like an acid trip. Venture on!
|
|
|
Ben McLeod says:
What CSG said. |
 |
ad hoc horse [deleted] says:
> It won't look as cheesy as HDR |
|
robability says:
If you do HDR, please do it subtly (especially sublty with the haloing).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beyond Forgetting says:
Many went to the places that Ansel Adams took his pictures hoping to recapture or even approach or duplicate what he did. The secret is not in the place or the waiting for a hope for scene. The secret is in the darkroom technique.
|
|
|
brett in japan (back in Australia) says:
sorry i thought the OP was asking about software to use not opinions about HDR. |
|
|
Ben McLeod says:
I totally agree (with PhotoFarmer). Do what you want - it's your life, just ask yourself, "will my future-self be disgusted with what I'm about to do?" |
|
|
Beyond Forgetting says:
What brought me to the HDR is because of my disatisfaction with the lenses that I used ... that it seems to me they are unable to give me all the details that I am looking for ... that in my endless search for such a lens I finally discover that it is not the fault of the lens but that the full spectrum and range of detail needs a software to display it before our eyes.
|
|
|
Computer Science Geek says:
@brett in japan and photofarmer: I don't hate HDR. I do it all the time. |
|
|
brett in japan (back in Australia) says:
wow i can see why you don't like HDR. They really sucked. |
|
righteous teaching [deleted] says:
To the original topic I have heard PS CS2 can do it and there are some propietary HDR softwares floating about like the one from Photomatix. Thats all I know. |
|
Letsemgo says:
www.flickr.com/groups/myfirsthdr/, try this flickr group and read in or post in their discussion
|
|
nicoatridge says:
|
|
Monday Morning Photography says:
I don't mind people using HDR techniques but sometimes I do get tired of everthing looking like it comes from a high gloss magazine ad.
|
|
LebronPhoto says:
I've seen some HDR images that look realistic, and others that look like they belong on the cover of a Video Game. I think it's all a matter of what the image is intended for. There is a place for both realistic photos and surreal looking images.
|
|
MerlinsMan says:
The problem in HDR is in the down-sampling from 32-bit HDR to regular 16-bit. The default "highlight compression" method in PS CS2 gives the familiar HDR look that so many dislike. The "exposure/gamma" method gives something very like a standard image right out of the raw converter - just standard 16-bit dynamic range albeit with ideal exposure and contrast. |
|
acceptable instrument [deleted] says:
@beyond forgetting. Ansel Adams would disagree with you. According to him, it's in three stages the exposure, the developing and the printing. Only two of these are darkroom techinques.
|
|
James Kaarremaa says:
I too don't like HDR in general. I have seen a few images that actually capture a higher dynamic range rather than a scene from the Wizard of Oz though. I've tried it once at night and gotten something realistic and with more dynamic range but nothing I couldn't have done other ways. I'm going to experiment some more with it sometime but only in situations where I feel it might work. |
|
tychay says:
@photofarmer: I think it translates closer to "There will be no arguing from taste" (gustibus = like gustatory, disputandum = like disputing). But your meaning is spot on: taste is subjective. |
|
|
James Kaarremaa says:
Great article on HDR. It's bang on. A lot of people do claim that HDR captures what your eye can see even when the photo looks like a painting. HDR is an artistic decision and it is very easy to do which is probably why so many people choose that method. HDR can work how it's intended but in certain situations it shows its flaws (trees, clouds, etc.)
|
|
|
Beyond Forgetting says:
I agree with Perfection is a fault ... How could I have omitted the fact that I too am also a photographer, that Ansel Adam is a photographer...who uses a view camera... (let me reword this ... that I am a point and shoot guy) and uses the swing and the tilt ....which is too apparent ...( I use to do this with my Linhof) and only remember that he like me or I like him is a darkroom technician! ....( I remember my first work in America was as a Darkroom Specialist (Photography is my hobby ... not my profession) in Sta Ana ... @Perfection is a fault .... I agree with you fully .... sorry for omitting the apparent. I must be getting old... Ops ...... I am old.
|
|
|
Computer Science Geek says:
MerlinsMan, have you tried the Local Adaption method in Photoshop CS2 when converting to16- or 8-bit mode? This is where Photoshop lets you control the effect. You must adjust the curve and use the histogram as a guide to see where to place and move the control points. You also have the option of changing the control points to corner points (there's a check box in the interface) if you need to isolate the curve so that it doesn't destroy areas that are correctly mapped.
|
|
acceptable instrument [deleted] says:
Not a problem Beyond Forgetting. Maybe you are just not beyond forgetting. |
|
Franklin Anciano says:
Here's an HDR shot that I did. |
|
Mr Dave Esmond says:
I've messed a bit with the HDR tools in PS. I like the results better in BW then in color. To me it's just one more tool and like anything the technique can result in images I'm not a personal fan of. |
|
SEngstrom says:
It makes good sense to me to use a single raw for HDR if you are so inclined. As I understand it HDR software usually works with the concept of local contrast so that it does things that you cannot achieve with global edits. |
|
|
LebronPhoto says:
@SEngstrom, |
|
8thcross says:
@LebronPhoto: |
|
|
Mr Dave Esmond says:
Using a single image and masks is good way to go. But I'm not convinced it can give the same results as using multiple exposures. I don't think I could have shot the globe photo above in a way that I wouldn't have lost detail in either the darks or lights. And if the detail isn't there no amount of post work is gonna bring it back. |
|
shashchatter says:
Most definitely three or more bracketed exposures can provide you with way more dynamic range than a single exposure can. However, the real use of single-image HDR processing is in at least two areas that you can't do with the bracketed ones. First, is obviously, if you did not bracket and only have one exposure :-). More importantly, if there is any subject motion whatsoever, then you cannot do multi-exposure HDR (even though software can align for slight motion, it is really very small amount of motion that can be adjusted). |
|
|
Beyond Forgetting says:
You have a digital back for a MF camera ??? That is about $22,000 just for the back on a Hasselblad alone! & this is suppose to be the smallest .... the bigger one must cost equal to a Hummer!
|
