image post processing

[jann1033]

i tried batch processing my raw whole card yesterday ( Canon digital photo pro) and it did something( says it converted them) but now when i open individually to edit, it still opens the raw converter ( the adobe one) that only opens when there is a raw file and i have to convert again...is this cause i saved them in tiff/32 bit?

[ukcatfan]

Here is what it sounds like to me. You batch processed in the Canon software, so any modifications would only show in the Canon software now. The Adobe software will not read those modifications, so it thinks the image is unchanged. It must open straight to Adobe due to that being the default program. If you open the Canon program and open from inside it, you should see the modifications that you did. Also, the Canon software may have saved the converted TIFFs to a location on your computer where you do not expect to see them.

One last thing in case you are not familiar with RAW, the RAW file never changes. To do anything with the image, it must be converted like you did, but from there to use it on websites, printing, slideshows, etc. you open the TIFF or JPG file and not the RAW. It is like a digital negative and you would likely archive it off your drive on to a DVD or something.

Kevin

[jann1033]

on farther inspection i think what i did was once i canceled the first batch, neglected to reset the save button so maybe it by passed the organizer somehow...i can open them as tiff files via "file" in the editor, just not "edit"through the organizer...
thanks

[photo_chick]

This sounds like one more reason I am glad I got Lightrom!

Go download the trial, it will make your life easier if you work with RAW!

[jann1033]

This sounds like one more reason I am glad I got Lightrom!

Go download the trial, it will make your life easier if you work with RAW!
i did once already so i can't again and don't think i am up to spending $$ now so i have to plod along with what i have right now;)

[DVC Jen]

We just got home late yesterday afternoon. The trip was WONDERFUL. I got to experience the last few days of the lovebugs (ick). The weather was great - some rain but not tons. Temps were great - high 80's to low to mid 90's.

I am not sure how many photos I took. DH wrote them to dvd straight from my card reader ( all as raw files) and I haven't even looked at some of them yet.

He has to load them onto the new external hard drive for me because my pc will not read a DVD.

I learned a lot during this trip. Never once used my 70-300mm lens. Used the 50mm prime a few times, but I am not happy with the pics I took with it. I tried to use it for low light shots - spectro and wishes. I still can't get the focus right on it and they are not as sharp as I want. Then I switched to my Sigma 28-70mm and did a bit better. I have to say though, the lens I used the most was my canon 28-135mm IS lens. I really need that image stabilization. I just wish I had an IS lens that could zoom in more. Maybe one that goes to 200mm. I think that would be perfect for me.

I so did NOT want to haul my tripod around with me and only did so on our last day. I used it for Wishes and from what I could see via the cameras screen, I got some good ones. I set the XTI with the 28-135mm camera on the tripod and used my remote shutter release. DH handheld the 30D with the Sigma lens on it and he also got some decent hand held shots.

I about jumped out of my skin (happy) with some I took of waterfalls at AK and also the Poly lobby. Hopefully I can start sharing some of them early this coming week.

It is good to be home - but I have to be honest - I am missing the serenity of the WL.

[handicap18]

Welcome back Jennifer. Looking forward to seeing your pics!!

[cathy0124]

Welcome Bacn Jen! You didn't miss much around the DFW Area- Hot and Muggy! Can't wait to see your pics popcorn::

[Amy]

Hi Jen! We just got back last night, too, and I've got a lot of pictures to go through, just like you. Unfortunately, there's laundry to do, bills to pay, work e-mails to go through so I'm not completely clueless when I go back tomorrow, etc. Can't wait to see your shots! I got some good ones with my Canon S3, so I'm sure yours are great, too, esp. your night shots. P&S cameras like my Canon can only do so much for night shots; I had a really difficult time finding the right setting to use.

Maybe if you and I post just a couple of pictures per day, we can drag out our vacations into July!;)

[Dan Murphy]

Welcome home, Jennifer. :wave:

[jns]

welcome back
glad to hea you had a great time
looking forward to seeing all your photos

[S. C.]

Hi Jen! We just got back last night, too, and I've got a lot of pictures to go through, just like you. Unfortunately, there's laundry to do, bills to pay, work e-mails to go through so I'm not completely clueless when I go back tomorrow, etc. Can't wait to see your shots! I got some good ones with my Canon S3, so I'm sure yours are great, too, esp. your night shots. P&S cameras like my Canon can only do so much for night shots; I had a really difficult time finding the right setting to use.

Maybe if you and I post just a couple of pictures per day, we can drag out our vacations into July!;)

Looking forward to both of your pictures! :yay:

[DVC Jen]

OK I have the grand total of photos taken..... 2,498!

Now I have no idea how many of those are "share worthy". I am converting from raw to tiff now. I have the trip to WDW done as well as our first official day. That is all I am doing for now - it is getting late and I am getting sleepy.

[Amy]

OK I have the grand total of photos taken..... 2,498!

Now I have no idea how many of those are "share worthy". I am converting from raw to tiff now. I have the trip to WDW done as well as our first official day. That is all I am doing for now - it is getting late and I am getting sleepy.

HOLY COW Jen!:scared1: I took 1,408, ended up deleting 398 once I saw them on the computer screen, and my DH had a fit! Of course, you were there a lot longer than we were........

Can't wait to see them!

[DVC Jen]

Amy we were there for 11 days and I could have easily taken more.... but well I kept getting "that look"! :confused3

I had to keep reminding my family "ya know you will enjoy these when we get back - whether you like it or not!". ;)

[jann1033]

Amy we were there for 11 days and I could have easily taken more.... but well I kept getting "that look"! :confused3

I had to keep reminding my family "ya know you will enjoy these when we get back - whether you like it or not!". ;)

ahhh, I know that look well:rotfl: welcome back( imo i am never glad to be home but ya gotta go home sometime.....) and we look forward to seeing your 2,496 "keepers";)

[Steve's Girl]

HOLY COW Jen!:scared1: I took 1,408, ended up deleting 398 once I saw them on the computer screen, and my DH had a fit! Of course, you were there a lot longer than we were........

Can't wait to see them!

Our last trip was just a long weekend (3 1/2 days) and I ended up with somewhere between 1300 and 1400. So, you're just fine! Keep snappin' away!

[Groucho]

That's pretty close to my number... I did just over 2,500 on a 10-day trip, though I was pretty sick the first few days so wasn't snapping away like I did later in the trip.

I know all about the time involved in going through them all - especially since I've started them all over with Lightroom. Almost 200 done so far, 2,300 to go. :)

[DVC Jen]

That's pretty close to my number... I did just over 2,500 on a 10-day trip, though I was pretty sick the first few days so wasn't snapping away like I did later in the trip.

I know all about the time involved in going through them all - especially since I've started them all over with Lightroom. Almost 200 done so far, 2,300 to go. :)

I would have loved to have taken more. My family however was getting a bit tired of stopping so Mom could take yet another photo.

I think my next trips photos will be even better. I have learned alot on this trip.

I divided the photos up by the day I took them. So far I have converted May31-June3rd (drive down), June 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. I am going to do the 9th later this afternoon hopefully. So far I am pretty happy with the amount I have been keeping - over half for most of the days. I wasn't expecting it to be that high.

Groucho - why are you redoing them with Lightroom? Is it a better program for conversion? Gives you more options compared with the cameras program? My birthday is coming up next month and I was thinking about asking for that - but would like to know more about it first. Is it user friendly - or more of a challenge to figure out?

[jann1033]

I would have loved to have taken more. My family however was getting a bit tired of stopping so Mom could take yet another photo.

I think my next trips photos will be even better. I have learned alot on this trip.

I divided the photos up by the day I took them. So far I have converted May31-June3rd (drive down), June 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. I am going to do the 9th later this afternoon hopefully. So far I am pretty happy with the amount I have been keeping - over half for most of the days. I wasn't expecting it to be that high.

Groucho - why are you redoing them with Lightroom? Is it a better program for conversion? Gives you more options compared with the cameras program? My birthday is coming up next month and I was thinking about asking for that - but would like to know more about it first. Is it user friendly - or more of a challenge to figure out?

they have a free trial that would take you up to next month;)

[Groucho]

Yes, Lightroom is giving me a lot more control. It also makes the editing much easier and faster, so I'm more likely to take the time to give each photo a little individual attention - picking neutral shades to fine-tune white balance, brightening up colors, etc. Lightroom also makes it fairly painless to do dust removal, and I also often adjust fill light, recovery (brings back blown-out areas if possible), vibrancy, and sometimes black, in order to make a more pleasing photo.

It's always a tough call, though; sometimes looking at the earlier ones side-by-side, I find that I prefer the original, untweaked image. Fortunately Lightroom has really nice options for showing you before and after, side by side or split and variations thereof.

Here's one that I do prefer the later version of, as an example of what you can do... here's the more or less straight JPG conversion:

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/2761-4/2007WDW-022.jpg

Now here's some color correction and fill light to bring out some carpet detail.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/10430-4/2007WDWb-35.jpg

Unfortunately, some constrast is necessarily lost when bringing up the fill light, but you can tweak that a bit more.

Here's another one... before and after.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/3032-4/2007WDW-034.jpg

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/10505-4/2007WDWb-50.jpg

There are obviously quite a few more, though looking at them side by side, I'm already thinking I'm going to have to go back and redo a few again as I prefer the original colors or contrast sometimes. It never ends! :eek:

I haven't done it so much with the WDW shots yet, but sometimes it can be fun to really adjust the colors for a stronger effect... here's a couple shots I did where the colors are not necessarily very true to life!

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/8644-2/FH07-34.jpg

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/8669-2/FH07-39.jpg

Oh, the other reason for going through them again is for keywording - I had already tagged them all with either the park name, downtown, or a resort name, but with so many shots, I could still use to get more granular to help find a specific shot in the future. And then there's the easy straightening... quick cropping... etc, etc. It's not too tricky to use but I'm very glad that I did some training to help take advantage of some of the features and shortcuts that I'm sure that I wouldn't have known about otherwise.

[Lizziejane]

Jen - can hardly wait to see your photos!!

Speaking of lightroom, someone recently posted a link to ononesoftware.com
They have a free download of presets for lightroom, and we installed it last night. So far, I've found it to be very easy to use and I much prefer the results to the mess I was making on my own. I think I may be a RAW convert!

[Lizziejane]

OK I have the grand total of photos taken..... 2,498!

Now I have no idea how many of those are "share worthy". I am converting from raw to tiff now. I have the trip to WDW done as well as our first official day. That is all I am doing for now - it is getting late and I am getting sleepy.


I meant to ask - 2,498 shots in RAW - how many compact flash cards would a person need for that?!

[DVC Jen]

I meant to ask - 2,498 shots in RAW - how many compact flash cards would a person need for that?!

I have four. 2 - 2gig, 1 - 1gig and a 256 I think. I only used the 2 gig cards and each night my DH burned the photos as raw files to dvd's. I can't read a DVD on this pc though. I needed more hard drive space so we went out and got a 350gig harddrive and he then transferred them directly to it.

I'm not quite as happy with the three days worth that I have gone through today. I can clearly see what I did wrong. Feeling rushed to snap a picture when you are very clearly still in the learning process as far as setting up a good composition - getting your exposure right and having 3 family members sighing isn't all that easy.

Groucho - thanks. I am going to go check out lightroom. I really like the tweaks you made to your photos. I hope some of mine turn out that well.

[Lizziejane]

Feeling rushed to snap a picture when you are very clearly still in the learning process as far as setting up a good composition - getting your exposure right and having 3 family members sighing isn't all that easy.


I think we all experience that - the sighing family members. I'm surprised no one has organized a DIS photographers meet - family members excluded!

[wdwpluto]

I'm assuming that some of you photoshop users out there use actions in your post processing. Anyone care to share your own actions or links to free actions?

[grumpy2]

Jen, loved your pics, especially those at the WL (my favorite, DW's is CR). I'm sure you probably have been asked but, what kind of camera did you use. Your pics are far superior to mine. Thanks Dave

[DVC Jen]

Jen, loved your pics, especially those at the WL (my favorite, DW's is CR). I'm sure you probably have been asked but, what kind of camera did you use. Your pics are far superior to mine. Thanks Dave

Wow you made my day. :goodvibes Thanks.

I don't have all of the photos uploaded to my smugmug Disney gallery YET - just finished June 1st - 7th. I am hoping to have the 8th if not the 9th up yet by tonight. There will be more WL photos in there - I think I took a few nearly every day.

I had both of my cameras with me a Canon XTi and Canon 30D. I used the 30D most of the time. I did use the XTi on the 14th along with my tripod to get some decent (better than handheld) shots of Wishes. Those will be the last ones I get up. The tripod made such a difference - and they would have turned to be something I am super happy with if it weren't for the guy with the hat that snuck in front of my tripod at the last minute. So the majority of the photos have the bottom part of the castle covered up by what I now refer to has "hat head guy". :rolleyes:

[Tickla]

I read on an old post that if you have a dslr you are expected to post process to make the pictures look right, but you don't have to on a point & shoot--is this right? I have wanted a dslr for awhile, but I don't do anything on my computer with my current digital camera,and don't want to either--I just take pics, bring the mem.card in & get a cd & prints made--so maybe something like a Canon S3-IS would be better for me? (I wan't a new camera). Please help me!:confused:

[jann1033]

unless you shoot raw, you wouldn't have to post process anything so with jpg if you really don't want to crop or sharpen or anything you wouldn't have to do anything different than with a p&S. raw on the other hand, has to be processed. i am presuming you probably download your stuff now but if not guess you could just take the memory card to where ever you take to print them.

now the editorial comment ;) why not learn to do at least the basics that come with your digital camera? you can make the photos so much nicer imo

you might rather have a camera with scene modes, most dslr are more limited there. ( ie fireworks, pets and kids, things like that are on a bridge not a dslr) if so you probably would be happier with a bridge type camera( ie canon s3 or s5 etc)

[deletedpenguin]

It's not a must, unless you shoot in RAW format, but I've got a series of PPing actions in PS that I do.

[ukcatfan]

I agree with what Jann said, but let me ask you a question. What are the reasons that you think you need a DSLR? Do not take too much weight on how the users of this board talk about their DSLRs. We just like to talk too much :) It is true that a DSLR can take better pictures than a p&s, but only if you are willing to put in a little effort. If you are not much on post processing, you might also be someone that prefers to shoot mainly in auto modes. If so, you might be happier with a bridge camera.

Also, there are p&s models that offer RAW and they would need post processing as well.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

once again I will be the one to respectfully disagree ...


a properly exposed raw file does not require post processing, y'all may choose to do so to tweak the pic the way you want it, but it's not neccessary..


I 've shot thousands of raw pics and the only thing I do to most of them is open and resave as jpegs.

I suppose technically that is post processing, but it doesn't take any special skills or knowledge to do so

[ukcatfan]

a properly exposed raw file does not require post processing, y'all may choose to do so to tweak the pic the way you want it, but it's not neccessary..




Yes, but the exposure has nothing to do with the white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. Because the RAW file applies none of those things, it will likely never look as good as a JPG shot under the exact same situation. You can always have a default value in your RAW processor for these though.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

Yes, but the exposure has nothing to do with the white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. Because the RAW file applies none of those things, it will likely never look as good as a JPG shot under the exact same situation. You can always have a default value in your RAW processor for these though.

Kevin

again I respectfully disagree when I shoot raw I actually shoot raw/jpeg mode.. and if I've nailed the exposure, the raw file looks just as good as the jpeg, perhaps the difference is I use a Minolta 7D.

minolta is known for minimizing in camera processing, to give pics a more natural look,


when shooting in daylight no white balance setting is needed, contrast would be natural as would be saturation and sharpening, so what processing is needed.

raw captures all info that is there, so if your exposure is right on, all other things would be accurate as well.., they might not be tweaked or increased as people have been accustomed to with in camera processing, but they would be accurate..

[Furgus]

I have to agree with 88 on this one. I have plenty of shots I shot in RAW and JPEG, and the RAWs look a lot better to me without doing anything to them. I think it is because of the lossless compression, and the more dynamic range of the picture. Course I could be way off.
I rarely shot film, but did film every have "white balance"
I usually keep all of my RAWs "as shot"

[MICKEY88]

I have to agree with 88 on this one. I have plenty of shots I shot in RAW and JPEG, and the RAWs look a lot better to me without doing anything to them. I think it is because of the lossless compression, and the more dynamic range of the picture. Course I could be way off.
I rarely shot film, but did film every have "white balance"
I usually keep all of my RAWs "as shot"


film didn't have white balance per se,,, color corrections were done either with filters or with the printing machine

[Furgus]

Yeah that is pretty much what I thought...

[Anewman]

once again I will be the one to respectfully disagree ...


a properly exposed raw file does not require post processing, y'all may choose to do so to tweak the pic the way you want it, but it's not neccessary..


I 've shot thousands of raw pics and the only thing I do to most of them is open and resave as jpegs.

I suppose technically that is post processing, but it doesn't take any special skills or knowledge to do so


I think I understand your point that RAW images do not need to be EDITED(tweaked), but yes they do require processing as you admitted to be technically doing.

But, You say you just "OPEN" them but what exactly does that mean? depending on what software(and settings) you use to "OPEN" those perfectly exposed shots the results would vary greatly.

Default settings on most converters are set to automatically make adjustments when the RAW file is opened, you are right there is no skill required.

[ukcatfan]

I rarely shot film, but did film every have "white balance"


You can also use different types/brands of film to get different effects similar to what WB does for digital.

Kevin

[Groucho]

Yes, but the exposure has nothing to do with the white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. Because the RAW file applies none of those things, it will likely never look as good as a JPG shot under the exact same situation. You can always have a default value in your RAW processor for these though.

Kevin
Most any raw processor will use whatever camera settings are there for the default for the RAW file. Ie, if you set your camera to do max saturation, tungsten white balance, and minimum contrast, that's how the RAW file will be processed by default. So, theoretically, a raw file should always be at least as good as the jpg if the camera had created one. (Or as good as the matching jpg if you shoot raw+jpg.)

My response to the OP is that no, you certainly don't need to. I rarely did before starting to use Lightroom. However, a little extra time spent post-processing can make a big difference, and the DSLR can produce a quality enough photo (especially as a raw) that it can be really rewarding to post-process. You will also find yourself with more keepers. I've just started putting some of my updated (more post-processing) shots from my January WDW trip online, and here's one that I didn't even think was a keeper at the default settings - too dark and colorless, even though it's a 2.1-second exposure. Now it's one of my favorites.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/11947-4/2007WDWb-111.jpg

Here's a before and after of a lantern in the PotC queue. Before, it's OK, but there's not much to it. A little post-processing and I was able to brighten up the wall a little without blowing out the details of the actual lantern. I also adjusted the colors slightly (though I honestly don't remember for sure how accurate they are.)

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/3326-4/2007WDW-083.jpg

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/12002-4/2007WDWb-122.jpg

Now, I've also been post-processing my old non-DSLR photos too, but you don't have quite as much flexibility with the JPGs and you're not capable of pulling in as much additional detail.

[Anewman]

Most any raw processor will use whatever camera settings are there for the default for the RAW file. Ie, if you set your camera to do max saturation, tungsten white balance, and minimum contrast, that's how the RAW file will be processed by default. So, theoretically, a raw file should always be at least as good as the jpg if the camera had created one. (Or as good as the matching jpg if you shoot raw+jpg.)


From the way I understand things, that is only accurate if you are using that camera makers software. I do not think ACR/Lightroom/other can read all the parameters that raw files were shot with, even white balance "as shot" is only a guess.

I lower all the in camera parameters to lowest possible(-3) so the histogram displayed on the camera gives me a more accurate representation, but it makes no difference if I were to say set Lightroom on auto.

[Groucho]

From the way I understand things, that is only accurate if you are using that camera makers software. I do not think ACR/Lightroom/other can read all the parameters that raw files were shot with, even white balance "as shot" is only a guess.

I lower all the in camera parameters to lowest possible(-3) so the histogram displayed on the camera gives me a more accurate representation, but it makes no difference if I were to say set Lightroom on auto.
Lightroom/ACR is probably the exception though I think it does pull the white balance info - if it's guessing, then I would assume there'd be no difference between "as shot" and "auto", and there definitely is. I assume all the camera settings are in the MakerNote somewhere but I'm not 100% sure. It'd be easy to test but I'm not going to bother tonight, maybe later - it's past my bedtime already. :)

To be fair, though, Lightroom is aimed at the more advanced shooter who's going to want more control over such things. I think most DSLR users will just use whatever came with the camera (I certainly did for the longest time) and should still get very satisfactory results, at least as good and probably usually better than they'd get with a jpg.

[Tickla]

Thank you everyone. Now it all is more clear to me. I guess I have just been into film for so long it's hard to understand some of the digital stuff--you are so great here at explaining things!! I really appreciate it!:goodvibes

[Anewman]

Lightroom/ACR is probably the exception though I think it does pull the white balance info - if it's guessing, then I would assume there'd be no difference between "as shot" and "auto", and there definitely is. I assume all the camera settings are in the MakerNote somewhere but I'm not 100% sure. It'd be easy to test but I'm not going to bother tonight, maybe later - it's past my bedtime already. :)


According to ADOBE white balance is only saved in the file as a EXIF metadata tag.
So Lightroom would be able to see that white balance was set to "flash" and then apply its own FLASH temperatures which probably do not match temperatures that the camera would apply to the JPEG.


Note second paragraph...
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

[MICKEY88]

Most any raw processor will use whatever camera settings are there for the default for the RAW file. Ie, if you set your camera to do max saturation, tungsten white balance, and minimum contrast, that's how the RAW file will be processed by default. So, theoretically, a raw file should always be at least as good as the jpg if the camera had created one. (Or as good as the matching jpg if you shoot raw+jpg.)

My response to the OP is that no, you certainly don't need to. I rarely did before starting to use Lightroom. However, a little extra time spent post-processing can make a big difference, and the DSLR can produce a quality enough photo (especially as a raw) that it can be really rewarding to post-process. You will also find yourself with more keepers. I've just started putting some of my updated (more post-processing) shots from my January WDW trip online, and here's one that I didn't even think was a keeper at the default settings - too dark and colorless, even though it's a 2.1-second exposure. Now it's one of my favorites.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/11947-4/2007WDWb-111.jpg

Here's a before and after of a lantern in the PotC queue. Before, it's OK, but there's not much to it. A little post-processing and I was able to brighten up the wall a little without blowing out the details of the actual lantern. I also adjusted the colors slightly (though I honestly don't remember for sure how accurate they are.)

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/3326-4/2007WDW-083.jpg

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/12002-4/2007WDWb-122.jpg

Now, I've also been post-processing my old non-DSLR photos too, but you don't have quite as much flexibility with the JPGs and you're not capable of pulling in as much additional detail.

although it was a 2.1 second exposure...was it an accurate exposure... a scene like that often requires a +1 or 2 exposure compensation or even more.., if you had given it more exposure, chances are it would look the same as it does now, post processing...

[jann1033]

Thank you everyone. Now it all is more clear to me. I guess I have just been into film for so long it's hard to understand some of the digital stuff--you are so great here at explaining things!! I really appreciate it!:goodvibes

truthfully that is probably imo the major benefit of digital vs film, the ability to see the photo before you print it and adjust it accordingly either by shooting again or post processing. other than that i kind of liked knowing basically how color etc was going to turn out depending on what film i used. digital is definitely a learning experience in that regard with white balance etc. if you are used to a film slr though i am sure you can adjust to the digital

[fitzperry]

According to ADOBE white balance is only saved in the file as a EXIF metadata tag.
So Lightroom would be able to see that white balance was set to "flash" and then apply its own FLASH temperatures which probably do not match temperatures that the camera would apply to the JPEG.


Note second paragraph...
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

But if the metadata only shows that the white balance was set to "auto", why does the "as shot" wb still differ from "auto" when you open it in Lightroom/PS?

[Master Mason]

although it was a 2.1 second exposure...was it an accurate exposure... a scene like that often requires a +1 or 2 exposure compensation or even more.., if you had given it more exposure, chances are it would look the same as it does now, post processing...


Mickey,

the problem with this arguement, is people have been PP ing with film as well for years in the developement process. If you know what your doing there are many reasons why you can get a better shot by not having the perfect exposure and then post processing it afterwords.

I understand your point, it shouldn't be used as a crutch to fix every mistake, but PP'ing can also be used as a creative tool, and there isn't anything wrong with that either.

And yes there are things you can do in PP that you can not do with exposure in camera, because you can expand the dymanic range within pp.

[MICKEY88]

Mickey,

the problem with this arguement, is people have been PP ing with film as well for years in the developement process. If you know what your doing there are many reasons why you can get a better shot by not having the perfect exposure and then post processing it afterwords.

I understand your point, it shouldn't be used as a crutch to fix every mistake, but PP'ing can also be used as a creative tool, and there isn't anything wrong with that either.

And yes there are things you can do in PP that you can not do with exposure in camera, because you can expand the dymanic range within pp.

I never said PPing shouldn't be used, as a crutch or creatively, the point I am making is that PP is not neccessary on all raw files, and that the more accurate the original exposure, the less likely the need to pp....

with the photo in question I was merely stating that more exposure would most likely have rendered more color and possibly eliminated the need to pp

paint shop pro photo XI is my favorite software I spend hours manipulating photos to see what different options I have

[boBQuincy]

I never said PPing shouldn't be used, as a crutch or creatively, the point I am making is that PP is not neccessary on all raw files, and that the more accurate the original exposure, the less likely the need to pp....

If the image is edited after exposure and outside of the camera it is PostProcessing, and *all* RAW images require PostProcessing to be of any use.

Accurate exposure is rarely (almost never) enough to effectively convey most scenes, since their range far exceeds that of our cameras. Almost every image we take can be improved with burning, dodging, white balance, curves, and more. All this is the domain of PostProcessing and becomes even more important when we print the image.

RAW images can be converted simply, by using the defaults, but where is the benefit of RAW then? Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

[fitzperry]

Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

Unless you have a Nikon that will only shoot basic JPG + RAW. :sad2:

[Reminiscing_Cody]

Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

I was going to shoot RAW+SHQ JPG on my Olympus E-510, but my understanding is using the manufacturer's software as a developer with default settings ("as shot" on everything) is exactly the same. It is very quick to do batch RAW development when I unload the camera, so adding the JPG in-camera just fills up the card faster and slows continuous shooting.

The benefit, then, is more flexibility if I do want to go back and do some PP, but I suppose you already said exactly that ;)

[boBQuincy]

Unless you have a Nikon that will only shoot basic JPG + RAW. :sad2:

My older Canon D30 doesn't have many options in that mode either. Let's hope the camera manufacturers give us more options.

[MICKEY88]

If the image is edited after exposure and outside of the camera it is PostProcessing, and *all* RAW images require PostProcessing to be of any use.

Accurate exposure is rarely (almost never) enough to effectively convey most scenes, since their range far exceeds that of our cameras.if you almost never effectively convey the scene, something is not right... Almost every image we take can be improved with burning, dodging, white balance, curves, and more. sure images can be improved and made more dramatic, but the average person will never do these things, the average person thought 110 cameras with their film cartrdges and tiny negatives, produced good pictures..for the advanced or pro photographer sure these are good points. All this is the domain of PostProcessing and becomes even more important when we print the image.

RAW images can be converted simply, by using the defaults, but where is the benefit of RAW then? Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.m the benefit is having the raw to improve good shots and save bad shots...but for the average person jpg is going to work just fine as is raw converted with default settings...

[Anewman]

But if the metadata only shows that the white balance was set to "auto", why does the "as shot" wb still differ from "auto" when you open it in Lightroom/PS?

Metadata would contain which of the white balance presets(flash, florescent, etc..) was selected by the cameras "AUTO" setting, so Adobes "as shot" would try to replicate that camera preset. While Adobes "AUTO" is independent of what it thinks the camera may have used.

[fitzperry]

Metadata would contain which of the white balance presets(flash, florescent, etc..) was selected by the cameras "AUTO" setting, so Adobes "as shot" would try to replicate that camera preset. While Adobes "AUTO" is independent of what it thinks the camera may have used.

Thanks.

[Groucho]

I'm still not 100% convinced on the Adobe thing. I mean, yes, of course the white balance is stored in exif - where else could it be stored? What's really going on is that Adobe is complaining that not all the manufacturers let them know just what's in the MakerNote section, where probably much of that data is stored. There's some info here (http://park2.wakwak.com/~tsuruzoh/Computer/Digicams/exif-e.html#APP1) on some parts of MakerNotes that had been documented - probably be reverse-engineering.

A good test might be to set a custom white balance to something ridiculous, like purple or orange, and take a couple shots, and see what Lightroom displays them as, especially in comparison to a manufacturer-provided raw processor.

Another solution is to use a camera that can store photos in DNG format, that way Adobe cannot fairly complain about such things. :teeth:

Mickey88, I did more than just brighten up that shot, I did a few other tweaks, too. (But you are right, it would have helped to start with a brighter photo to begin with - that was from my second night at WDW that trip, and the first night I spent most of it in bed sick, so I was definitely still learning!) Similar to the photo I posted below it, which had fill light added, which allowed the background to brighten up without blowing out the light itself. I'm telling you, Lightroom is awesome, way beyond trying to use any photo editor to process your RAWs one at a time. I simply cannot handle that much work; Lightroom makes it trivial to process huge piles of photos quickly. Version 1.1 adds several new improvements, too, like the "clarity" slider which is really cool, and the keywording is way beyond anything else I've seen out there. All my updated WDW pics have full keywords, for example, that shot of the castle has "Cinderella Castle, Disney World, Magic Kingdom" as keywords. I can now go in and instantly see every photo of a specific ride, or of the castle, or of the Contemporary, or so on.

[scejas]

Anyone have a good book I can read up on -- i feel like i have hit a wall on my post processing skills and I would like to manipulate my pictures better...

or a good website is also good...

[tinksdad]

I've read the Art of RAW Conversion (http://www.amazon.com/Art-RAW-Conversion-Art-Quality-Converters/dp/1593270674/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5301432-2544631?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184804864&sr=8-1)and found it informative and helpful.

[JR6ooo4]

My problem is I never know if an adjustment is too much or too little until I look at it again the next day...


Mikeeee

[JR6ooo4]

My problem is I never know if an adjustment is too much or too little until I look at it again the next day...


Mikeeee

[JR6ooo4]

Or if I have double posted for some reason...

[Renysmom]

When you are doing your post processing what type of lighting do you work under? Overhead, tabletop,etc??

I've never seen this question asked and I noticed the other night depending on how I am sitting the overhead light makes my monitor look different which would affect my pictures I assume.

[Mike©]

Use a Daylight bulb ( 6500 Kelvin )

[Groucho]

If you want to know how not to do it, look at my setup. :) My monitors (I do the dual-monitor thing) are perpendicular to a window (which is right at my side) so during the day, even with the venetian blinds closed, I can get a bunch of light streaming in. Hence, I try to process the photos at night. :) I'm not so worried about color, but I have seen myself make a photo too bright or too dark depending on the surrounding light.

One of these days I'll put a proper curtain on the window to really block out the light, but who knows when that'll happen...

[AndrewWG]

I never thought of this. Good question! Can't wait to see all the responses.

[boBQuincy]

ColorVision's website has some brief information on room lighting:
http://www.colorvision.com/learn_expert.php

It not only matters a lot under what lighting conditions we edit our images, it also matters a great deal under what lighting we view our prints.
The Photographic Society of America has standards for a print viewing box that details what type of light sources should be used. Of course this is not the light under which we will normally view our prints but it is good to have a starting point that is a standard.

[extreme8]

I edit under the same conditions I calibrate under, usually in near darkness.
I only calibrate one of my monitors (dual monitor setup) because I use the second monitor for my tools, plus I like to see what my images look like uncalibrated before I post 'em online.

boBQuincy has a great point regarding the viewing conditions. Try it yourself - view the same image (one with large areas of skintones works well) in sunlight, flourescent & incanscant.
Noticable difference.

[jann1033]

according to the missing manual, page 217, you can basically batch process by edit>full edit>alt+click open which is supposed to then change to update and when you click that, batch process the selected images according to the conversions you select in the first photo that opens in the converter...problem being, my open image button doesn't change to update and only one image at a time opens, just like normal in the converter.

so has anyone used this or is the book nuts...

i don't want to use the multiple process since i think it only lets you use auto settings but if i am wrong about that how do i change them so i can adjust the levels etc and process multiple files...

[alan]

I only have PSE 4, but this trick works.

However, it doesn't appear to change the button to "Update" until I click it - so when I just press the "ALT" button, nothing changes on-screen. I need to alt-click the button to see "Update"

regards,
/alan

[jann1033]

when i alt/ click the "open image" button, it says "open copy" and then seems to just do what it always does, the photo opens in editor and the next selected one opens in camera raw...it has an arrow so i can check previous conversion and it will open with the same changes as the last one but it still is only singularly, one photo at a time :confused3 .... i've tried the done button as well and there is a save button but it says if you alt click that it will skip the save options dialog....i really wish i could figure this out as i would love to use this. maybe i'll try to ask this on the adobe site and see if anyone knows
Thanks for your help though

[11290]

An interesting site for anyone interested in HDR (High Dynamic Range) post processing. Obviously using their software, which seemed to be priced reasonably. Some awesome pictures both in their homepage and in the ones that others sent in.

Not doing this myself but it does intrigue me for some future work to attempt. Very hard to find a good subject in this area that I live in to try it out on.

http://www.hdrsoft.com/examples.html

[wenrob]

Or specifically, the use of "Clarify." When I use it I see immediate results which leads to the temptation to use it all the time. If I've learned anything over the last several months of practice editing is that it's very, very easy to go overboard (I have many, over saturated, over sharpened pics to prove it:lmao: ). However it seems hard to get a consensus on using it. In my last thread, I got two different opinions and they were totally opposite of each other and have read one or two things that are opposite so I'm torn. I thought I'd bring it to the more experienced. Do you use clarify? For what? Always or not often? I'd really love some more insight so I don't end up with yet another stack of pics to 'redo someday.' 90% of my shots are my kids. Thanks in advance!

[DueyDooDah]

Here's a video that explains what it does. (You'll need Quicktime or some other M4V player to see it).

[wenrob]

There's not a link....

[Experiment_626]

Are you talking about the slider in Adobe Camera Raw called "Clarity"? Even if you aren't, perhaps the "Clarify" control in the software you're using is similar. In ACR, "Clarity" increases mid-tone contrast. I use it almost all the time -- sparingly (at 20 or lower) or not at all on portraits, more on other subjects. If you set it too high, you'll get shadowy halos in areas where there is substantial contrast already.

SSB

[wenrob]

Sorry, yes, that's what I'm talking about.

[DMickey28]

I am in the market for a new computer. It will primarily be used for post processing of pictures, storage, music and video as well. I have Photoshop 7.0 and Elements 6.0 as well.

Currently I have a Gateway laptop with 1GB of RAM. It is starting to slow down and freezing up on me. Given some other problems with it I want to switch back over to a desktop for more than just internet surfing.

Any recommendations? I am not partial to a PC or Mac though a Mac seems to be more costly. I don't need anything crazy but just something that will be enough and possibly even grow into.

Thanks!!

[Golf4food]

Mac is a little more expensive, but are more stable. Wish I had switched sooner. Get as much RAM as you can no matter what system you go with - that is the biggie that most people ignore. 1GB is nothing these days. Get at least 3GB and 4GB or more if you have a system that will support it (not all will).

[DMickey28]

I was looking at systems with 3GB or 4GB and most are expandable up to 8GB. We are also looking at HP and Dell.

[MICKEY88]

would you consider a factory recertified if it was a really good deal....

[handicap18]

I think most PC's with Intel Pentiums are dual core, there are also a bunch of Quad Core, but I don't think you get as much out of that. I have the Quad Core 2.66 mHz with 2 350 internal hard drives and 3GB ram upgradeable to 8. It runs great for me, though I probably will up my ram sometime next year. My camera files are twice they size now as they were with my previous camera so the extra RAM will help.

You may also want an exteranl HD. I have 2. When I download the images from my memory card I have them downloaded to 1 of the internal HD's AND 1 of the external HD's. Every month or so I also send a 3rd backup copy to the 2nd external HD along with making DVD copies. So you'll want a DVD burner too. Having dual monitor outputs is nice to have as well. I use a 22" widescreen monitor, but I also send a signal out of the 32" HDTV in the living room for easy viewing for the family (also works nicely when you want to watch video's from the internet, especially from ABC.com and other networks that have full video and/or HD programing availble to watch online)

[DMickey28]

would you consider a factory recertified if it was a really good deal....

Possibly.

I think most PC's with Intel Pentiums are dual core, there are also a bunch of Quad Core, but I don't think you get as much out of that. I have the Quad Core 2.66 mHz with 2 350 internal hard drives and 3GB ram upgradeable to 8. It runs great for me, though I probably will up my ram sometime next year. My camera files are twice they size now as they were with my previous camera so the extra RAM will help.

You may also want an exteranl HD. I have 2. When I download the images from my memory card I have them downloaded to 1 of the internal HD's AND 1 of the external HD's. Every month or so I also send a 3rd backup copy to the 2nd external HD along with making DVD copies. So you'll want a DVD burner too. Having dual monitor outputs is nice to have as well. I use a 22" widescreen monitor, but I also send a signal out of the 32" HDTV in the living room for easy viewing for the family (also works nicely when you want to watch video's from the internet, especially from ABC.com and other networks that have full video and/or HD programing availble to watch online)

What brand do you have? That sounds similar to a lot that I have been looking at. Is there a big difference between the AMD Athlon Dual-Core and the Intel? Is it mostly just brands? One I was looking at is a AMD Athlon X2 4600 Dual-Core, 500GB ATA hard drive and 3GB DDR2 SDRAM expandable to 8GB, along with a bunch of other mumbo jumbo!

When you buy an HP or Dell or any other one for that matter, can you add HD's or anything? I would probably also get an external HD to store all the pics on. Right now they are a jumbled mess on my laptop and I'd like to clean it up and organize it on the desktop. My pictures currently take up 14GB (at least that is what it says under the file properties!!)

[dburg30]

The prices of the external drives that are great for storage and such are dropping like rocks. I think a 1TB drive is now less then $200, probably even cheaper from newegg. For photos, videos and stuff I think those are great.

[YesDear]

If you have an apple store near you, you owe it to yourself to check them out. for all the things mentioned, an Imac has most of them and if you want it for pictures, etc, I think there is no better.

I still have a pc at home but also have an Imac and a mac laptop. When the pc dies, I am not certain I will get a new one.

[annnewjerz]

If you have an apple store near you, you owe it to yourself to check them out. for all the things mentioned, an Imac has most of them and if you want it for pictures, etc, I think there is no better.

I still have a pc at home but also have an Imac and a mac laptop. When the pc dies, I am not certain I will get a new one.

Or even if you don't have an apple store near you, you should at least go somewhere like Best Buy or Circuit City to have a look, especially with lots of great Black Friday sales coming up and -if you are someone who likes to purchase things on 0% financing, Best Buy usually has a good deal going with 2 years interest free.

I love MACs. I have used them a lot in the past and when it was time to get a new laptop, I tried my hardest to convince DH to get a MAC...he wanted none of it, thought it would be too difficult a transition to make so we got a Gateway. It's nice, but I think the photo editing and video editing capabilities that come standard with the MACs much better than those that come standard with any PC with a Windows OS.

[AbsolutLaney]

Mac is expensive..You need a pc with large hard drive..I think you can have a look at Dell and HP.
How about this one:
Dell Inspiron 13 13.3in 1.86GHz 3GB 250GB Laptop (http://********************/deallink.php?deal_id=144720&ru=283)..

[boBQuincy]

Mac hardware = PC hardware, it's all the same parts. The difference is in the software and the price, and I can't see paying the extra $$$.

For a photo PC you are best off building one. It should have a fast processor, separate system and application (and scratch) drives, a decent video card (but not a 3d gaming card), and lots of RAM, although I see little chance of using more than 3 or 4 GB for photo work.
A good power supply, such as PC Power & Cooling helps keep the system stable.

Building a system does not mean you have to do the work yourself, a place such as Puget Systems will assemble a PC to your specifications. This way you get what you want without paying for what you don't want.

[ukcatfan]

Wouldn't going with a Mac also mean that you would have to re-invest in expensive software that you already have for a pc? You might want to wait until the next version of Windows comes out. It is already being talked about and seems to be an improvement over Vista.

[fitzperry]

Wouldn't going with a Mac also mean that you would have to re-invest in expensive software that you already have for a pc? You might want to wait until the next version of Windows comes out. It is already being talked about and seems to be an improvement over Vista.

I'm a recent Mac convert as well, and most of the software I use came with both Windows and Mac versions (Capture NX, Lightroom, etc.) I haven't had to buy anything new. Not only that, Capture NX runs much better (i.e., faster and it doesn't crash) on my Macbook than it did on my pc, which had a faster processor. I haven't used LR much since my switch, but my brief experience with it suggests a similar result. IMO, the Mac OS is worth the extra $$.

[ukcatfan]

I'm a recent Mac convert as well, and most of the software I use came with both Windows and Mac versions (Capture NX, Lightroom, etc.) I haven't had to buy anything new. Not only that, Capture NX runs much better (i.e., faster and it doesn't crash) on my Macbook than it did on my pc, which had a faster processor. I haven't used LR much since my switch, but my brief experience with it suggests a similar result. IMO, the Mac OS is worth the extra $$.

What about the people that purchased by download? Are they allowed to download the trial in Mac and then enter the registration code to make it work? I am not saying you have the answers, I just want to throw that out for those interested b/c I do not know.

While it is all out there for the OP, why not also consider Linux? I would say it is more stable than Win or Mac. There might not be the software available for it though.

[Golf4food]

Mac hardware = PC hardware, it's all the same parts. The difference is in the software and the price, and I can't see paying the extra $$$.

For a photo PC you are best off building one. It should have a fast processor, separate system and application (and scratch) drives, a decent video card (but not a 3d gaming card), and lots of RAM, although I see little chance of using more than 3 or 4 GB for photo work.
A good power supply, such as PC Power & Cooling helps keep the system stable.

Building a system does not mean you have to do the work yourself, a place such as Puget Systems will assemble a PC to your specifications. This way you get what you want without paying for what you don't want.


Parts is parts but my experience says the iMac parts run more stably and I have fewer problems than on those Windows parts...

Also, there are two ways you can run Windows on an iMac - as a straight PC via a separate boot system or in parallel via either Parallels or VMWare Fusion (I use Fusion) - I can run WinXP and OSX at the same time, run programs in each, and have no performance issues in either. What few programs I need that don't run on OSX I use in XP, everything else just works better on the Mac.

Also, the Apple website has refurbished iMacs that are cheaper than brand new and just as good (completely reconditioned and same warranty). Ours is a refurb, actually. I priced out building a scratch PC and even if I built it myself there was only a small price difference between a tricked out scratch PC and a iMac, and the iMac comes with a very nice monitor included, takes up a lot less space, is a ton quieter... I can't think of one thing I liked better about PCs and I had always been a PC guy. Wish I had switched to Mac sooner. :goodvibes

[fitzperry]

What about the people that purchased by download? Are they allowed to download the trial in Mac and then enter the registration code to make it work? I am not saying you have the answers, I just want to throw that out for those interested b/c I do not know.

Good question. You're right, I don't have the answer ;)

While it is all out there for the OP, why not also consider Linux? I would say it is more stable than Win or Mac. There might not be the software available for it though.

My dh is a Linux guy. His view is that Linux is the best OS, followed by Mac, with Microsoft a distant third. Though I've seen him eyeing my Macbook with envy lately, so maybe he's thinking of altering that ranking. :thumbsup2 Unfortunately, most of the software we use isn't available for Linux. Dh did find some free photo editor that he uses on occasion, but I think it's pretty limited in terms of its features.

[MICKEY88]

I just bought this one about a month ago, it's factory recertified, I bought a 2 year aquare trade waqrranty for it, I had a 50% off coupon so the warranty cost me 60 dollars.. the cheapest I found the pc new, was $1200


http://www.ecost.com/Detail/Desktops/Hewlett-Packard/KQ498AARABA/42148071.aspx?navid=155438718

I also picked up a 22 inch monitor from tiger direct for 169 with a 3 year warranty

[ukcatfan]

My dh is a Linux guy. His view is that Linux is the best OS, followed by Mac, with Microsoft a distant third. Though I've seen him eyeing my Macbook with envy lately, so maybe he's thinking of altering that ranking. :thumbsup2 Unfortunately, most of the software we use isn't available for Linux. Dh did find some free photo editor that he uses on occasion, but I think it's pretty limited in terms of its features.

There should be no problem finding a good editor. The GIMP is great. It does almost everything that the average PS user needs, and for free. It is not all that user friendly though, especially when it comes to doing anything in a batch. The holdup would likely be in the RAW processing software.

[alan]

Given that you are going to be going for a machine with a lot of RAM, I would recommend that you go for a 64-bit operating system.

Basically what that means is that applications, if correctly written, can gain access to much more of your computer's memory at a time. This seeds up operations that require a lot of memory (eg editing large photographs with lots of layers).

My own preferences would be to avoid anything Unix-related (Linux, Macintosh) like the plague.

JMHO

regards,
/alan

[boBQuincy]

A couple of our board members mentioned they would prefer to see non-HDR images of some I took last week. HEre is what I came up with:

http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/mk_1804.jpg
This is the nominal exposure of the set

http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/mk_1805.jpg
This obviously is the -2 stop exposure

http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/mk_1806.jpg
And the +2 stop exposure

http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/mk_1805a.jpg
After a little tweaking, although I would probably do more like lighten the foreground.

http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/mk_1806_4_5.jpg
and the processed HDR

As I do more HDRs I tend to use a lighter touch and this one may be a little over the top but it is one that gets the most comments.
Ok, let's have your thoughts! :)

[°O°Joe]

I prefer the end result (HDR) as to me it looks the most like it would if you were standing there looking at it. However, I would layer the "tweaked" version (2nd to last) photo over the HDR, mask it and brush the highlights to use the clock and some of the lights on the upper half of the building. The clock especially looks dark to me on the HDR. Probably being picky, but that's the only thing that stood out to me.

[Groucho]

Your HDR gave the flower Mickey demon eyes! :scared1: :rotfl2:

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of HDRs, no offense to those who do like them... this one is tough as even the original exposure looks a bit unnatural!

FWIW, my inclination would be to take the original photo, bump up the contrast a bit, give it some fill light or curves adjustment to bring out some detail in the lower area, and maybe even bring back the saturation/vibrance a little (as I think that's what's making it look a bit unnatural.)

IMHO, the final shot is just "too much" - too much orange in the lights, too much blue in the sky (I'm thinking the sky was basically white when seen in person), etc... It makes me wonder what it would look like as a b/w! That would remove the garish colors while retaining the extra dynamic range. Pulling back pretty heavily on the saturation would probably help, too, as another option.

[VVFF]

I actually agree with all of Groucho's points. I don't like this HDR unless the goal was to make it look like Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween party.

[jann1033]

i like it as a special effect. to me it's not any different than doing some other adjustments to create a different ie not natural effect , like lomo processing which i love sometimes. but i don't think it's good for all photos all the time just like fisheye or different filters or other things to create something other than a "normal" photo
i think the photos bobq has posted on his trip report are some of the most natural looking i've seen. some i didn't know if they were hdr or some other technique which to me is kind of nice, a "how'd he do that? that looks cool" type of reaction . some others i've seen are just freakish looking which is fine if that is the effect they were going for:rotfl: but not if they were trying to get a realistic look

[wenrob]

FWIW, my inclination would be to take the original photo, bump up the contrast a bit, give it some fill light or curves adjustment to bring out some detail in the lower area, and maybe even bring back the saturation/vibrance a little (as I think that's what's making it look a bit unnatural.)
These were my exact thoughts. IMHO the first pic just needs to be "popped" a little bit.

I don't have a real opinion on HDR. I think they're really cool to look at but at the end of the day I almost always prefer the original shot. That doesn't mean I have anything against them, just personal preference.

[annnewjerz]

I like it! I agree that I probably wouldn't do all of my photos as HDRs, but I think they are really neat and have a surreal quality about them that makes them an interesting change...something different to look out, something out of the norm.

One thing I really like about your HDR shots are the clouds, they do have this sort of "spooky" quality to them that seems to provide a stark constrast against the cheery Main St. USA, etc. :thumbsup2

I do admit though, the demon-eyes of the flower bed Mickey is a little weird, now that someone pointed it out. I'd be scared if that's how it looked in real life. :rotfl: :rotfl2:

[klmall]

I'm often sitting on the fence so to speak about HDR. I truly like some pictures I see that are "accentuated" or whatever with HDR while other times I look at a picture and shudder in horror (NOT yours, boBQuincy!).

There's another board I post frequently on where someone consistently posts extreme HDR pictures of mountain scenes. Registered users can vote on his posted pics and some people always do! I love his locations but only vote on those pics that show grass that's close to it's natural color and sand that's not bright orange and so on......

I like your HDR, boBQuincy; just see a little too much orange there; the sky is great and the rest of the picture is nice and moody which appeals to me.

When I've been experimenting with HDR lately I find myself either instantly liking the result or hating it. If I hate it; it's never saved. Tinkering and adjusting just doesn't seem to help but that's just me and my inexperience.

Thanks for showing us the bracketed pics - it helps!

[Zoesmama03]

I'm blown away by some of them(if not overdone and I've seen a lot, not you, that have been) but its way too much work for me. Call me lazy. :rolleyes1 Seeing them done tastefully like yours I really can get a lot stronger will to try.

It sure makes a difference here. I guess maybe someday when I get the basics, WB, color balance, and of course exposure(decent general purpose lens would be helpful not pleased with results on the kit for landscapes) down then I might play with HDR.

[Quicklabs]

I like the HDR. I think it makes for an interesting photo. I especially like the way "Magic Kingdom" pops in that one against the contrast of the sky. Looks, well, kinda magical@ I wouldn't want to see them all done that way, but to my taste, it doesn't seem too heavy handed at all. I also like the +2 exposure shot.

[boBQuincy]

Here is how I see it: the software is still relatively new and can do some strange and unexpected things. An occasional over-saturated area is one of the common glitches, especially red. The over-the-top look is fun (and works for some images) but I prefer a more restrained approach for most images. This sometimes means going back to the composite image and overlaying some pieces from one of the original exposures to get things to be more harmonious. I started doing some of that and feel it definitely improves the overall image in some cases.

HDR enhances more scenes than I expected. Even though our sensors may capture the full range of a flatly lit scene it is still not the same due to noise averaging, curves, and such. I think it is more the "HDR look" that some of us do not like and that a carefully processed HDR image can appear as a single exposure where the lighting was exactly what we wanted. After all, by fiddling with exposure, curves, white balance, burning and dodging, isn't that our intent?

From comments made on this and other boards I am seeing that many people think only one or two of my recent images are HDR, when in fact almost all of them are. This is really the direction I want to take, where the image is what we see, not the process by which it was created. Like most other photographic processes, when it is done well this is usually the case. When it is not done well the process takes center stage and although it may be novel the effect wears off after awhile.

HDR is the final push that allows digital to surpass film in every regard. Finally, we can capture the entire range of light of a scene, after over 150 years of photography and numerous methods designed to work around this limitation. The implications of HDR are enormous. No more blank white skies, no more blocked up shadows, greatly reduced shadow noise. By playing with a few settings I can expand the range of my Xsi by 4 or even 8 stops! By comparison the best range of *any* dSLR is 13.7 stops, not quite 3 more stops than entry level dSLRs, yet at over ten times the price! This is perhaps the biggest advance in photography since digital, and it is only going to get better. :)

http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/imag_1550_48_49.jpg
"Primary Colors"

[°O°Joe]

Here is how I see it: the software is still relatively new and can do some strange and unexpected things. An occasional over-saturated area is one of the common glitches, especially red. The over-the-top look is fun (and works for some images) but I prefer a more restrained approach for most images. This sometimes means going back to the composite image and overlaying some pieces from one of the original exposures to get things to be more harmonious. I started doing some of that and feel it definitely improves the overall image in some cases.

HDR enhances more scenes than I expected. Even though our sensors may capture the full range of a flatly lit scene it is still not the same due to noise averaging, curves, and such. I think it is more the "HDR look" that some of us do not like and that a carefully processed HDR image can appear as a single exposure where the lighting was exactly what we wanted. After all, by fiddling with exposure, curves, white balance, burning and dodging, isn't that our intent?

From comments made on this and other boards I am seeing that many people think only one or two of my recent images are HDR, when in fact almost all of them are. This is really the direction I want to take, where the image is what we see, not the process by which it was created. Like most other photographic processes, when it is done well this is usually the case. When it is not done well the process takes center stage and although it may be novel the effect wears off after awhile.

HDR is the final push that allows digital to surpass film in every regard. Finally, we can capture the entire range of light of a scene, after over 150 years of photography and numerous methods designed to work around this limitation. The implications of HDR are enormous. No more blank white skies, no more blocked up shadows, greatly reduced shadow noise. By playing with a few settings I can expand the range of my Xsi by 4 or even 8 stops! By comparison the best range of *any* dSLR is 13.7 stops, not quite 3 more stops than entry level dSLRs, yet at over ten times the price! This is perhaps the biggest advance in photography since digital, and it is only going to get better. :)

I agree... I use HDR for the same reason, although if you look at some of my older stuff most would probably wonder what the heck I was thinking (I know that's what I think when I look at it) but I'm learning, and honing my skills. I'm not entirely where I want to be, but this shot is close:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3281752305_89e09a8a9a_b.jpg

I think the saturation on the top of the building is a little on the high side, but other than that and the wide angle distortion, this shot to me looks pretty close to how it would look if I was standing there looking at it with my own eyes...

[boBQuincy]

I really like that photo, Joe! I agree, it appears like what our eyes would see in the scene. Nice work!

[Code]

While I agree that HDR is amazing to expand dynamic range when used on a scene that actually needs it, and when used in moderation. What bothers me is the extreme local contrast and ridiculous oversaturation that has become associated with the "HDR look".

One thing that particularly bothers me is sky with clouds. Sorry but the sky in your MK train station photo has far too much contrast. And it only gets worse when you're talking about a bright sunny day. It drives me nuts to see light fluffy clouds that are made to look like ominous storm clouds by the local contrast enhancement. But that's just the nature of the local contrast filter that is being used. HDR requires a lot more "by-hand" masking and tone mapping than is done by most people.

Joe, one big problem besides the roof I see with your GMR shot is the high saturation turning the light beams blue. I know they have a light blue hue in real life, but they are far too blue to my eyes.

All this said.. my Disney memories are extremely vivid and many of my shots end up being vivid to match my memories. But let's all keep ourselves in check ;)

[°O°Joe]

That's interesting... you got me wondering, and I did a little searching on Flickr and find several Sorcerer's hat photos with the lights in the background and many of them have the blue light beams... which makes me wonder if it's a result of the long exposure. Kind of like how skies get a funny hue to them from really long - like 30 sec or longer - exposures.

I will say that in my opinion, it is better that they are visible, as in the "correct" exposure they aren't hardly visible at all, plus the neon "The Great Movie Ride" sign is really blown out. Yeah, I could have saved some of that in RAW to a certain degree, but I like this final result better.

The art of photography is largely a matter of personal taste, and as one can tell by browsing my photostream, I prefer my colors a little (or sometimes even a lot) on the vivid side. I guess I'm not always that great at keeping myself in check. :rolleyes1

I better shut up now before I say something stupid and Mark makes fun of me.

[Code]

The art of photography is largely a matter of personal taste, and as one can tell by browsing my photostream, I prefer my colors a little (or sometimes even a lot) on the vivid side. I guess I'm not always that great at keeping myself in check. :rolleyes1

Absolutely, and I'm definitely not bashing on your work, I love your photos and just because they aren't processed how I would certainly doesn't change that. My comment was more about the comparison of how it looks in real life vs the photo.

[jann1033]

That's interesting... you got me wondering, and I did a little searching on Flickr and find several Sorcerer's hat photos with the lights in the background and many of them have the blue light beams... which makes me wonder if it's a result of the long exposure. Kind of like how skies get a funny hue to them from really long - like 30 sec or longer - exposures.

I will say that in my opinion, it is better that they are visible, as in the "correct" exposure they aren't hardly visible at all, plus the neon "The Great Movie Ride" sign is really blown out. Yeah, I could have saved some of that in RAW to a certain degree, but I like this final result better.

The art of photography is largely a matter of personal taste, and as one can tell by browsing my photostream, I prefer my colors a little (or sometimes even a lot) on the vivid side. I guess I'm not always that great at keeping myself in check. :rolleyes1

I better shut up now before I say something stupid and Mark makes fun of me.

ita here, sometimes i like stuff to really pop off the paper and sometimes i want it to be a whisper...but i do agree, it seems like an awful lot of work:rotfl:

[°O°Joe]

Absolutely, and I'm definitely not bashing on your work, I love your photos and just because they aren't processed how I would certainly doesn't change that. My comment was more about the comparison of how it looks in real life vs the photo.

No that's cool... I didn't think you were. :)

[Groucho]

Here's comes my critique, hope nobody gets offended. :teeth:

IMHO... Joe's photo and Bob's last photo (of Imagination pavilion) are pretty understated HDR shots and not as immediately objectionable as the more extreme ones...

But I'm sorry, neither one (especially Joe's) is how my eye sees them in real life. Like Code said, the spotlights are much too vivid - they're pretty mild and diffused in real life, not laserbeams. The trees are not so vibrant green. And, if we're really going for "as the eye sees it" - it's dark there! Much of the details are pretty close to invisible to the eyes at night. I, for one, am generally not too concerned with getting things that accurate. ;) The image certainly still yells out "HDR" to me... Bob's last shot, not quite as much until you see the detail inside the buildings.

Ultimately - I'm not interested in massive dynamic range. I wouldn't mind an extra stop or two in either direction - but I really don't care about much more than that.

The Fuji S5 Pro seemed to be one of the best solutions for limited dynamic range, with great-looking images that didn't look like overly "toned" HDR images.

[°O°Joe]

You're entitled to your opinion and its fine. But I respectfully disagree with two things, although I'm not standing there right now so I can't be entirely certain. 1. The trees are extremely green in real life, as you can see in the picture, they do shine green lights on them, which gives them a green glow. and 2. I remember that area being fairly well lit. At least to my eyes - if I remember right when composing the scene, I could easily see the CM at the front door of the theater (barely visible in the picture due to motion blur).

I'm not normally looking for extreme dynamic range either (trust me, I could have went WAY over the top with this one) but I'm also not much of a fan of blown highlights and dark shadows - in this type of scene. There are many instances where I prefer extreme highlights and deep shadows, but this isn't one of them...

I'll have to check out the scene when I return in June to see how far off I was :laughing:

[Groucho]

I'll have to check out the scene when I return in June to see how far off I was :laughing:
No problem. I was just there about four weeks ago and did a tripod photo of the front of the Chinese Theater so it's sort-of stuck in my mind, but I was looking from a much closer angle (since the hat was walled off for painting so you couldn't get a wide shot.) Feel free to see if I'm off. :rotfl2:

[boBQuincy]

It is difficult to tell if our photos are 'off' from what we see with our eyes. Everyone's vision is different, my color vision and brightness perception is different in each eye!

One 'standard' might be the 'sunny day' rule where a normal exposure is f/16 at 1/ISO but for anything but sunny days this goes out the window. My photo of Main Street Station was taken about 20 minutes after sunset and the 'nominal' exposure (1/4s. f/4, ISO 200) was about 12 stops more than the 'sunny day" setting. As expected from the time of day this indicates the scene was *much* darker than the photo indicates. Even the -2 stop exposure was still much brighter than the scene as it should be, yet we would say it is too dark.

Our eyes have a much wider range than any sensor or film (except maybe in the case of long exposure astrophotography) and our color perception is notoriously unreliable, making any direct comparison of a photograph and the original scene both difficult and arbitrary.

In this case I like to borrow from Alain Briot's brilliant essay, "Just Say Yes" and say that the photograph is not what I saw, it is how I felt. :) Even if I did tone down the demon Mickey eyes... ;)

[annnewjerz]

Even if I did tone down the demon Mickey eyes... ;)

:rotfl: I thought I noticed that! I figured it was the difference in color on my home computer v. my work computer's monitors---but I guess not! If there were pumpkins and fall decorations in the background, I think that would have been perfect as an MNSSHP entrance shot. :thumbsup2

[Groucho]

It is difficult to tell if our photos are 'off' from what we see with our eyes. Everyone's vision is different, my color vision and brightness perception is different in each eye!
Ha! That's funny, I've had the same issue for several years at leas (if not forever.) I see slightly different hues between my two eyes. I wonder if that's why 3D movies haven't been as effective for me the last few years.

[sugarmagnolia]

Hello :)

I was just over at the resort boards & I saw these beautiful photos that looked more like paintings. Someone commented that they were "HDR photos." I know nothing about photography, but can someone explain what an HDR photo is & what HDR stands for? Does it require a special camera or is it edited this way?

Thanks!:flower3:

[bob100]

Hello :)

I was just over at the resort boards & I saw these beautiful photos that looked more like paintings. Someone commented that they were "HDR photos." I know nothing about photography, but can someone explain what an HDR photo is & what HDR stands for? Does it require a special camera or is it edited this way?

Thanks!:flower3:

google HDR
High Dynamic Range - combining different exposure pics in a program so you see more "dynamic range" in the light, sometimes it can look good but many times it comes out looking ... odd ! I think it takes skill to make an HDR photo look good, unfortunately when I experimented a while back my results were inconsistent, maybe I'll revisit it

[YesDear]

These may not be absolutely correct numbers so please forgive if I am off.

The human eye can see about 12-15 stops of light. THe normal photo only shows about 2-3 stops of light. By electronically combining several photos of the same subject at different settings of light you can achieve a photo that can see around 9-11 stops of light.

My best description is to try to take a picture of the inside of a very ornate church. Most of the time you are dissapointed because a lot of the detail is lost because of the low light available. An HDR picture can pick up a lot of that detail bescause it under exposes and over exposes the same picture as well as a properly exposed picture to give you that detail.

Yes HDR's can look very painting like if not processed properly. I think done proplery that look amazing.

And for all you photo people out there, I intentionally tried to make this very not photo jargon specific so don't rip me a new one please!

[deletedpenguin]

Essentially, a HDR image combines multiple images to create an image where no detail is lost. If you take a standard (metered) metered image, then over expose (to get shadow detail) then under expose (to get highlight detail), then use a program like photoshop or photomatix to combine them, then you'll get an image where, while there will still be shadows in highlights, neither are that strong, and the entire scene can be viewed.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/132136431_3347fb3a1d.jpg

[sugarmagnolia]

These may not be absolutely correct numbers so please forgive if I am off.

The human eye can see about 12-15 stops of light. THe normal photo only shows about 2-3 stops of light. By electronically combining several photos of the same subject at different settings of light you can achieve a photo that can see around 9-11 stops of light.

My best description is to try to take a picture of the inside of a very ornate church. Most of the time you are dissapointed because a lot of the detail is lost because of the low light available. An HDR picture can pick up a lot of that detail bescause it under exposes and over exposes the same picture as well as a properly exposed picture to give you that detail.

Yes HDR's can look very painting like if not processed properly. I think done proplery that look amazing.

And for all you photo people out there, I intentionally tried to make this very not photo jargon specific so don't rip me a new one please!

I appreciate the non-photo jargon thank you!!:flower3:

[boBQuincy]

We have had some good explanations of HDR, and it gets even deeper. ;)

The sensors in our cameras can capture 7 or 8 stops, some can do a little better, the really good ones maybe 10 or 11 stops. A real life scene can have a much greater range. Our eyes are continuously varying their "exposure" so we pretty much see it all, from the midday sun down to dim stars at night.

In order to capture a greater range we take multiple exposures and blend them. But it isn't quite done yet. What we see on our monitors is *not* HDR, we call it that for convenience. Very few monitors (none that we can afford) can show HDR so what we do with our HDR is "tone map" it to fit the range our monitors can handle. This tone mapping is where the real art is, where we can go gently and no one will even guess it was HDR (like deletedpenguin's example), or we can play around a little and create something that is not like a photograph (like my image of Epcot's France pavilion).
http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/HTML/

HDR does not require a special camera, almost any dSLR can do it and many P&S can. It works best with a tripod so the three (or 5, or 7, or more) images align better. There are a number of software packages that work with HDR, from Photoshop to Photomatix, and at least a few more. It is fun to play with and some of the images can be quite imaginative. Others can look really bad, but you are not likely to see my bad ones posted! ;)

[boBQuincy]

I only got as far as St. Augustine so no Disney, unless you count the Disney store at the outlet mall! ;)

After about 6 months of serious HDR practice I find that as time goes on I tend to go for a more subtle approach for most subjects. Some images still respond better to a more wild treatment but these are rare. Here are a few recent ones:

http://www.suzieandbob.com/misc/pearson_3065_59_61_62_63_64.jpg

Pearson's Falls - waterfalls are notorious for a wide dynamic range, the white water is often blown out and shadows are full of noise. HDR is a great solution and it is easy to add 4 or even 8 stops without making it look like any digital processing was used.

http://bob.suzieandbob.com/Corvairs/concours2009/raffle_3841_39_40.jpg

Raffle Car - I didn't carry a tripod but a nearby grand piano worked just fine! The three exposure AEB was enough for this indoor scene, where a single exposure would never capture all the detail of a black car with chrome trim.

http://www.suzieandbob.com/misc/pool_3887_89_90_88_92.jpg

Pool - this was a tough one. I was in the pool drinking a beer after a long hot day when the lighting was at it's best and just didn't want to get out! ;) The sky was completely dark by the time this was taken, a little dusk light might have taken much of the red out. Oh well, just another excuse to try again!

http://bob.suzieandbob.com/Corvairs/concours2009/concours_3810_08_09.jpg

Concours - This one got a heavy treatment to help make the cars look like models and to stand out from the background. This was taken handheld but at a fairly fast shutter speed so Photomatix had little trouble aligning the three images.

http://www.suzieandbob.com/misc/lighthouse_3631_29_30.jpg

Lighthouse - a classic example of where we would ordinarily have to make a choice between a blank sky or a seriously underexposed subject. With HDR we can have it all, sort of. There is still a fair amount of manual correction and masking done to clean up HDR haloes and other artifacts.


Capturing the images:
On an entry-level or mid-range Canon it is easy to get a 3 step HDR using the AEB mode, that will get us up to 4 extra stops of range. For more range I use AEB *and* Av to first take exposures of 0, -2, +2 at -2 Av, then three more at +2 Av. This gives exposures at -2, -4, 0, and +2, 0, and +4. Only one of the two identical exposures can be used or the Photomatix software will choke. I have found some very rare scenes where even more range than the 8 extra stops would help, mostly night scenes with bright light sources (like the pool with the tiki torches).
High-end Canons allow more steps and wider exposure ranges, making it easier to capture HDRs. Hopefully this will trickle down to the more affordable Canons soon.

[GvilleDisneyDad]

I like the cars on the bank of the St Johns in Jax and the lighthouse in St Aug! Very nice images.

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I like it! I think the waterfall is beautiful and I like the way the cars really pop (both shots).

[crazydadguy]

Nice Lighthouse, I have one of it myself. Not HDR but enjoyed it nonetheless.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/birchfield4/florida%20No%20Kids/196.jpg

[WDWFigment]

I saw some of your HDR shots in your online gallery, and I think seeing your shots makes a very persuasive argument for the use of HDR as another tool in the photographer's "bag". I honestly have to say that you have some of the best HDR I have ever seen.

I think a common problem with HDR that is done realistically is it often lacks contrast or looks "grey." You have avoided that problem!

As for the whole "To HDR or not to HDR" debate, I think some of the "old timers" who don't like the technique often don't like it simply because they don't understand how to do it. It's easier to arbitrarily dislike something than to learn to use it! (These are the same people who think everything should be "through the lens"...well, even in the film days people did edit their shots.)

Conversely, there are a lot of people who use it, and use it not as a "tool", but use it judiciously and for just about every shot they process. I know everything is a matter of personal preference, but it can be annoying to see tons of over-processed shots that could look good if not for poorly applied HDR. HDR for the sake of HDR and no other reason can be a bit annoying. I think that might be where a lot of people are put off by HDR. I will admit that it is a bit irritating when I show friends images that I know are my over-processed HDR work (and poorly, at that) and they prefer them over images that I perceive to be my really good "normal" work. I think this happens a lot in the "Disney photo" community, too, as you have a broad mix of people looking at the shots. There are those with extensive photography skills, and those who just love Disney.

Anyway, off the tangent. All of these shots are really good. I especially like the indoor pool shot.

[klmall]

Bob - I really like your waterfall and lighthouse shots; they support the subtle use of HDR as you stated and look very natural. The Raffle Car is another great example; HDR seems to enhance the situation appropriately. I can't make my mind up about the pool scene but it is very atmospheric. The Concours' sky definitely bugs me but that's just me since I rarely photo "metal" outside of Disney. ;)

You give some convincing evidence for Photomatix, especially now that I finally have a dslr. Guess I'll have to save up and learn the basics with my Xsi.

Thanks for keeping us inspired!

[Gdad]

Very nice series- I love the first three. Definately the type of HDR examples I enjoy. Thanks for the insight on your process.

[RBennett]

Bob, GREAT pictures (as always!) You are one of the key photographers on here that I always enjoy looking at pictures taken. I know that you did all of these with Photomatix, but I wonder if a photographer can do HDR with Topaz also? :confused3 Right now I'm torn between which of the programs I would like to buy (and can't afford both right this second.) Anyway, again great shots!!


-Robby

[WVDisGeek]

Very nice shots! I agree that HDR has a time and place in the "bag of tricks", but that said, I am not a fan of the "overly" HDR type shots. Your shots show that it is possible to use HDR as a tool to solve a problem and have the end result look like a photo and not an art project. Great work!

I loved the Corvair pictures! My Father had one when he was in college and I have been toying with finding one to restore as a gift for him. Those shots were just more fuel for the fire!

[WDWFigment]

Bob, GREAT pictures (as always!) You are one of the key photographers on here that I always enjoy looking at pictures taken. I know that you did all of these with Photomatix, but I wonder if a photographer can do HDR with Topaz also? :confused3 Right now I'm torn between which of the programs I would like to buy (and can't afford both right this second.) Anyway, again great shots!!


-Robby


Not to complicate your decision any further, but I've used both Photomatix and a program called Dynamic Photo HDR, and I prefer the latter. I also think it's cheaper.

[MarkBarbieri]

I hate to be critical, Bob, but you're doing HDR all wrong. Your colors look too natural. Your missing the classic halos. They just look like regular pictures.

[YesDear]

Yeah, what Mark said. Just imagine how nice they would look if you had a decent camera!

So what are you doing in Florida without going to Disney? You did not tell me you were going!

[Experiment_626]

When I'm doing shots from WDW, I often like to go with a relatively extreme HDR effect, especially from places like Future World, Tomorrowland or Fantasyland. I think the colorful, fanciful settings really lend themselves to such interpretation. If I'm at Animal Kingdom in Africa or Asia -- or a state park -- I find I often prefer a more natural-looking result. It's art, anyway, and I have come to regard my photography as photographic impressionism. I do it to please myself first and foremost -- it isn't possible to please everyone.

I like Photomatix, but sometimes I get my best results by first using Photoshop's "Merge to HDR" feature under the "Automate" menu, then opening the resulting file in Photomatix for tone-mapping. Photoshop usually does the best job of fixing minor misalignments in images, while Photomatix is better once you go beyond that point.

SSB

[boBQuincy]

Yeah, what Mark said. Just imagine how nice they would look if you had a decent camera!

So what are you doing in Florida without going to Disney? You did not tell me you were going!

And here I was doing all this work to clean up the haloes, not knowing those are the sign of a good HDR! I really must read Ken Rockwell some more.
I did place a Nikon sticker over the Rebel logo on the camera just so people would think I had a good camera! ;)

This was a trip to visit my family (Ponte Vedra Beach) and to see the Corvair convention events in Pooler GA and Jacksonville FL. I pretty much stay out of WDW from May through September due to crowds and heat although I can't imagine a much hotter or more humid place than Roebling Road raceway in mid-July!!! At least I didn't take the minivan out on the track this time. I must be getting old...

[jann1033]

i think they are all well done as usual. the concours( sp?) heavy duty type of HDR has it's place imo , that place just isn't attempting to pass it off as a "normal" photo :), it's an enhancement to me just like something from a paint program. i do like the subtle treatment photos best since they look normal still but improved, kind of just like you took them with a vivid style setting. well except for the "ghosts" in the car one, that must have been some kind of paranormal setting;)

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Bob, what version of Photomatix are you using? Is it the pro version? Also, do you put the photos together in Photoshop or PSP, or does this program allow you to put all the shots together? Does it allow you to use RAW files and convert to JPEG or is it JPEG only? Thanks...

[crazydadguy]

My current camera does not support bracketing (Nikon D40). If I take one raw shot, could I use a program to modify the exposure compensation levels to make up for it? I would think not, that a picture, even in raw format would not capture a full spectrum of Dynamic range. Anyone have any thoughts on whether shooting one shot in raw would be on par with three to five shots of actually varying the exposure?

[Experiment_626]

In short -- no, this won't really work. You'd probably have the same (or better) results tone-mapping a single RAW image in Photomatix. You can always bracket manually by just adjusting the shutter speed between shots.

SSB

[Experiment_626]

do you put the photos together in Photoshop or PSP, or does this program allow you to put all the shots together? Does it allow you to use RAW files and convert to JPEG or is it JPEG only? Thanks...I'm not Bob, but I can answer these. Photomatix can merge the photos itself, or you can open one you've already merged in Photoshop. Sometimes you'll get better results letting Photoshop handle that step, especially if there was any movement between exposures. And Photomatix can work with RAW files, 16- or 8-bit TIFFs and JPEG files.

SSB

[crazydadguy]

Thanks 626!

[boBQuincy]

Yes, but...
it is usually not going to be a real HDR, capturing the entire dynamic range of the scene. DXOmark shows the range of the sensors in various cameras and there isn't a large difference, usually around 11-12 stops for consumer level cameras. A real world scene can have a much greater range than this and it is here that the extra 4 or more stops of HDR really comes into play. A good HDR capture sequence should go from the darkest frame (with no white pixels) to the brightest (with no black pixels) and each frame should overlap the next. This often takes the usual 3, 5, or more exposures.

HDR software often has the FITYMI (fake it til you make it) option of creating a pseudo-HDR like you mention, from a single frame. These can look pretty good as long as the dynamic range of the scene is not too much greater than that of the sensor, but there are limits.

[crazydadguy]

I did some more reading and found this site, http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm
It has about 17 pages of info on HDR. Still reading, but thanks for the info!

[YesDear]

FYI I have read several tutorials on how to do an HDR from a single RAW image. This was a Scott Kelby type, not Scott. THeir indication is that you can draw a great deal of the information from the RAW image. Copy the image each time in Photoshop and underexpose, normal, overexpose.

The samples I remember seeing were reasonalbly impressive.

[fitzperry]

I've used a single RAW exposure to create a pseudo-HDR a couple of times with decent results, but multiple exposures surely work much better because of the additional data available.

I don't see why you need automatic bracketing though. Just put the camera in manual and adjust the shutter speed between shots taking care not to move the camera.

[Cory_D]

All you need to do is set your camera to Aperture Priority mode, and then take each individual shot at a different exposure bias/compensation. So take the first shot normal, then one at -1, then one at +1 for a 3 shot HDR. Essentially you are bracketing, you're just doing it manually as opposed to cameras that do it automatically.

[boBQuincy]

Photomatix can align the images and on some where the camera moved ever so slightly it really makes a difference. Maybe PS does a better job of this and it sure is worth investigating. I have not tried merging a HDR in PS and then importing it into Photomatix but I will have to now! :)

I do not have the Pro version but I may have to upgrade, it would make my workflow easier by working from within PS.

[ElizK]

I found this web site:
http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-turn-a-dull-shot-into-something-exciting
I've got quite a few pictures from my trip to Germany that fall into that category. I've been playing around, trying the whole HDR thing, but since I don't have a clue what the heck I'm doing.... Anyway. On other HDR pictures I've seen everything was halo'd. How do you get that? I know some people don't care for it, but I kind of do.

I appreciate any words of wisdom, links for more info, etc. I'm actually really excited about my next camera club meeting... this is exactly the subject that will be covered!:thumbsup2

[boBQuincy]

The haloes usually come from a low value for light smoothing. They are easy to get, a lot more work to get rid of! ;)

[sdshutterbug]

Just to echo those above me, I agree these are nice HDR shots. I too have toned down my HDR as of late. I think overly dramatic HDR, when done really well, can be downright gorgeous, but I've yet to produce anything of that caliber. Lately, I have been taking single shots, doing some color correction, then applying a highly overdone dose of Topaz Adjust, and fading it way down for a subtle pseudo-HDR.

[ElizK]

Ok, I found instructions to do psuedo HDR. This is fun!

This one is my favorite:
http://photos-e-0.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs159.snc1/5928_1156932173946_1547005284_30381708_6113463_n.j pg

And I really liked this one, too:
http://photos-h-0.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs159.snc1/5928_1156931973941_1547005284_30381703_7985936_n.j pg

[JR6ooo4]

can you post the originals so I can see the difference?

thanks, if you can...

Mikeeee

[ElizK]

can you post the originals so I can see the difference?

thanks, if you can...

Mikeeee

Here ya go:
http://photos-g-0.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs159.snc1/5928_1157171299924_1547005284_30382246_7715656_n.j pg

http://photos-f-0.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs159.snc1/5928_1157171259923_1547005284_30382245_2091936_n.j pg

[RBennett]

I like both shots (the before and after) but to me the after-shots look more "Topazed" than "HDR". The only reason I say that is because the exposure on the originals is pretty good. But again, I like both shots. :thumbsup2

[ElizK]

Thank you! Unfortunately, I don't know what Topaz'd is. Here are the directions I used to do these, so you can tell me if this is closer to the Topaz process (oh, I guess it does mention Topaz... I'll go find out what that is):
Open a suitable image in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). If you are shooting JPGs you'll need to use "File>Open As" instead of "File>Open" and don't forget to select Camera Raw from the file format (Open AS) drop down (even if you are selecting a JPG).

With the image open in ACR, do the following...

Push Recovery to 100
Push Fill Light to 100
Push Contrast to 100
Push Clarity to 100
Push Vibrance to 100

Now push Blacks up as much as you like unitl you get rid of any "milkiness".

If Exposure needs to be adjusted at this point, push or pull (gently) as needed, but do this after all the other adjustments are made.

Lastly, you can try dropping the saturation a bit, usually to -20 or so. You can also wait and do it in Elements...

Now "Open Image" in Elements Editor.

Depending upon the image you selected, there may be one or more colors that are now "out of control", e.g., way too much blue. If that's the case, add a Hue/Saturation Layer, select the appropriate channel (e.g., Blue or Cyan, you may need to hit both) and desaturate as needed.

If necessary, or to yield a desired affect (e.g., Lomo-effect), you can desaturate any individual colors or all of them at the same time using "Master".

Now you can make any other adjustments you feel compelled to try...

Add a dark vignette (ala, Holga) using Filters>Correct Camera Distortion... and set Vignette Amount to -100. Do this twice to double the effect.

Try Reducing Noise...
Try sharpening...

Try a adding a soft glow, duplicate the pixel layer, apply a Gaussian Blur to the top pixel layer and then set the blend mode to Overlay. Also try different blend modes, such as Soft Light and Multiply.

If you need to adjust levels, or curves, then have at it. I usually wait and do this last.

There it is, pseudo-HDR, a Topaz-like effect without Topaz.

[Experiment_626]

Depending upon the image you selected, there may be one or more colors that are now "out of control", e.g., way too much blue. If that's the case, add a Hue/Saturation Layer, select the appropriate channel (e.g., Blue or Cyan, you may need to hit both) and desaturate as needed.Or, you can do that step in Camera Raw as well. Just go to the Colors tab and adjust the hue, saturation, and/or brightness there. I prefer it there because you have more colors to choose than in Photoshop proper -- you can fiddle with orange, aqua and others in Camera Raw.

SSB

[Master Mason]

Here is my latest attempt, not as good as yours but I'm still very much a newbie

http://gregghall.smugmug.com/photos/565120651_7Dqrs-M.jpg

http://gregghall.smugmug.com/photos/566205156_uizBi-M.jpg

http://gregghall.smugmug.com/photos/566225633_zG5pu-M.jpg

[RBennett]

Here is my latest attempt, not as good as yours but I'm still very much a newbie

http://gregghall.smugmug.com/photos/565120651_7Dqrs-M.jpg

http://gregghall.smugmug.com/photos/566205156_uizBi-M.jpg

http://gregghall.smugmug.com/photos/566225633_zG5pu-M.jpg

VERY nice!! It's very natural looking and the colors look really great! For a "newbie" I'm highly impressed; heck, for an expert I'm impressed. I wish I could get into HDR. Maybe later on.

- Robby

[klmall]

Gregg - Your three Yosemite pictures are beautiful! If you are are a newbie I can't wait to see what more experience brings! It looks like you are using HDR to bring pictures to what the eye sees or at least what the mind thinks the eye is seeing.

[klmall]

When I shot with my G5 and G9 I used ReDynaMix and Topaz to bring out the colors. Here are a couple examples:

Maury River along Goshen Pass in VA

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e240/mallonek/HDR/IMG_2128ed.jpg

Yellowstone River, Yellowstone NP

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e240/mallonek/HDR/Yellst-Kathy-2481.jpg

[boBQuincy]

Here is my latest attempt, not as good as yours but I'm still very much a newbie

These are *really* good Greg! Yosemite photos respond well to HDR.
I bet Ansel Adams would have loved to have such a tool since he spent so much time finding ways to fit a large dynamic range into the small range of printing paper.

[MarkBarbieri]

Nice shots, Gregg. Welcome back.

Just to warn you, landscape shots of environmentally sensitive areas can generate controversy. It would be best if you restricted your photo postings to celebrities and pets. We don't want any trouble here.

[saturndb]

Greg nice shots, they look very natural and really draw you into the picture

Dave pirate:

[boBQuincy]

Fix those blank skies and muddy shadows without taking three exposures!

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/surprised.shtml

This is not really new and many of us have seen it done before but it is always worth looking at again, and with a slightly different method.
A "hopeless" photo may not always be as hopeless as it looks, especially if we capured it in RAW.

[zackiedawg]

Quite true...I've been playing with tons of 'throwaway' photos in the past few months, and with newer processing tools, it can be very surprising what one can get out of an otherwise junk photo.

BTW - don't dismiss JPEGs either - I know the RAW folks have come to love how much recoverable range there is in a RAW file, but it can be downright shocking how much info a JPEG can be hiding too.

I once had a shot in Epcot that was basically an accidental shot - the camera was in my hand, down by my side, and I often walk with my finger hovering over the shutter...as I was preparing to take a photo, I was a little over-eager and fired off a shot with the camera still by my side. I ended up with this in my uploads:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/73481970.jpg

I of course didn't bother with it initially, processed all the other photos, uploaded to my gallery...then when I had some free time, I became curious about what might be lying under all that shadow. I embarked on a project to see just how much I could pull out of that photo - even if it wasn't going to be a 'good' photo by posting standards, it would be a good practice and example of how much you could recover from a completely lost cause. After straightening, layering, dodging, running through noise reduction, and tone mapping, I was able to bring it up to this:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/73439589.jpg

Is it a great photo? Gosh no, not my any means. But it is interesting in showing what was hiding in all that silhouette, and moreover, a great example of what could be recovered from a JPEG photo taken with a lowly P&S camera!

[WDWFigment]

That is a pretty decent tutorial, but no one is better at teaching this technique (in my opinion) than Scott Kelby. I learned a few methods in his newer 7 Point System for Photoshop books that really really help with this.

[jann1033]

that's amazing z.dawg. never would have guessed you could get that much back.
good tutorial as well.

[annnewjerz]

I have use the AE Bracketing mode on my D90 a few times when I'm just poking around, but since we'll be in The World in a few weeks I'd like to use it a little bit more. If anyone who does a lot of HDR (I'm talking to you, bOB! ;)) wouldn't mind answering a few questions---that'd be great!

1. How many shots do you use---3, 5 or some other amount? At home, I did 3 shots and used +/-2 EV.

2. If I do 3 shots, is +/-2 EV good or is there something that would work better?

3. During the day, how easy/difficult is handholding for HDR? I have done some bracketed shooting, but never processed them so I'm not even sure if the images all align.

4. If the images don't align, how easy/difficult of a fix is this in a photo editing program like PSE?

5. What software do you use? Photomatix seems to be the one most commonly mentioned, but are there any others out there that are reasonably user friendly?

Thaaaaaaaaaanks! :thumbsup2

Ann

[Code]

3 shots at +/- 2 EV is generally enough, but not always.

Remember the goal when shooting HDR is to get the entire dynamic range of the scene covered, meaning no black shadows in the brightest shot (and preferably not close to black to minimize noise), and no blown highlights in the dimmest (the sun or other bright lights being the exception).

Thus, the perfect HDR requires a bit of thought. For instance, say I want to do an HDR of a scene, and I take a test shot without any exposure compensation and find that there are no blown highlights to begin with but many deep dark shadows. Well in that case, using any negative exposure compenstation is just a waste as I already have the top end of the dynamic range covered. In that case, I would probably set exposure compensation to +2 EV, then bracket +/-2 EV on top of that, so what I'd end up with is three shots at 0, +2 and +4 EV.

Handholding HDR is easy with auto bracketing, but you have to have software that aligns the images as it is impossible to perfectly line up all the images handheld. No matter how steady I try to be there are always a few pixels of correction to be made. The one catch is that you have to be sure your +2 EV shot isn't such a slow shutter speed as to cause camera shake blur.

As far as software goes, I've been using Dynamic Photo HDR ($55 and there is a trial version) and like it a lot, but I've never tried Photomatix to compare. It is user friendly enough and very good at aligning handheld images in my experience. The new version has options to reduce/eliminate the annoying halo effect in skies too.

Lastly, always try to consider WHY you are shooting a particular scene with HDR techniques. If you look at a test shot and find no blown highlights and no clipped shadows, then you don't really need HDR (though it can still be useful for minimizing shadow noise). The "HDR look" comes from the tone mapping techniques, NOT from the HDR itself. If you just want that "look" but the scene doesn't require multiple exposures, you can always just run a single file through the software just for the tonemapping.

Anyway, hope this helps rather than just adding confusion ;)

[boBQuincy]

I typically take three exposures at +/- 2 stops, partly because that is the most my camera will do. If a scene looks like it has a lot of range (like a black steam locomotive on a sunny day) I will take three exposures at -2 compensation and three more at +2, giving me five different exposures to use. Btw, I usually use Aperture mode, a low ISO, and a medium aperture for sharpness.

Most of our cameras have a range of about 10 to 12 stops so I can't see much reason for using less than +/- 2. Maybe someone else has another idea on this.

Fortunately the software does a pretty good job of automatically aligning images so handheld works ok for the most part. Handholding should still be avoided unless it is our only option, the images are very unlikely to align well and I would think it is not as good as having nicely aligned images to start with. I try to use some kind of camera support and almost always have a monopod with me.

Some people like to align the images in Photoshop, claiming it does a better job of aligning than the HDR software. Then they go to their HDR software for tone mapping. I have not seen much difference either way yet.

I use Photomatix. I had a copy of DynamicPhotoHDR and gave it to my brother, who likes it better than Photomatix. Ymmv... ;) Photomatix had several methods of merging the exposures, some more dramatic, some more realistic. I find myself going for the more realistic look and mostly using HDR to extend the range but now and then I do like an extreme image treatment. It's fun!

[VVFF]

I'll add another comment. I went to Disney after just having learned and used HDR a few times. I was taking all sorts of HDR shots hand held(yes it works in really good light). Then I got home and realized a stupid mistake I had made. Disney has lots of....you guessed it....people. People tend to move. HDR does not like when people move. So make sure when you're taking your shot you are not getting anything in the shot that will move significantly.

Actually, this can still be useful by masking two images together "manually". If you just want to have sky with color you can take two shots. One with the sky exposed correctly, one with the foreground. Then mask the sky into the foreground image and adjust the layers to match. It works well in some situations and avoids the problem with "moving people".

I don't like the overemphasized HDR look though. Even people who post their images claming to have processed them in a way that "avoids" the HDR look is often too much for me. When I use HDR, my aim is to simply get detail exposed properly that would have otherwise been lost.

[Marlton Mom]

I was wondering.... What is the difference between bracketing exposures for HDR and the active d lighting on my Nikon D60?

I'm new to all the digital tech advances since the days of my Minolta XG7. I am now spending a great deal of time studying my camera manual and all the wonderful tips and info that you all are so kind to provide.

I have quite a bit of reading and understanding before I figure out how to set the camera up to bracket exposures for HDR but with this Active d lighting thing I was wondering if I needed to go through all of that....
As an example, I Love Figments "Shop at Sid's" black pick up truck shot, and that's sort of the color range that I am after when I come across possible shots that would be good for that sort of thing.

Also, another question...I figure that I will be shooting Raw but there is also a setting for Raw + Jpeg. I have Photoshop CS4 so post production won't be a problem (I think!... LOL, still learning that one too..) Do you think it would be worth it to burn the space on the memory card and do both Raw and Jpeg or just stick with Raw? Advantages, disadvantages anyone??

Smoochies and I love you all to bits for inspiring me to go for it with my equipment!

Marlton Mom :lovestruc

[Quicklabs]

I usually go for three shots at +/-2 EV on landscapes; six or more on interiors (Like church ceilings that soar a million miles up) using the guidelines that Code laid out so well. I use Photomatix for processing, but haven't bought the program yet! (I don't know why I haven't)
Ya wanna see one of my latest HDR? Here it is! Taken last week on my mini photo vacation by myself. I like to use a very light hand in the processing. I think it was three exposures.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/lleepoole/Upperfallstonemapped.jpg

On this one, (shot of a really huge cave), I might have worked a little bit more to expose the inside of the cave, and gone with 5 shots. THis pic would not have been possible without HDR. Live and learn.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/lleepoole/OldMansCave.jpg

[Quicklabs]

You really just have to pick and choose the look you want. Here's an example of one that I processed with just a touch of D lighting with a pretty decent exposure to begin with. It was raining so the light was pretty even, giving me quite an advantage in metering this scene.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/lleepoole/Upperfalls.jpg

Here's roughly the same shot in HDR.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/lleepoole/Upperfallstonemapped.jpg

My DH likes the "natural" look of D lighting better, but sometimes the dark is just too dark to pull up much of a range with d lighting alone.

I shoot only in RAW--there's really no reason for me to shoot JPEG anymore. I like to mess with my own stuff in RAW when I need to. I think Photomatix handles both.


I was wondering.... What is the difference between bracketing exposures for HDR and the active d lighting on my Nikon D60?

I'm new to all the digital tech advances since the days of my Minolta XG7. I am now spending a great deal of time studying my camera manual and all the wonderful tips and info that you all are so kind to provide.

I have quite a bit of reading and understanding before I figure out how to set the camera up to bracket exposures for HDR but with this Active d lighting thing I was wondering if I needed to go through all of that....
As an example, I Love Figments "Shop at Sid's" black pick up truck shot, and that's sort of the color range that I am after when I come across possible shots that would be good for that sort of thing.

Also, another question...I figure that I will be shooting Raw but there is also a setting for Raw + Jpeg. I have Photoshop CS4 so post production won't be a problem (I think!... LOL, still learning that one too..) Do you think it would be worth it to burn the space on the memory card and do both Raw and Jpeg or just stick with Raw? Advantages, disadvantages anyone??

Smoochies and I love you all to bits for inspiring me to go for it with my equipment!

Marlton Mom :lovestruc

[WDWFigment]

I agree with Code and VVFF's statements for the most part. I hate to see moving objects in my HDR, so I always mask an image on top and brush through afterwards.

One other tip, and one thing that I think commonly happens with HDR images that aren't tone mapped (I'm not wild about tone mapping, myself) is that they look 'flat'. I always increase the contrast by a healthy dose to remedy this.

[VVFF]

I was wondering.... What is the difference between bracketing exposures for HDR and the active d lighting on my Nikon D60?

I'm new to all the digital tech advances since the days of my Minolta XG7. I am now spending a great deal of time studying my camera manual and all the wonderful tips and info that you all are so kind to provide.

I have quite a bit of reading and understanding before I figure out how to set the camera up to bracket exposures for HDR but with this Active d lighting thing I was wondering if I needed to go through all of that....
As an example, I Love Figments "Shop at Sid's" black pick up truck shot, and that's sort of the color range that I am after when I come across possible shots that would be good for that sort of thing.

Also, another question...I figure that I will be shooting Raw but there is also a setting for Raw + Jpeg. I have Photoshop CS4 so post production won't be a problem (I think!... LOL, still learning that one too..) Do you think it would be worth it to burn the space on the memory card and do both Raw and Jpeg or just stick with Raw? Advantages, disadvantages anyone??

Smoochies and I love you all to bits for inspiring me to go for it with my equipment!

Marlton Mom :lovestruc

Since no one has directly answered your question I hope I can help. HDR and D-lighting are two entirely different things as you probably have guessed.

HDR can be used mainly for two things, either extending the dynamic range of the camera, or to reduce noise in shadow areas. Most people use it for the former purpose. See, a camera has a certain dynamic range that is inherent to its sensor. You can't go beyond this. You can push it to its max but then photos tend to lack contrast. HDR is a method to solve this until a revolution in dynamic range is achieved.

D-lighting or other brands similar techniques use a slight underexposure and adjust the tone curve to allow highlight details to be maintained while bumping up the shadows. This reduces contrast and will avoid clipping of highlights in some situations. However, it is really limited to a stop or so of "help". This also increases noise as a shorter exposure brightened up will always have more noise than a correct exposure. Also note that if you shoot RAW you D-lighting is not instantly applied to the RAW file. It's a technique of capturing the image and not some special hardware operation or anything.

It's really mainly for JPG users. Otherwise you might as well just fix it yourself afterward in a RAW file. A RAW file will give you more headroom than D-lighting fixes anyway.

HDR captures multiple images that are spaced typically at most +/-2 EC away from "ideal". This captures up to two stops more shadow detail than normal and two stops more highlight detail than normal. The problem is that this can't all be displayed on a computer monitor and must be scaled to increase contrast. So with HDR you "crush" the areas where there is no significant brightness content and use the dynamic range for areas where there are. HDR is easy to overdo and can easily look very fake. It can be very frustrating to nail down but it is rewarding in some cases.

There are also images where HDR is completely unnecessary. If I am taking a picture of the castle at sunset...chances are you don't need HDR. The contrast from the sky to the castle is much lower at this time of day and one exposure can typically capture all that your eye sees. So don't think every image will benefit from HDR or that being HDR automatically makes the image better.

[disneyboy2003]

Also, another question...I figure that I will be shooting Raw but there is also a setting for Raw + Jpeg. I have Photoshop CS4 so post production won't be a problem (I think!... LOL, still learning that one too..) Do you think it would be worth it to burn the space on the memory card and do both Raw and Jpeg or just stick with Raw? Advantages, disadvantages anyone??

I can't help you with your HDR question, but it looks like you've already got a lot of expert opinions on that.

Regarding RAW vs RAW+Jpeg, there are a couple reasons to shoot RAW + Jpeg. If your client want to see your photos right after you've taken them (ie. wants a CD of your photos right away), then you can do that right away with your Jpegs and then spend time later on at home or in the office working on the RAW images.

For example, if you're a wedding photographer and you want to impress the crowd by showing a slideshow of the day's photos during the reception, you can do that with your Jpegs. Then later in the week, you can spend time working on the RAW images to refine them for printing, for the wedding photo book, etc.

The other reason to shoot RAW + Jpeg is if you've got THE latest camera, but your software program doesn't yet support your camera's RAW files. For example, if I bought the Canon 7D or the newly-announced Canon 1D Mark IV (don't tell my wife :rolleyes1), I won't be able to use Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw to process any of those RAW files. However, I could process the JPEG files for now until Adobe releases the next incremental upgrade. (or I'd have to use Canon's own software to process those RAW files)

Other than that, I'd just shoot RAW.

[Marlton Mom]

Thanks for all the Great info. This will certainly give me good reference points as I experiment and learn.

Smoochies :love1:
Marlton Mom

[MarkBarbieri]

I just had an amusing opportunity to use my Photoshop skills to do something practical. A neighbor lost her four page math homework. My son is in the same class, but he already finished his. There solution was going to be to copy his and white out all of his work. Instead, I scanned the homework into Photoshop and used the curves control to make all the light gray white and all of the dark gray black. The net effect was to make his pencil marks invisible but the original assignment looked almost perfect.

Now, for a few minutes, my kids think I'm cool.

[JoeDif]

Smart thinking!!! :thumbsup2

I hope the neighbor doesn't figure out a way to reverse engineer you pp :rotfl:

[ukcatfan]

Now, for a few minutes, my kids think I'm cool.

Your kids might think you are cool, but the neighbor girl is probably plotting against you right now. After all, you are responsible for her getting to do four pages of homework on a Sunday afternoon! :rotfl2:

[fitzperry]

Sneaky . . . but 4 pages of math on a weekend for an elementary school kid (if I remember correctly, your kids are pretty young)? :teacher: I'm finding that grade school is much more rigorous today than it was when I was there 20 . . . ok, 30 years ago. :laughing: And there's much more work for parents than I ever remember bringing home for mine--sign this, log that . . . .

[Steve's Girl]

Now, for a few minutes, my kids think I'm cool.

Don't worry - this too shall pass...quickly!

My oldest DD (a whopping 8 yrs. old) told me this week that she no longer wants me to come to visiting week in her dance classes. :guilty: When I asked why not, she told me that only the little kids' parents come to visiting week. :confused:

[manning]

Sneaky . . . but 4 pages of math on a weekend for an elementary school kid (if I remember correctly, your kids are pretty young)? :teacher: I'm finding that grade school is much more rigorous today than it was when I was there 20 . . . ok, 30 years ago. :laughing: And there's much more work for parents than I ever remember bringing home for mine--sign this, log that . . . .

That's too mucn for a weekend. There is no reason to not get it done at school. A few years back there was something on tv and talking to a teacher his policy was no homework on weekends and holidays. He was able to teach everything he had to for the school year and the kids got good grades. He believed weekends and holidays were for the family.

[MarkBarbieri]

I got even crazier last night. My son wanted help finding words that could made from the letters in Cheeseburger. I showed him how to download a complete list of English words and then filter it to only the words matching his criteria. He ended up with a lot of words.

[Gdad]

You are so smart- I would have said "'Cheese' and 'Burger' - Duh!"

[ColleenG]

What exactly is it? I've seen pictures where you guys have done this and they look amazing, but I don't quite get what you do. Thanks for explaining!

[disneyboy2003]

HDR stands for "high-dynamic range" photography.

When you take a regular picture with your camera, you'll sometimes notice that the bright areas (like the sky) are way too bright, and sometimes the shadow areas are way too dark. Yet, when you look at the scene yourself (without the camera), you can see everything okay (ie. the skies look good, the shadows have details, etc).

That's because your camera can only capture a limited "dynamic range". The difference between the bright areas and dark areas is about 5 stops of exposure. On the other hand, our eyes have a dynamic range of about 10-14 f-stops for any 1 particular scene.

HDR attempts to capture the details in the brightest bright areas and the darkest dark areas. What you do is take 3 pictures in succession: 1 at the normal exposure, another picture that's 2 stops darker (underexposed), and another picture that's 2 stops brighter (overexposed). You can also take more pictures with more exposures, but the minimum is usually 3 photos. And it's usually best to use a tripod so that all 3 pictures look exactly the same. (There's more detail to this technique, but you can learn more about it later...)

You then bring the 3 pictures into a software program. The most popular is HDRSoft's PhotoMatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/). You can also do this using Photoshop, although PhotoMatix is commonly considered better than Photoshop for HDR.

The program takes the best parts of each image, and combines them into a brand new image.

Here's an example from the PhotoMatix Web site:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/over94.jpg http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/mean94.jpg http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/under94.jpg

you take these 3 photos above, and combine them into the photo below:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/tm282.jpg


So the result above shows that the bright sky is no longer "blown out" and you can see the details of the sky. In addition, the flowers in the shadow areas are brighter.

There's also a way to use 1 properly exposed photo and do HDR using that single image, but I'll let someone else explain. Sorry for the long post.

[boBQuincy]

Yeah, what DisneyBoy said! ;)

As for the mechanics of HDR, most (all?) SLRs and some P&S have a function to automagically bracket the exposure. The camera can be set to take three (or more) exposures in a row, with the difference in the exposures set by a menu pick. In Canon-speak it is called AEB.

Our entry-level and prosumer Canon SLRs only allow three exposures so we set the AEB to +/- 2 stops. By adding exposure compensation we can extend this to 5 exposures at -4, -2, 0, +2, +4 (with a spare 0 exposure that is not needed). By this point you can see we have captured quite a range of light, the original 11 stops of the sensor (Canon Xsi per DxoMark) *plus* 8 more through exposure adjustments. This is usually enough to capture the full range of a scene.

This much range can't be displayed on any monitor (that we can afford) so the software must combine and compress the images into something that fits the range of a monitor. This usually means darkening the bright areas and lightening the dark areas (greatly oversimplified). The result is a full range image that usually looks really good!

While taking the three exposures we usually keep the aperture constant to avoid having three different depths of field in the images. Another technique involves changing the focus for the three images, to extend depth of field from close-up to infinity.
And we can combine HDR *and* DOF techniques to really fill a memory card quickly! ;)
These techniques, and others like Topaz are fulfilling the promise of digital, where we are doing things that film could never do!

[MarkBarbieri]

DB and Bob have given great explanations of what I'd call "traditional HDR". That is, HDR done to try to present a scene with a wide dynamic range and make it look resonably natural.

There is a variation of HDR that has also become popular. In fact, when you mention HDR, it's what a lot of people think of. It invovles taking a picture with a relatively wide dynamic range and using HDR tools to process it to get a different look. I can't really describe the look, but you'll see it if you look at many HDR photos. I'm not a particularly big fan of the look, but it is certainly popular.

[REL1203]

I have just started to dabble in HDR since I got my 7D... I use Photomatix, and it works WELL. Its got tons of options i am learning, really, its complex, but playing around with everything generally is fun to see what it changes.

Only to shots I have to show you are:
I was doing this handheld, just messing around. Its not good, but gave me ideas what did what.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Ep01MeuwgNA/Ss1TLQKYqlI/AAAAAAAAGlA/rHdM-nDC87c/s912/HDRIMG_2814_5_6.jpg

This one I like, but still nothing special, just looked cool, and came out really sharp.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Ep01MeuwgNA/SveJXbooQrI/AAAAAAAAG9o/zrLKvcCySg4/s1280/IMG_1355_6_7_tonemapped_tonemapped.jpg

[VVFF]

I have just started to dabble in HDR since I got my 7D... I use Photomatix, and it works WELL. Its got tons of options i am learning, really, its complex, but playing around with everything generally is fun to see what it changes.

Only to shots I have to show you are:
I was doing this handheld, just messing around. Its not good, but gave me ideas what did what.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Ep01MeuwgNA/Ss1TLQKYqlI/AAAAAAAAGlA/rHdM-nDC87c/s912/HDRIMG_2814_5_6.jpg

This one I like, but still nothing special, just looked cool, and came out really sharp.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Ep01MeuwgNA/SveJXbooQrI/AAAAAAAAG9o/zrLKvcCySg4/s1280/IMG_1355_6_7_tonemapped_tonemapped.jpg

Personally I am not a fan of pushing HDR to the point where you get Halos around your subjects but this is a good example of how you can use HDR to create a different "look".

[REL1203]

Personally I am not a fan of pushing HDR to the point where you get Halos around your subjects but this is a good example of how you can use HDR to create a different "look".

Oh I agree, the first one was just litterally messing with all the sliders... Its not a good example, its just odd looking... The 2nd one, the orange parts are actually the a strange lighting phenomenon that happened at that point at sundown, it was kinda cool, i probalby pushed it to hard, but i dig that pic a little more.. I am the furthest thing from an HDR person, just was messing around with ti to try to learn how to use it when I really want to get some cool pics.

[VVFF]

Oh I agree, the first one was just litterally messing with all the sliders... Its not a good example, its just odd looking... The 2nd one, the orange parts are actually the a strange lighting phenomenon that happened at that point at sundown, it was kinda cool, i probalby pushed it to hard, but i dig that pic a little more.. I am the furthest thing from an HDR person, just was messing around with ti to try to learn how to use it when I really want to get some cool pics.

I find HDR on average more frustrating than fun but that's just me ;)

[Marlton Mom]

I was hoping if some one would know if there was a automatic bracketing setting on the Nikon D60.

I have looked all over for it and I can't seem to find it. I haven't gotten through the camera manual yet but it's not in the index.

I have been jumping around a lot in the manual and looking this and that up and I have yet to find it. I found the section where it tells you how to access exposure comp using the command dial but the D60 doesn't seem to have an auto bracket feature.... Am I right? This has been driving me crazy for weeks!

:lovestruc Thank you so much for asking and answering this question. This is really something I want to prepare for so when I am at the World I will have the right pix to come home with and play with in post processing. This was awesome info for me!! :thumbsup2

Smoochies,
Marlton Mom

PS. I'm figuring that I will have to make cheat sheets to access the command menus in the right order to get the setting I want for various applications. I just know that in the middle of the parks at night or twilight will not be the time to have to "look it up again" in the manual!! I don't think I'm going to have enough time to prepare and practice so that these manipulations become "automatic"! :3dglasses

[ColleenG]

Thanks for the replies, that makes much more sense now. Something new to try playing around with. First I need to learn how to use photoshop or get Photomatrix.

[WDWFigment]

DB and Bob have given great explanations of what I'd call "traditional HDR". That is, HDR done to try to present a scene with a wide dynamic range and make it look resonably natural.

There is a variation of HDR that has also become popular. In fact, when you mention HDR, it's what a lot of people think of. It invovles taking a picture with a relatively wide dynamic range and using HDR tools to process it to get a different look. I can't really describe the look, but you'll see it if you look at many HDR photos. I'm not a particularly big fan of the look, but it is certainly popular.

Do you mean tone mapping?

[VVFF]

Do you mean tone mapping?

I could be wrong here but tone mapping is the process of reducing the 32 bit image down to a more typical 8 or 16 bit image which all HDR images go through.

[WDWFigment]

I could be wrong here but tone mapping is the process of reducing the 32 bit image down to a more typical 8 or 16 bit image which all HDR images go through.

In skimming over a couple of definitions I found online, you appear to be right. Well ****, it looks like I've been misusing that term for a while!

So is there a concise term for giving shots the grunge/dirty/halo look? If not, I suggest fuglitizing a shot. :confused3

[bob100]

DB and Bob have given great explanations of what I'd call "traditional HDR". That is, HDR done to try to present a scene with a wide dynamic range and make it look resonably natural.

There is a variation of HDR that has also become popular. In fact, when you mention HDR, it's what a lot of people think of. It invovles taking a picture with a relatively wide dynamic range and using HDR tools to process it to get a different look. I can't really describe the look, but you'll see it if you look at many HDR photos. I'm not a particularly big fan of the look, but it is certainly popular.


here is one "faux" HDR pic done by Photoshop and not multiple exposures,
sometimes processing an ordinary photo differently can be interesting ... or not

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/4091272100_6d22a76cb7.jpg

[boBQuincy]

I was hoping if some one would know if there was a automatic bracketing setting on the Nikon D60.

I have looked all over for it and I can't seem to find it. I haven't gotten through the camera manual yet but it's not in the index.

According to DPReview the D60 does not offer exposure bracketing. You can still use exposure compensation to get the three exposures, even if the tripod moves a bit the HDR software can align the images pretty well. My Canon Xsi will only take three bracketed exposures so I use the compensation method when I need five exposures and it works well.

Photomatix calls the "one exposure HDR" Pseudo-HDR, which sounds about right. There are three methods of creating one, the best way is to make three files from the RAW with different exposures and then treat them like a HDR set. Just don't expect true HDR range.

Marlton Mom, you are so right, a dark theme park is not the place to wonder about menu choices, especially when the monorail that you waited 10 minutes for is going by! ;)

[WDWFigment]

I could be wrong here but tone mapping is the process of reducing the 32 bit image down to a more typical 8 or 16 bit image which all HDR images go through.

Can anyone state definitively whether this is 'tone mapping'? In the program I use, you can create an HDR image (that is 32 bits) without tone mapping it. I've always assumed this meant that tone mapping was the processing aspect.

[disneyboy2003]

Can anyone state definitively whether this is 'tone mapping'? In the program I use, you can create an HDR image (that is 32 bits) without tone mapping it. I've always assumed this meant that tone mapping was the processing aspect.

Yes, according to a tutorial on the Photomatix Web site (http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/tut_mac/part4.html), that's exactly what tone-mapping is:
"Tone mapping reveals the details in highlights and shadows contained in the original HDR image. It converts the HDR image in 32 bits/channel mode into an image in 16 or 8 bits/channel mode that can be saved as TIFF or JPEG."
This definition is also implied in Wikipedia's entry about "Tone Mapping" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping):
Tone mapping is a technique used in image processing and computer graphics to map a set of colours to another; often to approximate the appearance of high dynamic range images in media with a more limited dynamic range.
Apparently, there are 2 ways of doing tone mapping. In Photomatix, they are called "Details Enhancer" (which acts locally) and "Tone Compressor" (which acts globally). Wikipedia also mentions these 2 techniques, too.

[MarkBarbieri]

According to DPReview the D60 does not offer exposure bracketing.

I'm pretty sure that my D60 supported three shot bracketing. It appears that there are pretty big differences between the old D60s and the new D60s.

Can anyone state definitively whether this is 'tone mapping'? In the program I use, you can create an HDR image (that is 32 bits) without tone mapping it. I've always assumed this meant that tone mapping was the processing aspect.

I can't state anything definitively. My understanding of the term "tone mapping" in its generic sense is the mapping of some tones (basically the brightness) to other tones. For HDR, that means mapping dark tones to lighter tones and light tones to darker tones.

I think that the distinction you are striving for is whether a picture is globally or locally tone mapped. In a globally tone mapped picture, you compress like tones by the same amount wherever they occur in a picture. You are applying a formula to remap a wide range of tone values to a narrower range.

With local tone mapping, you adjust the tones based on what is nearby. For a section of a picture that is dark, you might lighten everything in that section 30%. For another section that is lighter, you might darken everything by 30%. There might be relatively bright parts in your dark section that match relatively dark parts in your light section. With local tone mapping, they will get adjusted differently.

To make local tone mapping not look ridiculous, the software has to gradually feather the effect in and out. There isn't an abrupt dividing line between areas that are treated differently. For that reason, areas around dark parts of the picture get lightened up a bit and look like glowing halos. The opposite occurs around bright areas, but the effect isn't quite so noticeable.

When taken to an extreme, local tone mapping creates substantial variations in the tones and lots of false halos and shadows. The effect is to give everything an unnatural "texture". Some people like the effect; others don't. I don't think it was what was intended by the pioneers of HDR, but it is the look that many people have come to associate with HDR.

So is there a concise term for giving shots the grunge/dirty/halo look? If not, I suggest fuglitizing a shot. :confused3
Works for me, but I'm not a fan of the technique. People that like it might prefer something that didn't imply ugly.

[MarkBarbieri]

There is a reasonably good HDR article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hdr-plea.shtml) on the Luminous-Landscape website. It's written from the perspective of a landscape shooter that likes to have his HDR work look natural. He has a lot of disdain for the extreme local contrast "HDR look" that is in vogue in some circles these days.

[ssanders79]

Mark,
Thanks for the article. I want to try some HDR, but I am not sure which software/plugin to get. What do you use? Do you like it/was it worth the price?

[boBQuincy]

A good article, and while I do not agree with all he writes I do agree that he has a good handle on the merits (and pitfalls) of HDR. As in his case, I have posted some non-HDR that have been considered to be HDR by others, and some HDR that no one expected to be more than one exposure.

It can be undetectable if done well, since no one but the photographer was at the original scene to see just what the range of light was. A scene that just fit the range of the sensor would look like HDR, and a realistic HDR would look like the light just fit the range of the sensor. I still feel there is room in the art of photography for non-realistic HDR as well as any other non-realistic photos (which are almost all photos).

[SrisonS]

Great article about HDR. I also agree with much that he said. I hate overcooked HDR pics; and was a little apprehensive of even trying the technique after seeing so many pics like that. But now that I know how to somewhat make my pics look realistic, I love doing HDR. It always doesn't help though; and one of those exposures you used will be great on its own. And one last thing.... if a person's the subject of the shot, don't use HDR. Those never look natural.

[Experiment_626]

if a person's the subject of the shot, don't use HDR. Those never look natural.Sometimes you can get good results blending an HDR portrait with the best single exposure from the sequence.

[Coach81]

I've seen reference to this on more than one occasion on my first steps into photography.. what do the letters HDR mean?

[MICKEY88]

I've seen reference to this on more than one occasion on my first steps into photography.. what do the letters HDR mean?



Hi Dynamic range,

it's a method of merging several photos of varying exposures{bracketed}

to best show hilites and shadows.. it can be done so that the pictrue looks somewhat natural, or it can be taken to extremes so it's obviously not natural,

I like both depending on the subject...

[TheGoofster]

I've seen reference to this on more than one occasion on my first steps into photography.. what do the letters HDR mean?

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. Basically it is a process in which you take 3 or more shots of the same subject at different exposure settings (preferably with a tripod so you get the exact same shots). Most newer DSLR cameras have a feature called exposure bracketing that allows you to take 3 (or more) successive shots and the camera automatically changes the exposure for you (after you set what exposure settings you want).
After you have the shots, you will need a software editing program that allows you to merge the shots together (called something like HDR merge). Depending on the program you will have more or less control over how many changes you can make with the merged shots.

edited to add:

Once again, I'm outdrawn to the answer. Good thing I'm not a gunslinger or Mickey88 would have filled me with lead.

[MICKEY88]

edited to add:

Once again, I'm outdrawn to the answer. Good thing I'm not a gunslinger or Mickey88 would have filled me with lead.



:lmao::lmao:

[Coach81]

Thanks guys!

[pgowder]

From Stuck in Customs:
HDR is short for High Dynamic Range. It is a post-processing of taking either one image or a series of images, combining them, and adjusting the contrast ratios to do things that are virtually impossible with a single aperture and shutter speed.

Read more on his website:
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Trey has done some incredible HDR shots in WDW and around the world. He is one of the main advocates for HDR right now.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/459418289_12b3f3ffaa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/459418289/)

[ssanders79]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page on HDR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging)

I just created my first HDR image last week. It was a rainy day last Thursday and the original shot looked quite blah. I ended up using just one exposure and created various exposures in Lightroom. I shot a consecutive shots in the park, but I moved a little to much leaving me with no choice but to work off just one source image.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4426869115_aabc90b6b5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssanders79/4426869115/)
see on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssanders79/4426869115/)

[mrcricket]

From Stuck in Customs:
HDR is short for High Dynamic Range. It is a post-processing of taking either one image or a series of images, combining them, and adjusting the contrast ratios to do things that are virtually impossible with a single aperture and shutter speed.

Read more on his website:
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Trey has done some incredible HDR shots in WDW and around the world. He is one of the main advocates for HDR right now.




I second Trey's site. It is a really good starting point to learn HDR. And the Photomatix program he recommends is really easy to use. Much better than Photoshops in my opinion.

[Groucho]

Note that there is certainly controversy around HDR and there are many people who do not like the unnatural look of HDR. (And yes, we can tell even mild HDRs.) Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn how to do. :)

Signed, Groucho, happily HDR-free since 1971 :teeth:

Seriously, though, I think the concept is OK but the results are too unreal for my tastes (they generally do not match what the eye will see.) I much prefer pulling in extra range out of a single RAW file and having the camera produce more DR from the outset - I really like the concept of the old Fuji DSLRs that specialized in this. Hopefully this will be an area of future sensor development along with lower noise levels.

[mom2rtk]

I have really enjoyed the shots I've seen at Disney in HDR, but can't think of many other applications where I would like it. Same for me with a fisheye lens. There's something about the surreal, almost animated look, that makes it seem just perfect for Disney!

[mrcricket]

Note that there is certainly controversy around HDR and there are many people who do not like the unnatural look of HDR. (And yes, we can tell even mild HDRs.) Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn how to do. :)

Signed, Groucho, happily HDR-free since 1971 :teeth:

Seriously, though, I think the concept is OK but the results are too unreal for my tastes (they generally do not match what the eye will see.) I much prefer pulling in extra range out of a single RAW file and having the camera produce more DR from the outset - I really like the concept of the old Fuji DSLRs that specialized in this. Hopefully this will be an area of future sensor development along with lower noise levels.

Groucho, I agree with you on the "Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn" statement. HDR takes times. Sometimes a lot of time. And I think it's definitely a taste thing and a passion thing.

As for being controversial, I just don't get that. As a Creative Director at an Ad Agency for 25+ years, I don't really care how the shot is made as long as it is great. And most professional photographers retouch their shots to make them better. Even the greats like Ansel Adams manipulated plates and dodged and burned to get the prints just right. I think HDR just takes retouching to another level. But with that said, I'll second your statement that HDR isn't for everyone. Just like some people don't like B&W and some don't like sepia and some don't like fisheye shots and some do. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's the beauty of photography. It can be many things to many people. The main thing about photography — just keep shooting. Your work will get better the more you shoot.

[Coach81]

Note that there is certainly controversy around HDR and there are many people who do not like the unnatural look of HDR. (And yes, we can tell even mild HDRs.) Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn how to do. :)

Signed, Groucho, happily HDR-free since 1971 :teeth:

Seriously, though, I think the concept is OK but the results are too unreal for my tastes (they generally do not match what the eye will see.) I much prefer pulling in extra range out of a single RAW file and having the camera produce more DR from the outset - I really like the concept of the old Fuji DSLRs that specialized in this. Hopefully this will be an area of future sensor development along with lower noise levels.
Thanks for your input.. I'm just putting my toes in the water here.. I don't know enough yet to even have any opinion :lmao:
I have really enjoyed the shots I've seen at Disney in HDR, but can't think of many other applications where I would like it. Same for me with a fisheye lens. There's something about the surreal, almost animated look, that makes it seem just perfect for Disney!
And I LOVE DISNEY!!!
Groucho, I agree with you on the "Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn" statement. HDR takes times. Sometimes a lot of time. And I think it's definitely a taste thing and a passion thing.

As for being controversial, I just don't get that. As a Creative Director at an Ad Agency for 25+ years, I don't really care how the shot is made as long as it is great. And most professional photographers retouch their shots to make them better. Even the greats like Ansel Adams manipulated plates and dodged and burned to get the prints just right. I think HDR just takes retouching to another level. But with that said, I'll second your statement that HDR isn't for everyone. Just like some people don't like B&W and some don't like sepia and some don't like fisheye shots and some do. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's the beauty of photography. It can be many things to many people. The main thing about photography — just keep shooting. Your work will get better the more you shoot.

I plan on doing just that.. shoot, shoot, shoot!!! :goodvibes

[Coach81]

Hmmm wondering which software program would best fit my "newbie" needs..

I have Microsoft Picture It, and Photoshop Elements 7..

I've heard of the Photomatix, something called Picaso, and some other program from Corel..

Any suggestions/recommendations.. should I just go with what I have.. if so.. can I goof around with HDR with either of my current programs.. or do I have to invest in another program?

[NateNLogansDad]

Elements does HDR....saw it on youtube.

[mom2rtk]

I appreciate this thread. While I may not be ready to create my own HDR shots, I want to be sure I come home from Disney with the "raw" :lmao: material I need to create them when I have time to figure it out (or get the right program!)

[TheGoofster]

I'm using Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo Ultimate X2, and it does have the HDR merge feature, but it doesn't give you a whole lot of editing features with it. I imagine that some of the other editing programs might give you even more editing power with your HDR merged shots.

But I will say that for the price (you can get it for about 40 - 50 dollars), Corel does give you a lot of bang for the buck, and if anyone asks me, I do give it a good recommendation.

[SrisonS]

I'm pretty much a fan of HDR. But I can definitely see why some people don't like it. I think a lot of HDR pics out there just look too unreal. For one thing, it isn't always needed. And some people just "overcook" the pics when they do the processing. This overcooking is what made me hesitant about trying HDR at all. I was scared my shots would look too fake; but I decided to give it a try anyway.

As far as it being something that really takes time do, I can make adjustments fairly quickly. I use Photomatix (and if you ask how much I paid, I'll just tell you how much it cost ;) ), but I'm not sure how other programs handle. It did take a few attempts to really get things down; but Photomatix saves the setting from the last picture processed. So I keep the levels set pretty much the same, with only making slight adjustments here and there.

Here are a couple of my shots that I think are more on the realistic side (I hope):
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4359028665_9d7c84baec.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4359028665/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4426743292_57d3377dd3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4426743292/)

....And maybe this one. HDR helped me get a nice exposure balance between the sky and Stitch (because the topiary was mainly in shadow).
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4418611741_6236233549.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11654579@N07/4418611741/)

[Jamian]

Another vote for Photomatix. It would have been impossible to pick up the range of highs and lows in this scene without HDR:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4305644726_ac3fa7a59c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26667242@N00/4305644726/in/set-72157623370574555/)

[Groucho]

Groucho, I agree with you on the "Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn" statement. HDR takes times. Sometimes a lot of time. And I think it's definitely a taste thing and a passion thing.

As for being controversial, I just don't get that. As a Creative Director at an Ad Agency for 25+ years, I don't really care how the shot is made as long as it is great. And most professional photographers retouch their shots to make them better. Even the greats like Ansel Adams manipulated plates and dodged and burned to get the prints just right. I think HDR just takes retouching to another level. But with that said, I'll second your statement that HDR isn't for everyone. Just like some people don't like B&W and some don't like sepia and some don't like fisheye shots and some do. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's the beauty of photography. It can be many things to many people. The main thing about photography — just keep shooting. Your work will get better the more you shoot.
I use the word controversial because I think of it as more of a "Photoshop trick" (using Photoshop in a generic, digital-post-processing sense), not unlike selective coloring or other "tricks." Like Jamian's shot just above this - that looks very unlike the naked eye would see it. It's fine if you like that but I can't help thinking how much better it would look to my eyes without HDR. SrisonS's aren't as "HDR-like" but they still clearly have the overly vibrant "HDR look". I might humbly suggest that fill flash would probably have worked better for the Stitch topiary shot. The World Showcase shot is very nice though, and about as mild as you can get with HDR.

Hopefully I'm not offending anyone here - I'll state again that these are just my opinions, and others are free to not care for fisheye or Lensbaby shots and I will be fine with that. :thumbsup2 I just wanted to make sure that the OP didn't think that HDR was necessarily a "must-learn" feature the way aperture/shutter priority modes, white balance are, and shooting Raw and using decent Raw processing software for when you're ready to take the next step. In fact, many photographers go in the opposite direction - as they progress, they take their camera off the crowd-pleasing "vivid" mode and move into more natural (and hence a little flatter) colors.

[NateNLogansDad]

I tried a little HDR myself a few minutes ago. A guy I work with picked up a new Harley this morning. It's got less then 25 miles on it right now so I wanted a shot before it gets dirty :lmao:

Out front isn't very well lit and the lighting we do have it that ugly orange light that seems to be everywhere now. I took 8 different shots and merged them in PS CS3. Please, any criticism is more than welcome.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/Untitled_HDR2.jpg

Edit: The reason I went by the way of HDR was mostly the lighting. It was hard to see everything by just looking at it let alone with a camera. When I tried a longer shutter it blew out with the reflections, and a faster shutter lost a lot of detail. I ended up going with a 1/20 and bracketed the exposure as much as possible.

[mrcricket]

I use the word controversial because I think of it as more of a "Photoshop trick" (using Photoshop in a generic, digital-post-processing sense), not unlike selective coloring or other "tricks." Like Jamian's shot just above this - that looks very unlike the naked eye would see it. It's fine if you like that but I can't help thinking how much better it would look to my eyes without HDR. SrisonS's aren't as "HDR-like" but they still clearly have the overly vibrant "HDR look". I might humbly suggest that fill flash would probably have worked better for the Stitch topiary shot. The World Showcase shot is very nice though, and about as mild as you can get with HDR.

Hopefully I'm not offending anyone here - I'll state again that these are just my opinions, and others are free to not care for fisheye or Lensbaby shots and I will be fine with that. :thumbsup2 I just wanted to make sure that the OP didn't think that HDR was necessarily a "must-learn" feature the way aperture/shutter priority modes, white balance are, and shooting Raw and using decent Raw processing software for when you're ready to take the next step. In fact, many photographers go in the opposite direction - as they progress, they take their camera off the crowd-pleasing "vivid" mode and move into more natural (and hence a little flatter) colors.

Groucho,
I wasn't offended at all. Hope you didn't take my reply as that. That's the trouble with message boards, email, texting, etc., tone of voice just doesn't come through the keyboard. Maybe someday some smart computer genius will figure that out.

I understood what you meant by "controversial". I just don't get it. To me, whatever it takes to get the shot that makes sense to the photographer is okay and not "cheating" or "tricky". I agree with you that photographers should learn the basics first. I did in college some many years ago. But I don't think techniques or tricks are bad - Photoshop or otherwise. They can be used poorly just like someone can take a poor photo or have poor composition. But the process itself isn't bad or good. It's just a process. I've seen, and made, many BAD HDRs. I'm still learning. But I've seen some stunning HDRs that just can't be made with regular photography and I think that's pretty doggone amazing.

Groucho, I enjoy your posts and your insight. Keep em coming.

Mr Cricket

[princess.chell]

I'm finding this discussion very interesting. In my independent photo class a few of us have been trying to teach ourselves how to create HDR photos. I love my photo teacher to death but he's a little behind. Plus its a independent class so he just tells us to look it up. :laughing:
Thanks much for the link to site at the beginning of the thread and for the interesting discussion. I love reading what you all have to say on photography.

[oregondaddyof2]

After reading this thread, I was a little interested to try this out... I found a free plugin for CS3 and gave it a try... They are not very good, but I thought I would share a few that I came out with... :thumbsup2

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4442648070_0f79e39b02_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4441866123_8d208a8a31_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/4442655388_956ca8ebf3_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4441871141_c75af2f22c_b.jpg

Like I said before, they are nowhere close to being perfect, and these are the first try at using a free plugin, so be kind.... :worship:

[boBQuincy]

Dynamic range is not quite as simple as it seems and "HDR or not HDR" is not clear cut. Of some currently available dSLRs dynamic range can be from 13.7 stops down to 10 stops, in other words a single exposure from the first camera would cover about the same range as the second camera would if set up for HDR with +/- 2 stops!

Further, the maximum dynamic range is only at the lowest ISO and gets progressively smaller as ISO goes up, dropping to about 9 stops at 1600 ISO. Because of this it is not feasible to look at an image and clearly say "HDR" or "not HDR" since the same scene can be rendered very differently by different cameras or even by the same camera at different settings.

We are not privy to the information about the original dynamic range of the scene and can not know if an area was unlit, lit by a reflector, flash, or other light source, or if it was lightened by dodging. To always point it out as HDR is an oversimplification. HDR is really no more than a form of dodging and burning, to compress the range of the scene into a smaller space. The saturated colors are not HDR, just the artist's choice of how to portray the image.

Our monitors are almost all 8 bit (or less) devices and even a normal single exposure must be compressed to fit within the range of our screens, leading to light values that are not always representative of how the original scene actually looked.


Of course when an image area that is lighted by another image area (such as ground and sky) is portrayed so the area which should be darker is in fact lighter we can then say for certain that this is HDR (or serious dodging, which is not that much different) and we can only hope that the effect is what was intended by the artist.

[MICKEY88]

Dynamic range is not quite as simple as it seems and "HDR or not HDR" is not clear cut. Of some currently available dSLRs dynamic range can be from 13.7 stops down to 10 stops, in other words a single exposure from the first camera would cover about the same range as the second camera would if set up for HDR with +/- 2 stops!

Further, the maximum dynamic range is only at the lowest ISO and gets progressively smaller as ISO goes up, dropping to about 9 stops at 1600 ISO. Because of this it is not feasible to look at an image and clearly say "HDR" or "not HDR" since the same scene can be rendered very differently by different cameras or even by the same camera at different settings.

We are not privy to the information about the original dynamic range of the scene and can not know if an area was unlit, lit by a reflector, flash, or other light source, or if it was lightened by dodging. To always point it out as HDR is an oversimplification. HDR is really no more than a form of dodging and burning, to compress the range of the scene into a smaller space. The saturated colors are not HDR, just the artist's choice of how to portray the image.

Our monitors are almost all 8 bit (or less) devices and even a normal single exposure must be compressed to fit within the range of our screens, leading to light values that are not always representative of how the original scene actually looked.


Of course when an image area that is lighted by another image area (such as ground and sky) is portrayed so the area which should be darker is in fact lighter we can then say for certain that this is HDR (or serious dodging, which is not that much different) and we can only hope that the effect is what was intended by the artist.

thanks for mentioning dodging and burning,, I was thinkihat early this morning but was too tired to post, it basically is the same as dodging and burning that photographers have done for many years in the darkroom...

and with paint shop pro photo I've tried that route a few times and it's fairly simple... but since purchasing the topaz bundle I find it's so much easier and quicker to use adjust to get the same effect

[Groucho]

Dynamic range is not quite as simple as it seems and "HDR or not HDR" is not clear cut. Of some currently available dSLRs dynamic range can be from 13.7 stops down to 10 stops, in other words a single exposure from the first camera would cover about the same range as the second camera would if set up for HDR with +/- 2 stops!

Further, the maximum dynamic range is only at the lowest ISO and gets progressively smaller as ISO goes up, dropping to about 9 stops at 1600 ISO. Because of this it is not feasible to look at an image and clearly say "HDR" or "not HDR" since the same scene can be rendered very differently by different cameras or even by the same camera at different settings.
Yes, different cameras and different films have different levels of dynamic range - but HDR is a post-processing technique, independent of camera. If you're talking about the "HDR look", as most people are when asking specifically about it, that is a look is not like any unprocessed photo from any camera, no matter the range... the "tone mapping" is the big difference. Even in HDRs made to look realistic, IMHO they still tend to show effects like distractingly bright shadow areas and so often the dreaded halos that wouldn't be there in a camera with high dynamic range.

For example, look at samples from the Fuji S5 Pro (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/page29.asp), which has almost 12 stops of DR (even in jpg!), versus the usual 8-9 of most DSLRs (without tweaking in raw.) They have a ton of DR but look nothing like your typical HDR photo. IMHO the big difference is way the highlights and shadows "roll off" - smoother than on most DSLRs.

Dodging and burning is fine but you can do that in post-processing easily especially with Lightroom 2... without producing the "look".

[sabrinadv1]

So I have decided that my little p&s is great but, I need more. I have been going back and forth between a dslr or a ultrazoom. I am looking at the Olympus E-520 or the Panasonic z35. I read on Amazon that the Panasonic is capable of HDR photography. I love the colors and effects of HDR. I know it's not for everyone but, I am in love. My question is how do I know if a camera is capable of this? Out of all the cameras I have looked at the z35 is the only one that says it is capable of this. Can the E-520 not do this? What about the Nikon L100? I am so lost sorry for all the question :flower3:.

[Shutterbug]

an hdr capable camera? :confused3

You mean it does the HDR processing in the camera?

As far as I know all you need to do HDR is 3 seperate exposures from any camera.

http://www.idigitalphoto.com/high-dynamic-range-photography-explained/

[sabrinadv1]

Yes some of the cameras I have been looking at have special in camera settings for HDR to make it easier I think :confused3. That's what I am trying to figure out.

[photo_chick]

Technically any camera can do HDR because you normally either use 3 images, or a RAW file processed at 3 different exposures then you use software to make the image.

Many cameras have a bracketing mode, which will shoot a set of images at different exposures to make creating an HDR easier.

I was curious so I just looked up the Panasonic. I didn't see anyhting saying it did HDR images in camera. It does HD, which is about resolution, not dynamic range. And High Dynamic mode does not equal an HDR image. But I could be missing something. Either way, I'm not sure I see a real advantage to processing HDR in camera.

[sabrinadv1]

One of the pics on Amazon said one of the best features of the z35 was it's HDR capability. I can't find any other information about it anywhere. That's what has me confused. I am reading and doing some research now. I am just on information overload at the moment.

[photo_chick]

I looked at the pics people posted, and yes other users are calling it an HDR mode. But it isn't creating an HDR image. Panasonic calls it high dynamic mode but from what I read no where does panasonic say it creates an HDR image nor does what they describe as the high dynamic mode make me inclined to think it creates HDR images.

But like I said, I could be missing something. It wouldn't be the first time.

[sabrinadv1]

No thank you that's what I was trying to figure out. I found a Nikon L100 for $150, a Fuji S1500 for $130, a Olympus E-510 for $320 w/one lense, and a Olympus E-520 for $340. The cheapest I can find the Panasonic for is $300. I think I am just going to go ahead and make the leap to the E-510. It scored better against the E-520 in the tests that I looked at. The Fuji has way too many faulty cameras for me to trust it I think. The Nikon looks nice but, it doesn't quite give me the control I want. The Nikon P100 looks nice but, for the price I can find that one I could get the E-510. So the E-510 it is............. I think maybe :confused:. I know I have alot of reading and learning to do . I need a camera to look at to understand what I am reading. If I try to read all of this without anything to practice it on I am just wasting time.

[photo_chick]

I'm actually a big fan of Fuji point and shoots. I got my first one back in '99, I've had a few since then, and never had any problems. My daughter has been using an S1000 since it came out and I've been very impressed with it as far as point and shoots go.

Though it really comes down to the features you want and how it feels in your hands.

[Daisy14'sDH]

No thank you that's what I was trying to figure out. I found a Nikon L100 for $150, a Fuji S1500 for $130, a Olympus E-510 for $320 w/one lense, and a Olympus E-520 for $340. The cheapest I can find the Panasonic for is $300. I think I am just going to go ahead and make the leap to the E-510. It scored better against the E-520 in the tests that I looked at. The Fuji has way too many faulty cameras for me to trust it I think. The Nikon looks nice but, it doesn't quite give me the control I want. The Nikon P100 looks nice but, for the price I can find that one I could get the E-510. So the E-510 it is............. I think maybe :confused:. I know I have alot of reading and learning to do . I need a camera to look at to understand what I am reading. If I try to read all of this without anything to practice it on I am just wasting time.

I know someone up here in the Great White North who has one (E510) for sale. Comes with 2 lenses, memory cards, extra battery, Lowepro slingshot 100, and some other stuff....