Thats what i use also. Photomatix 3 pro. But i'm only a noob yet, so i haven't tested it to much. Photo programs aren't my kinda thing.. But i try to learn a few things. Not tried HDR with one pic. Don't even know what to do
Printable View
Thats what i use also. Photomatix 3 pro. But i'm only a noob yet, so i haven't tested it to much. Photo programs aren't my kinda thing.. But i try to learn a few things. Not tried HDR with one pic. Don't even know what to do
Well, you need RAW file. Then save that RAW file as TIFF, and save it with default exposure (0eV) and one file with +1 eV and one file with -1 eV. Most cameras can handle this eV shift, you will see if you went too far (colors disappeared and such).Quote:
Originally Posted by M40TURBO
Then you simply load it into Photomatix and do that HDR part. :) It needs lots of tweaking to get desirable result, but it works..
Can't you just use a peogram to save ass tiff an adjust EV on it. Sounds like i have to use the camera?? I use bible5 pro to look at my pics and photomatrix3 pro to set up my hdr shots
NO you do not need a raw file, photomatix and just about every other HDR software including photoshop can do it with a single jpeg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mescalamba
infact photoscape will do a pseudo hdr if you keep clicking the 'backlight' 4-5 times
Sure, if its RAW to TIFF.Quote:
Originally Posted by M40TURBO
JPEG has limited DR, that cannot be expanded. Its simply not there. RAW has full DR of what you shot, expandable as much as your camera allows (decent camera has at least +/- 1 eV, very good ones have +/- 3eV). TIFF can withstand similar things as RAW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Boston September 1st.
Do not fear, summer isn't over. 93 fahrenheit :)
http://www.cons.org/201009boston/img...take2_1024.jpg
Click for 3888x2592
oh i know but you do not NEED raw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mescalamba
raw is best, of course, but just because someone might always shoot jpeg or only have jpeg options doesnt mean they cant do it.
the upper right corner is not pixelation, its a screen window making those small checkerboards
http://broveakphotography.zapto.org/...3335672e4a5047
Sure, but you need at least 2 images or more.. HDR from single file like with RAW, is simply not possible.. JPEGs cut out everything thats not visible..Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
I think its called posterization, you have nice amount of it on lower right corner. Though, still nice picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mescalamba
no you dont man, all you need is 1 picture, and most hdr apps will make copies, adjust the exposure up and down to the setting you choose and then blend them.
or
you can just create 2 copies, and adjust the exposure up a few and down a few. or tell the program what the exposure setting is, or what it should be.
but again, yes raw is best, always. but jpeg easily does pseudo hdr and can be made to look really nice.
i did the above flower picture with 1 jpeg and didnt even use any hdr software. i used photoscape and clicked the "backlight" button about 5 times.
any further and it really started showing that halo effect form too heavy of hdr.
heck i didnt even notice that part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mescalamba
yeah i think thats the right name... hmmm. have to wait til i get home and redo it properly.
i dont think photoshop has a tool where i can get rid of that, but i bet it does, somewhere, somehow
Yea that posterization is exactly what you get, when you try to do something you cant. :D If you try to get data from place where are no data, well, you get this. :D
Only thing one can get from JPEG is color/contrast/whatever manipulated JPEG. Nothing more, its as close to HDR as water painting.
I would try bit of selective bluring, or create copy of layer, blur it completely, create mask and modify it to mask only posterized places, leaving sharp what you want sharp.
Gaussian blur at 2-5 should be enough, but you will see whats best. :)
+∞Quote:
Originally Posted by Mescalamba
There's an obvious, but clearly confused line between HDR imaging + tone-mapping and regular LDR (Low Dynamic Range) image + tone-mapping. The tone-mapping of an HDR image is the process of compressing 16 or 32 bits of image data down to a LDR of 8 or 16 bits while still trying to preserve the scene's original perceived brightness and contrast. In contrast, LDR + tone-mapping doesn't compress or involve any HDR image data at all - it simply takes the existing LDR image data and tweaks it to simulate the tone-mapping effect often seen more-than-enough with "automated" HDR programs such as Photomatix. This is also the reason why many tone-mapped LDR images have excessive noise levels in the dark regions of the image and blown highlights - there's simply not any useful information to work with - clipped white highlights (255, 255, 255) and clipped black shadows (0, 0, 0) can't provide anything - even after any amount of tone-mapping.
This, in my opinion, is a must read for those who want to really understand the meaning of HDR photography: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hdr-plea.shtml. Additionally, the book titled "The HDRI Handbook" is another excellent paperback source on the techniques and uses of HDRI.
Simply put, each technique has its purpose, appeal, and followers. But my main reason for replying to this is to help differentiate between these two, very popular photography siblings - both may share a common root (tone-mapping), but each are very different in their own respects and shouldn't be confused for one or the other.
/end technical rant
:)
Here's one I made from a picture I took on this years vacation out west.
I used a raw image shot with a D90 with a Nikkor 50 1.8 lens.
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/x...rt/leather.jpg
-Pitt
the sky looks angryQuote:
Originally Posted by M40TURBO
Yep it looked like all hell was gonna break loose. But nothing happend, no thunder no rain no nothing. But i got awesome pics :D
nice pics...
Did we go back in time ?
Man, this thread is awesome :up:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_QhN3XULYeYc/S3...G_4467_HDR.jpg
USS Arizona Memorial