Got a big version of that pic :D?Quote:
Originally Posted by pasatoiutd
Printable View
Got a big version of that pic :D?Quote:
Originally Posted by pasatoiutd
wow... so many of these shots are wallpaper worthy :D
you guys need to start posting full res so we can crop them to our desktop resolutions.
+1 !Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
I used Photomatix Pro and played with the settings until I got something nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
Here you are: 1800*1200; the JPEG compression isn't very nice as I had to keep it below 200K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004
Great pics pasat ;) Maybe you can unload the full high quality version of that pic RAR'd on www.rapidshare.com or something similar. I would appreciate it if you did :)
*Edit* Please also add that other picture ;)
The guy with the red shirt is not reflected on the pond lol...
I have uploaded 2 HQ versions here:Quote:
Originally Posted by alexio
http://rapidshare.com/files/112171438/HDR.rar.html
you guys can upload your pics here: ftp://itznfb.com with username: xtremesys and password: Secure1
you can create a folder for yourself. i created one for pasatoiutd as an example.
and then pictures can be linked as: http://www.itznfb.com/xtremesys/pasatoiutd/Toulouse.jpg
Mmm...HDR clouds:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/...a2cb79dd_o.jpg
http://flickr.com/photos/taylorhand/2462323945/
New mobo ...
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...lbum2/xddd.png
I dont like so much the result... :(
First HDR image attempt, 2nd 3rd and 4th picture taken with my new D40 :D.
Attachment 78297
Panthols, not bad but a bit unreal-looking. I would try turning down the light smoothing/strength a bit.
My first HDR images ever (there were took with the Olympus SP-350 which is almost a point and shoot camera but luckily it let me do the bracketing thing, but only in jpeg's tough...) :
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1...5153xm8.th.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5...5514vz7.th.jpg
That would be it... Comments would be appreaciated but don't kill me just becouse I'm noob when it comes to photography and I don't have a DSLR :(
The 1st one could use some straightening, but not bad PP otherwise.
I really like that 2nd one. Very good for a first try I'd say.
Aren't the colors in the 2nd one too vivid (the greens especially) ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
And I've got a question. Are there any photos which are not suitable for HDR images or it's possbile to do HDR from everything and the pictures will still be good?
HDR is mostly used to properly expose otherwise impossible scenes that are outside the camera sensor's dynamic range (too dark and too bright in the same scene). It can be used anywhere, but it has those certain shots that it's really meant for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
Quote:
Originally Posted by pasatoiutd
Breathtaking pics :shocked:
Tried some HDR yesterday. :)
All taken with EOS350D @18mm(28.8mm real) with 18-55mm standard lens, with 100ISO. ;)
Done with Photoshop:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...HDR2copy-1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...d_HDR3copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...d_HDR4copy.jpg
Done with Photomatix:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...19_5_6_7_8.jpg
Have all of them in full resolution too, if somebody wants it...
Sagart the end result there is great. I think you put in the wrong picture for #3 though.
looks very nice, tho a bit too "muted" in my opinion, feeling a bit flat
dunno how to explain it :x
Were these JPEGS or RAW?
Wow, some really great pics, wish I had a DSLR like you all, it would be so much fun shooting.
I have a Canon A630, anyone of you use it for HDR photos ?
I am currently trying out the ALLBEST CHDK on it.
Posted pictures are JPEG, but the source pictures from the camera where RAW. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Took some HDR-pictures this afternoon too. :)
RAW from the camera - Photomatix - Resize in PS - JPEG.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._52_53copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._6_7_8copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._67_66copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._3_4_5copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._79_80copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._3_4_5copy.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j..._89_90copy.jpg
Eh, they don't do much for me... it's a great first attempt though (assuming those are your first attempt). They look a little blurry though. Did you take them handheld?
My 2nd attempt :)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/...6bbc19d985.jpg
Here's a few I forgot about, click for large
My buddy at the shore
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/4...629ff603f3.jpg
Brosef
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/4...c2e6cae926.jpg
Car, bad crop but a good proof of concept
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/5...bf8c053f1d.jpg
Guys,
While single tonemapped images can be neat, they are not true High Dynamic Range. What it means to create an HDR image is to properly expose all areas of a scene by taking multiple shots at different exposures. This is done using Aperture Priority and varying the shutter speed, ideally by using the camera's bracketing feature. This captures a much greater range of detail than a single exposure is capable of, since cameras aim for a middle-grey exposure as a compromise by design. Single images cannot hope to create this detail as the data simply is not there.
Unfortunately this means that true HDR images must be still-only. Taking three or more pictures means every image has to be virtually identical in composition and movement, thus HDR cannot be used for action shots. A great example of a true High Dynamic Range image is shown below:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2104/...999fdb27_b.jpg
This image is credited to herc182 @ DCResource.
Shooting RAW, you can adjust exposure and create 3-5 images from one shot. Though its not perfect...it's pretty close.
You're right, you can do that. However, you aren't creating any new data, only manipulating what you have. What really needs to happen is for the dynamic range to be captured optically at the scene through different exposures. Anything else is technically fake-HDR.
The biggest reason is, you can't bring back blown highlights and you can't bring back lost shadow details in software, it had to be captured in the exposures or the data simply isn't there to work with.
Since RAW isn't setting exposure data though is is not better than a JPEG when creating a "fake" HDR? I'll try a few with bracketing today :p
The exposure control in RAW is unrelated to the camera exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnj
care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
Exposure is how long the shutter stays open which in turns regulates how much light is let in. The Exposure in raw its more like a brightness and contrast in photoshop. It doesn't create any new data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnj
For example; if you take a 2 shots of the sky on a bright cloudy day, 1 at a lower exposure and one at a normal exposure, you will see the lower exposed picture will show the detail in the sky while the normal will wash it out. Now if you plug it into camera raw and adjust the exposure, you will see the detail of the clouds isn't recaptured.
What im saying is, exposure isn't a post processing thing. The raw function doesn't capture the exposure details across the entire exposure spectrum.
I gotcha. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
This is a quick half-assed HDR...not really sure if I like it. This was taken as the sun was coming up after the storms last night and this morning.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...DSC_1133_2.jpg
B&W for something different:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...DSC_1141_0.jpg
I'm getting better results from Photoshop CS3 than Photomatix.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...esignData1.jpg
Photoshop CS3 is giving me better results in creating realistic looking HDR images. Here are my thoughts:
1. Similar results can be had from both programs, however there is more adjustability in Photomatix if you want a surreal look. PS CS3 has better adjustability for realism - you can adjust the tone curve which Photomatix can't do at all.
2. When adjusting images to be nearly identical, the Photomatix result has less contrast and a light gray haze. Blacks are better from the CS3 result. Post-processing can close the gap but they still aren't the same. Color is similar when you don't overcook the saturation.
3. CS3 HDR Merge yields lower noise. Photomatix seems to amplify noise, even when using maximum light smoothing and 0 strength.
4. When done merging in CS3, I am still in Photoshop so I can continue my work. When working in another program such as Photomatix, I have to export to do any further editing which adds a step to the workflow. I really like being able to work straight from Bridge. I load all of my exposures into Adobe Camera Raw, adjust the white balance, color, defringing, slight sharpening and noise reduction and sometimes miscellaneous other things. I load the images into Photoshop and merge to HDR from there - it is all seamless and there is no saving, exporting, importing into another program, exporting back, etc.
5. PS CS3 aligns images much better than Photomatix, which has problems with this.
On the downside, Photoshop is slower and consumes your system of all of its memory. On a 2GB system I actually started getting errors though I run a lot of programs at once...4GB is on the way for this kind of work.
With that said...I don't have a use for Photomatix anymore. CS3 just gives me better aligned images, with a much cleaner merge and better realism, with the proper exposure taken from each image and applied into one without any strings attached or ugly surprises. It gives me images that look like they should when considering what HDR merging is actually trying to achieve, and not overcooked images that I see so often called HDR (sorry guys). Next I will compare this rounds winner with Paintshop Pro X2 which I hear is very good as well.
so many awsome pics in this thread, suck my house was broken into and my $3500 inb gear stolen!
40D coming in JUne...
so those of you who have posted, tell us your technique,........... software? settings
[EDIT]
okay FAR too many pics to multiquote..
can any / most of you post your pics with high res? like 1600 x + or higher? just tooss your name / sig on it , make some awsome wallpapers, some serious talent in here.
once i have my 40D and if i can get all the gear i want, should see some awsome macro HDR stuff :) (mmm mp-e)
I think I'm going to try this soon. I just got a Cannon Rebel XT (stock lens) for my birthday and my brother just got a Nikon D40 (stock lens) for his Bar Mitzvah :D
Of the hundreds I have to go through...here is the first one I'll post.
How about a little handheld HDR. 3 shot bracket, processed in Photoshop CS3 with a touch of "Clarify" from Paintshop Pro X2 added at the end. The alignment is nothing short of magic.
This is in Downtown Denver, CO.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...distChurch.jpg
Original +0 EV image:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...isc/Church.jpg
I spent so much time looking at it while working on it, that the original just looks horrible now.
I love that sunrise one, Soul.
In body processed HDR levels - so only 1 photo taken hehe
No post-processing, straight out of camera into Lightroom for export as 80% JPEG -> resize for thumbnails and larger 1200px width copy - keeping EXIF info intact.
Click thumbnail for larger version:
- Camera Make: PENTAX Corporation
- Camera Model: PENTAX K200D
- Image Date: 2008:06:20 13:56:40
- Flash Used: No
- Focal Length: 40.0mm (35mm equivalent: 60mm)
- Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)
- Aperture: f/6.3
- ISO equiv: 125
- White Balance: Manual
- Metering Mode: Matrix
- Exposure: Manual
- Exposure Mode: Manual
http://fileshosts.com/dslr/pentax/ph...50mm-6_tnn.jpg
originals and HDR level 1 vs 2 vs 3 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=191789
That isn't HDR eva.
This is the best of my first attempts this afternoon. What do you guys think? -1, 0 and +1 EV, my camera can't go lower and higher (Nikon P5000).
still a newb. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
tried -/+ 0.3EV CS HDR merge and got this
http://fileshosts.com/dslr/pentax/ph..._17_CS3_tn.jpg
and
http://fileshosts.com/dslr/pentax/ph...ur_hdr4_tn.jpg
guess need more practice and use -/+ 2EV ??
If you do it in photoshop you can always use the photomatix tonemapping plugin for photoshop. :) What options are you getting in pscs3's merge to hdr thing? I only have that 1 slider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
What slider are you referring to?
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2.../RedRocks1.jpg
Compared to the rubbish originals, I get much more life-like shots with HDR.
Upcomming thunderclouds this afternoon.
http://img6.uploadhouse.com/fileuplo...44dff39510.jpg
http://img8.uploadhouse.com/fileuplo...1f948923e2.jpg
My first HDR pic. Not great by any means but still. Thought id share.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanadsaad/2603402552/
Not bad, not bad at all! I wish I took those for my first pictures, lol. I love the composition! Nicely done. :)
Thanks man! This thread is actually wat got me to pick up a camera! Some really great work here, and its pretty fun to do!
Can photochop CS2 do this?
resized pics in the next post
Yes it can, but CS3 does it much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Sanad, please resize your pics.
for some reason they just stretch back across the screen even though they were resized within photobucket. I'll just attach the links then:
my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanadsaad/
Added a few more shots i took this morning.
@sanad
i really like the light/dark(contrast) in your sea shells pic, and the focal point is perfect....:up::yepp:
Thanks! That was a really acute angle. I had to lie flat on the beach to see the LCD :D Pardon my noobishness but is there any feature on the DSLRs that allows the camera to automatically change the exposure setting from -2 to 0 to +2? I might be getting one soon and it'd be great if there were. Everytime i change the exposure on the fuji compact, the camera moves a bit. I dont have a tripod yet and it's really a hassle balancing the camera and changing exposures.
On the Canon series from the 350D on (not to sure about where it starts with the Nikons, sorry) there's an Auto Bracketing option (AEB), where it will do 3 exposures at 0 and up to +/- 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanad
If you're shooting HDR pictures a tripod is really a must! Only costs a few bucks and you have lots of profit from it! ;)
My camera can only do exposures up to +/- 1 unfortunatly.. :(
Wow, thats an excellent pic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Markicks
Can I get that in 1680x1050, please? :)
Thanks and off course! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by smee
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/3...1050yz5.th.jpg
Sanad look for "Exposure Bracketing". The only Nikons that can't do this are D40 and D60.
Look back on the last couple pages...those pics I posted were handheld. I have some more that were taken indoors that I have yet to merge but just wait...you may be surprised at what steady hands can get away with...Quote:
Originally Posted by Markicks
Thanks so much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Markicks
My desktop is now complete. :D
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...hillips/YH.jpg
Lots of noise, mostly from the HDR process.
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/7...456alt1.th.jpg
It's not a realistic picture and it contains to much noise I think, but I thought I'd post it anyway. ;)
Guys if you are having problems with noise in Photomatix, give Paintshop Pro Photo X2 a try. It gives very good HDR results, and it's a pretty good replacement if you don't have the full blown Photoshop. It's alignment is a little better than PM, but still no where near as good as CS3 but that's not a very fair comparison. It produces a lot less noise than PM plus you are in a full image editing program ready to make further adjustments.
Is Paintshop Pro Photo X2 free? Because if it isn't, I'm stuck with GIMP or Paint.NET... any experience using GIMP or Paint.NET for HDR?
It isn't, but its a heck of a lot cheaper than the next best thing.
Bah! I'm actively saving up for CS3, don't worry!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Very nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
What are your guys' opinion's on Adobe Lightroom? My dad has it, and he really likes it, and he's very fluent in it... but I want to know how it compares to CS3?
Thanks. :)
These tools do not do the same things. Well they do, but they are for two different applications. Lightroom is a Photographer's tool whereas Photoshop is a Graphic Design tool that can manipulate photographs but to a lesser degree than Lightroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by smee
If that is true, looks like Lightroom is a better choice than CS3 (for me at least). Wait, are Lightroom's HDR capabilities up to snuff (like CS3 level)?
Actually, CS3 + Bridge + ACR has become a Photographer's dream...I can't imagine Lightroom doing anything that the Photoshop suite can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnj
You are right it started as a graphic design program but it has grown far beyond that.
Lightroom doesn't do HDR natively though it may be an option?
Soul, I'm sure your right, I meant out of the box, stand alone products.
Photoshop is capable of far more then lightroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Photoshop Can do everything lightroom can and a much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
I'm HDR-ing (is that a word? lol) in CS3 too now. Did some experiments last days and CS3 turns indeed out to be better then Photomatix!
Here are some pics from me from this evening. How are they?
http://forum.i3d.net/attachment.php?...3&d=1214691439
http://forum.i3d.net/attachment.php?...4&d=1214691439
The second is a bit more extremer then the first one which is more realistic looking.
Testing out some more 'realistic' settings in Photomatix:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtre...s/EcoEarth.jpg
You will find CS3's HDR merges really lacking something...like the life was sapped from them...just boost the saturation back up and bingo problem solved. I'm not sure why they come out that way.
i like that shot
Another from yesterday (Down at OSU to do college prep):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/...91a527a6_o.jpg
That's HDR? If so, it's really subtle, just like it's supposed to be. nice job!
:welcome:
First hdr with my new car :D
Will take many more pics soon as my d40 arrives this week
Took three pictures with my point and shoot to get this
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aorangegti.jpg
HAHA, looks like a friggin' cartoon!
Yea seriously!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
How did you do it like that??
First atempt on HDR pictures:
http://imageupload.com/out.php/i1339...edHD222R00.jpg
Where are you located?Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever
lightroom is geared much more towards an efficient workflow while photoshop allows you to still pixel edit and manipulate your photos to no end. they're different programs, but to strike a good balance, you'd want both supplementing one another.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/...4f3efe0d49.jpg
done in PS cs3.. which feels infinitely more cumbersome than photomatrix. i have a feeling, that with lightroom 2 having native dodging and burning, photostitching and HDRs seems like they'd make a lot of sense.
Soulburner, I`m in Romania. :sucks: :D
Hey loving all these pics!
I'm in the market for a camera (live in New Zealand) and this is around my price range $500 NZD
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/product_...oducts_id=7979 $360 USD
What do you guys think? Doesn't shoot raw.. No idea what camera's do support that feature and or how much they are. But how would that go? as far as making some HRD photo's?
Thanks!
HDR can be done with JPEGs, you just get less flexibility to fix the image after its taken.
Thanks, I've read up on that :) What do you think of that camera? ie is there better I can get for the money. Or is a RAW camera in the same price range with the same features?
Is 10x optical zoom really needed? or is 5x ok.
I'm looking at either of these 2
Panasonic DMC-TZ5
This has 10x zoom and 28mm lense but doesn't shoot raw image format which is best when doing HDRI
or
DMC-FX500
This has 5x zoom and 26mm lense and does shoot raw image format which is best when doing HDRI
I've read both manuals and specs, from what I gather they can both burst 3photos at max quality with different exposue's which is what I need for HDRI
RAW image format gives you more room to adjust the image after the shot's taken where as normal JPEG doesn't.
Thoughts?
Thanks
Sorry for the wall of text, but I found this interesting as in this thread people say RAW is where it is at but this kind of differs from that:
Source
How do I shoot an HDR image?
Most digital cameras are only able to capture a limited dynamic range (the exposure setting determines which part of the total dynamic range will be captured). This is why HDR images are commonly created from photos of the same scene taken under different exposure levels.
Here are some recommendations for taking different exposures for the HDR image:
1. Mount your camera on a tripod
2. Set your camera to manual exposure mode. Select an appropriate aperture for your scene (e.g. f/8 or less if you need more depth of field) and the lowest ISO setting.
3. Measure the light in the brightest part of your scene (spot metering or in Av mode to point only the highlights) and note the exposure time. Do the same for the darkest shadows of your scene.
4. Determine the number and value of exposures necessary. For this, take as a basis the exposure time measured for the highlights. Multiply this number by 4 to find the next exposure with a stop spacing of 2 EV. Multiply by 4 successively for the next exposures till you pass the exposure measured for the shadows. (Note: For most daylight outdoor scenes excluding the sun, 3 exposures spaced by two EVs are often sufficient to properly cover the dynamic range).
5. You can make use of Auto-Exposure Bracketing if your camera supports it and if it allows a sufficient exposure increment and number of auto-bracketed frames to cover the dynamic range determined in step 4. Otherwise, you will have to vary the exposure times manually.
Can't I just create the exposures from one RAW file?
Not really. Your RAW file contains data captured by the sensors for only one exposure. The total dynamic range you can reconstruct from one photo converted with different exposure settings can never be more than the dynamic range captured by your camera, and this is rather limited (see above).
When you are using only one exposure to capture the scene, your RAW file is already your HDR image.
Converting the RAW file to images with different exposure levels is a bit like slicing the dynamic range of the RAW into several parts. Combining the parts back into an HDR image will at best re-produce the dynamic range of the initial RAW file.
That said, if you are using a good RAW converter to derive fake exposures from a single RAW file, you will probably notice that the HDR image created from the fake exposures shows more dynamic range than the pseudo-HDR image obtained by converting the single RAW file directly. This is because your RAW converter includes a good noise reduction function, and this has an important effect on the dynamic range. You RAW converter may also include the ability to continue to retrieve highlights details when one or two of the color channels have already reached saturation.
So, a good RAW converter includes functions designed to optimize the dynamic range retrieved from the raw sensor data, but this does not change the fact that the dynamic range of a RAW file is limited to one exposure only. Unless the dynamic range of your scene is low, you will need to take more than one exposure to create an HDR image of the scene.
Out at a friend's grandma's house in the countryside. All 3 exposures at +/- 2.0.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/...169fca7806.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/...e8d8580059.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/...1fb468df50.jpg
Love the second one, Metric. Did you use Photomatix?
Yes, all of the HDR shots I've done have been in Photomatix Pro 3.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
A few more:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/...28582e7595.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/...a8875e1b33.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/...4af94af384.jpg
anyway i can get this in 1680x1050Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
+1, that pic is just amazing!! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtrain43791