you can get it in a 3870x2602 :P
i went back to it and played with it a bit:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/...a077235f07.jpg[click for full size]
Printable View
you can get it in a 3870x2602 :P
i went back to it and played with it a bit:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/...a077235f07.jpg[click for full size]
Now we're talking. I always thought it was too dark :up:
many thanks i liked the one before but just wasnt big enough, its now my new wallpaper. Many Thanks!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
it was :D. and my monitor was calibrated with another broken pantone huey pro.. so besides the magenta cast, it was uber dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
i should have known when i had to blast the gamma in cod4 and css.
[edit] and you're welcome jtrain! it's awesome knowing people enjoy your work :P
Holy :banana::banana::banana::banana:, now that is a kickass photo!
:D Anytime i love my new wallpaper it makes my desktop look sexy :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...untitled-1.jpg
oh, you can crop out the white, jtrain, i forgot why i put it there [unless you like it that way :D]
Hehe, the white makes my 20" seem like its 24" because the photo is so big
Hey Everyone first off AMAZING pictures! This is my first post as well as my first attempt at HDR. This picture was taken with a Kodak Z650 Point and shoot :( I know its kodak and sucky BUT its all i have(cant afford much else im a poor student lol) and i work with what i have. Luckily though Next month I will be Upgrading to he Nikon D40, So Im pretty excited about that :) Anywho Heres my first attempt at HDR, I know its not great but thats why im here, Any and All Advice is Welcomed and appreciated.
Here is the Original Image:
http://i37.tinypic.com/vq2zb9.jpg
And here is the HDR, I used a trial Version of Photomatix, but im working on getting a license :)
http://i35.tinypic.com/w0rlu8.jpg
I hope to have more pictures soon with your advice :)
WAY over-saturated, and the subject matter isn't all that great either.
The original image is 10 fold better. You also CANNOT do HDR with one picture :\ The original photo wouldn't look much better if it was a proper hdr since it seems perfectly exposed.
Alright well it seems like i chose the wrong subject to attempt an hdr. I will try again once day light comes around. Any more tips on how to improve are greatly appreciated :)
noiseeeeee :(
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...C08721_2_3.jpg
Nice background unrealer, can u send me a hi res version plz. zhangmaster12@gmail.com.
Thnks.
Who is it by the way?
I just started playing with it. I used the images on Wikipedia for practice:
Exposure: 3
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...FTP/HDRI/1.jpg
Exposure: 0
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...FTP/HDRI/2.jpg
Exposure: -4
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...FTP/HDRI/3.jpg
Tone Mapped
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...FTP/HDRI/4.jpg
The first three images are off the Wikipedia article, the last one is the HDR I generated with Photomatix. You can see that the tone mapped image has detail in the sky reflection on the orb along with more color in the bricks in the background that wasnt present in the regular exposure. I used Photomatix Pro v3.
I know this is an old post but, isn't that the absolute wrong way to go about HDR? You're supposed to have multiple original pictures of the exact same thing. One proper exposure, one darker exposure for shadows, and one light exposure for highlights. You can't get all that from just one RAW pic can you? Isn't the point of HDR, the fact that the camera's dynamic range is too small? So in one shot you CAN'T get the shadows and highlights that you would get if you took separate shots aimed at shadows and highlights. Then you overlap them and get the full range your camera was not able to get in one shot. Or can you edit the RAW image to pull out the shadows and highlights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnj
If I'm wrong, please do say so...
Yes, you can get that from one RAW image file. RAW files are not compressed and they dont lock exposure information so you can adjust it after the shot. It explains this in the tutorial "there are two main ways to obtain the images needed for HDR, AEB and RAW"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Sz
AEB has the benefit of low noise at the expense of blur, RAW has the benefit of sharpness at the expense of noise. It's all in the tutorials...
And honestly, with a high enough resolution image and noise reduction software, you can still get decent results with the jpeg trick. You're right that HDR is all about combining images to increase dynamic range but there is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Quick first attempt, bit dark IMO..
Taken With: Panasonic TZ5
Focal Length: 4.7mm Exposure Time: 0.033 s (1/30)
Aperture: f/3.3 ISO Equiv.: 320
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...0033789zd0.jpg
any attempt i have tried with HDR never worked for me, guess i need more prative or i am far too picky..
Gear
Canon 40D
17-85 IS
Canon 60mm Macro
nifty 50
430 ex flash
i got the gear, but i think i am far tooooooo picky of my own work
I guess you did the HDR wrong then, because the point of HDR is to expose every part of the photo well.Quote:
Originally Posted by foR
Warning, big picture... I did't want to resize it, it looks so damn good, sorry...
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2...hdrcopyij4.jpg
^Yeah man, that is damn good. Is that your bike?
No, I don't like bikes, that's from my sister's boyfriend...
Thanks for the encouraging feedback.. The shot itself was taken in very dark conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Bad weather here is preventing me from any nice days with sun or any chance at all go capture anything but gray..
You dont like bikes, just guns? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstare
As Apache0c said, RAW does not lock down exposure settings so you can get several exposures of the same image. I don't think it's 100% ideal but certainly works as I think is fairly obvious from the picture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Sz
Hell yeah! Got new idea for the next photoshoot :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
Is it a requirement to carry a weapon like that on the streets where you live in Guatemala?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstare
No it doesn't. That exposure control dialog is simply a post processing effect. It's just like the levels/brightness and contrast/exposure controls in photo shop. It is absolutely the wrong method to do HDR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnj
The exposure setting on the camera tells the camera shutter how long to stay open for so the light can be exposed on the CCD. The raw control doesn't magically re-expose the image by moving that slider and RAW does NOT take multiple photos to get multiple exposures for this "exposure" slider. You can go test this for yourself, go take a photo in raw and listen to the shutter, you will only hear it once!
We need a sticky to tell all you people that you can't do HDR from a single photo. Heck, its even in the name; High Dynamic Range. Using the same photo 3 times doesn't change the dynamic range! Hopefully all the 1 photo HDR bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: can stop!
Man, do you drink a lot of energy drinks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
When you adjust the levels of a photo, you are effectively adjusting the exposure to suit a certain area of the image. True, this does not change shutter speed, but you are wrong if you think shutter speed is the only setting that affects exposure. There is also aperture and ISO. And if you would just read the HDR tutorials, as I said in my previous post, you can create an HDR from a RAW image at the expense of noise, you can also do it with AEB but that comes at the expense of blur. You should really ease up a bit man, you are not the end all authority on HDR.
With RAW you can make a HDR image in post processing and it does look like an HDR (with the shadows, mid-tones, and highlights exposed correctly). True, the exposure does not depend only on the shutter speed, but the aperture and ISO as well. But you cannot change those things in post processing.
Due to the nature of RAW, it captures 12 or 14 bits of color/information from the sensor, depending of your camera. JPG format only has 8 bits of color. So 3+ JPG's do have a wider tonal range than one RAW file, but that does not mean you cannot make an HDR image from one RAW.
So if you would like to make an HDR of say, action, sports, etc. a single RAW is the way to go, because it's one capture and there will be no inconsistencies with the 3 or more images (from the single HDR) causing blur. If you are making an HDR of a landscape for example, 3+ individual photos with varying shutter speeds (because varying the aperture would change the focus of the images, causing blur) would yield a better HDR because you can capture more tonal range.
Thats basically exactly what I said like three posts ago. Except for the part where you contradicted yourself by saying that you're with Cold Fussion and then saying that you can make an HDR from a RAW file.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
this isnt HDR but i thought it looked cool anyway
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...12-6-07024.jpg
Oh... uh... right...:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
Corrected!
:clap::D:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
No, actually no, but with high violence rates over here it is almost a must :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
I don't like yellow light bulbs, photos come out with that orange-ish tone
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2...4567wg4.th.jpg
A shot of my navigator...
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/7...4950di1.th.jpg
What are you using to process the photos? You can change the white balance to make them look more natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstare
Another one, got a little noise from the screen...
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4...1678nk6.th.jpg
Aperture and ISO aren't post processing effects either dude. HDR is the act of combining a large amount of data into a smaller package to obtain the greatest dynamic range possible. If you simply manipulate the data as you do with raw, you aren't getting anything from doing a HDR process that you couldn't do with post processing. Doing a hdr run from 1 image is basicly a complex filter. Link me to a tutorial which states specifically that you can create new data of the scene by manipulating the data you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
HURRY UP SOULBURNER AND GET IN THIS TOPIC SO WE DISPEL THIS STUPID 1 PICTURE HDR NONSENSE!
Cold Fussion, Dave_Sz and Nate P are right. As I explained on an earlier page with HDR we are capturing more dynamic range than is possible with one capture from the sensor. If you think an image sensor can capture an entire scene with one exposure and properly expose all lights, darks, and everything in between without losing any data to blown highlights or shadows, well let's just say a lot of companies and investors would like to speak with you. It just isn't possible with current technology. You need to expose longer to get data from the shadows, and expose shorter to keep highs from blowing out completely white. These are combined in post-processing and adjusted until you get an acceptable image.
Single-image HDR is not real HDR. It is not high dynamic range. You only have the data from one image and you cannot change it - only work with what you have. It is simply not possible and defies the purpose of HDR - to capture more detail with more exposures. All you can do with a single image is tonemapping. Tonemapping is NOT HDR. Sure with RAW you have much more adjustability, and there is some room there - but it still is not "HDR" which by definition is an image created with multiple exposures to capture a greater range of information than is possible with one image. RAW does have information to recover highlights and shadows, which is something you can't do with a JPEG image which is essentially locked and done. This can be used to create an HDR but you have no where near the dynamic range an ideal 3, 5, or 7 shot bracket will. Some people even use up to 9 though I think this is unnecessary. You know you need more exposures when you have a very large range in your scene, for example very dark areas and very bright areas together.
Apache0c had a decent example a couple pages back that shows when and why HDR imagery is necessary. Here is another.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...c/DSC_2185.jpg
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...c/DSC_2186.jpg
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...c/DSC_2187.jpg
Here is what we are focusing on in this image...hot highlights:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...Highlights.jpg
The red areas indicate overexposure and loss of information. If only we could have toned the exposure down a bit with a faster shutter speed...wait, we did. But then the bottom half of the church would be too dark right? We took care of that too. In the 3 images above, I exposed one image normally, one -2 stops under, and one +2 stops over to complete the dynamic range I am after. The completed image looks something like this...
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...distChurch.jpg
Notice I have detail throughout the scene and have a properly exposed image. This is impossible for modern day digital image sensors to capture in one exposure thus the need for this process.
This is handheld btw, and a testament to Photoshop's aligning ability.
I've been refraining from typing a lot about this lately due to wrist problems so just do some research and you'll see for yourself.
I appreciate your work. However, I do think there is a slight contradiction in what you say. For instance, you mentioned my example, and my example was done with only one jpeg image. Yet I still improved the exposure throughout the image using photoshop level adjustment along with photomatix image merge and tone mapping. When someone uses the phrase "true HDR" they're getting into semantics. High dynamic range is a technique used to increase the range of exposure. Exposure of an image in post processing and the exposure setting of a camera have the same basic effect. Yet with every operation there is always a trade off. If you increase the settings of your camera to gain greater exposure, whether it be flash, iso, aperture, or shutter speed, you may lose detail due to blowout in hotspot areas. The same goes for post processing with the added increase of noise in the image. Either way, if you use image merge to increase the amount of properly exposed areas of a photograph, you have created an HDR image. Like I said before, there are better and worse ways to obtain the images to be merged. I'm not at all denying that a still subject shot with AEB set to -3 and +3 will net more detail than a RAW image. But sometimes you dont have a still subject, in this case you can still use the RAW image to increase the dynamic range of exposure through image merge. When you say "true HDR", what you really mean is "highest image quality HDR."Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
You are wrong mate. Post processing exposure simply manipulates the data you already have and if you have an area of total black or total white, no amount of PP is going to bring back the image there!
Well, with RAW you can usually bring back some of the underexposed, but really you want to nail it the first time, when you take the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
You stated that you used 3 images (the ball) off of the Wikipedia site. Are we talking about the same thing? I chose it since it's a nice result and you have more dynamic range in that scene than normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
Wrong...these are not the same. You cannot create new data, only work with what you have. You have some leeway with RAW but you are still very limited compared to actually changing the exposure! Ask any photographer this. Changing exposure optically is completely different than changing it digitally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
This is true, because of the need for still overlapping images, you can't do true HDR with a moving subject. Most of us shoot in RAW anyway (or at least you should, if you can) so this isn't a problem ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
No I mean true HDR, as in actually merging multiple exposures, not tonemapping a single image which are entirely different processes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache0c
Correct :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
Also correct, RAW saves all of the data from the sensor for you to later manipulate. Compressing to JPEG literally throws away all of that exposure data and nothing can be recovered. Still you only have what you captured and outside of that range you are going to need to take more images to increase the range (bracketing).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
I have been looking into HDR pictures for quite sometime now and while i was searching for the best programs to use i was told Photoshop CS3 is a good program but if you want to use one photo instead of the 3 you can use Light Room as well, I have the settings needed saved in a document on my main computer, I am on my laptop now....once i go upstairs I will post up for those interested.
:up: really nice pics btw!!
You're right about the Wikipedia image, I was mistaken, my apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
You will lose image data when you adjust the levels of an image during post processing, I'm not denying that.
However, you can still increase the visibility of some detail through adjusting levels in post process.
And different levels may work better or worse for differently exposed areas of the image.
And if you adjust the levels for several different areas each saved as a different image, and use photomatix image merge. The image may have less actual detail, but it still has a more even exposure.
Just came back from being in Hawai'i for a week. Taken down at South Point. HDR processing done in CS3. More to come as 3 hours of jet-lag isn't fun -_-
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_001_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_002_Web.jpg
Excellent exposure of the sky Metric...though the foreground is a bit dark for me. Leaves me wanting to see more detail in the grass.
Thanks Soulburner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Still figuring out all of the settings in CS3 after being mostly 'guided' in Photomatix. I'll see what I can get out of the source RAWs after I get some sleep *yawn*
Wow Metric! The first one = win.
It is very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
If you haven't already, read up on a CS3 HDR Merge guide, it will help a lot.
A few more :)
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...ns_HDR_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_003_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_004_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_005_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_006_Web.jpg
Per Soulburner's request:
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...inalFramed.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...l_MOD/1-15.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...l_MOD/2-12.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...al_MOD/3-6.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...al_MOD/4-2.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...al_MOD/5-2.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...al_MOD/6-1.jpg
Unrealer try some more light smoothing to reduce the halo effect.
Metric those are great, all in Hawaii?
Thanks, and yes all of them are from Hawai'i, and all but the first are from South Point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Yep, even more :rolleyes:
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_007_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_008_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_009_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_010_Web.jpg
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...nt_011_Web.jpg
Edit: Bah, stupid sRGB conversion, lost some contrast in the images :\
Love the second one from that set, Metric. That orange sky never gets old.
Unrealer, can you post a link to a high res of the bridge pic? Great shot :up:
I deleted it cause sucks... but i redone it again:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] 4X4N
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...79_80_81-1.jpg
The last few sets have been tonemapped manually (No 'Merge to HDR' plugin) using 3 images and layer masks, liking the results so far :)
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...ch_001_Web.jpg
Thats a really great picture, I like yours alot, they look so real and deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealer
not really much to say about the pic. Looks blurry, colors are very, washed out, noisy. Not a good picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
Agreed, this one is not at the same caliber as the rest...:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
Yeah, not one of the best examples :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Did I do better this time?...
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtre...seHonolulu.jpg
That's a great result. I think you'll come to appreciate how much sharper CS3's HDR merges are compared to just about everything else. After some tweaking with color/contrast you can really make them pop.
I have a new toy coming...got the D300. Can't wait to fire off brackets at 6fps :D
:shocked: I'm jealous. I'm waiting for the 5D Mark II.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
From what I've heard the 5D Mark II is gonna cost a VERY, SHINY, INTENSELY POLISHED, penny................... :yepp: :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
LOL, penny?:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by smee
LOL... fine, gold brick. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Inside the Honolulu Capitol building:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtre...uluCapitol.jpg
I want this pic on my wall, great shot. What camera do you use?Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealer
Someone has this down :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
Excellent showing of HDR. Still using CS3?
Thanks again and still have a few more to come:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Still using CS3 as well, but I've been doing manual tonemapping on the past few sets by layering the exposures and masking them instead of taking the more automated method and having the "fun" of doing endless tweaking of the curves at the end.
Cybershot P92 :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcontent
I am having a really hard time coming up with usable pics. I used a tripod and got a bunch of different exposures and the results suck.
Do I have to change settings on the tone mapping?
These are some awesome pictures. If anyone cares heres how you can make a HDR picture (I don't know if it's been posted before) http://www.wikihow.com/Take-High-Dyn...ge-Photographs
Sorry for the noise near the middle, bottom-half - was shot through a screen covered window :S
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...SackettHDR.jpg
2long4u: What software are you using to tonemap? (Photoshop, Photomatix, etc)
Do you have those for wallpaper? I'd like those as my wallpaper :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Unrealer
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/Xtr...graphy/OSU.jpg
Sorry for the burned out center, I would've taken another exposure to compensate for the sun, but the campus this morning reeked of strong manure (still not sure where it's coming from :[). Maybe an updated version later today...
No sorry, the quality is poor :down::down:Quote:
Originally Posted by kraifect
Alright no problem thanks anyways great photo skills mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealer
nice thread :up: :D just found it.. later i'll try my HDR..
Awesome work.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealer
Some from today while shooting with my friend Ben:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/...6da9b923af.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/...b1b4aac4bc.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/...84ef39b349.jpg
what is hdr?
Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imagingQuote:
Originally Posted by kylepaddock
This was an interesting thread and I just had to try it out.
http://www.nordiccrew.com/crotale/E8000HDR.jpg
Nikon Coolpix P5100
-2
-1
+0
+1
+2
and the last one is the HDR composition.
Hard to tell any real difference in this case. Slightly more contrast in the HDR compared to the "+0", other than that, pretty much the same.
awesome pictures Crotale
Not all images need HDR.
Are you in california? That picture looks too familiar...Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric
it looks like a building at UCD Davis in California.Quote:
Originally Posted by l33t p1mp
Actually both of you are wrong :p: - it's Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon.
I lost :)
Same lol, but looks a lot like a college in california.
UC Davis? I live in Davis, whats up bro? :D:D:D:welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by kylepaddock
Maybe its where I live :DQuote:
Originally Posted by l33t p1mp