@DerekFSE - I get the same error in PS but with Photomatix it's working fine. Anyway I suggest you to use Photomatix, you have a better control of the resulting image.
Printable View
@DerekFSE - I get the same error in PS but with Photomatix it's working fine. Anyway I suggest you to use Photomatix, you have a better control of the resulting image.
actually, if you follow the instructions they are rather soft. and can be made softer.Quote:
Photomatix seems to sharpen the image way to much most of the time.
you can also open it with photoshop and apply anistopic filtering to realllly soften it up.
you dont want HDR too soft, you want it to look as naturally sharp as possible.
here is a before and after shot with my first time HDR using photomatix.
is crap as far as i am concerned but its the first time i attempted HDR, and im also using the 3 jpeg image trick.
BEFORE
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4868/p1020641ft0.jpg
AFTER
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2...ktonemadm0.jpg
The first attempt with a Sony CyberShot DSC-P92
+1
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5809/72029429ju3.jpg
0
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/2612/90011252bb3.jpg
-1
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/823/55385655al0.jpg
HDR:
http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/2...5mediumdx7.jpg
Thanks m8 :)
Another try:
HDR:
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2470/santutxuhz6.jpg
FAKE HDR(using 1 photo):
http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/3...0mediumpb5.jpg
i can't seem to figure this out :(
mine keep turning out ridiculously bright and washed out
Jpeg are hard to work with regardless of what other will tell you. I always do HDR with RAW or 3 exposures.
HDR is cool but it can't save a poorly exposed photo and is often considered gimicky in photography circles.
I don't agree that its gimmicky. You can take some photos that by nature are not possible to properly expose, and get results that you can't even get with your own eye in real life.
For example, you have a landscape with a bright sky but your foreground is in the shade. You expose your shot for the landscape. Your sky will be blown out without a polarizer. Expose for the sky, and your landscape will be underexposed.
Taking this into consideration, you take three shots. One underexposed (-2), one normal (0), and one overexposed (+2). You get on the computer and take the properly exposed sky from the -2 shot, the properly exposed landscape from the +2 shot, and whatever you want in between. You end up with a great, fully exposed picture with next to nothing under or over.
Not exactly, graduated filters have been doing this for years before photographers were using photomatix and adobe photoshop.
And I'm not saying it IS gimicky I'm just saying that in enthusiast and professional discussion groups they are rarely posted and are generally considered gimicky.
Here's one of my first tries. I like the way trees look on the background.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/746...kbw3gu2.th.jpg
That looks really awesome, nice man.
@unrealer
can you give me your 2 pictures with 1280x1024 size? :D
I cant wait to try this when my rebel xt gets here :D
I am sooo looking forward to this :)
Here is a good article on HDR.
http://www.epaperpress.com/psphoto/basHdr.html
r3g, 2+3 are nice!
r3g all of'em are good, the last one is awesome!
Whats that growing in pic 2 :devil: