HDR Pictures

[Soulburner]

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.

Actually, CS3 + Bridge + ACR has become a Photographer's dream...I can't imagine Lightroom doing anything that the Photoshop suite can't.

You are right it started as a graphic design program but it has grown far beyond that.

[Magnj]

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.

[Cold Fussion]

Actually, CS3 + Bridge + ACR has become a Photographer's dream...I can't imagine Lightroom doing anything that the Photoshop suite can't.

You are right it started as a graphic design program but it has grown far beyond that.

Photoshop is capable of far more then lightroom.

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)?

Photoshop Can do everything lightroom can and a much more.

[Markicks]

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.

[Metric]

Testing out some more 'realistic' settings in Photomatix:

[Soulburner]

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.

[disruptfam]

i like that shot

[Metric]

Another from yesterday (Down at OSU to do college prep):

[Nate P.]

That's HDR? If so, it's really subtle, just like it's supposed to be. nice job!

[Druggedpolak]

First hdr with my new car
Will take many more pics soon as my d40 arrives this week
Took three pictures with my point and shoot to get this

[Nate P.]

HAHA, looks like a friggin' cartoon!

[smee]

HAHA, looks like a friggin' cartoon!

Yea seriously!!!

How did you do it like that??

[whatever]

First atempt on HDR pictures:
http://imageupload.com/out.php/i1339...edHD222R00.jpg

[Soulburner]

First atempt on HDR pictures:
http://imageupload.com/out.php/i1339...edHD222R00.jpg

Where are you located?

[hieuhef]

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.



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.

[whatever]

Soulburner, I`m in Romania. :sucks:

[foR]

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!

[Soulburner]

HDR can be done with JPEGs, you just get less flexibility to fix the image after its taken.

[foR]

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

[foR]

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.

[Metric]

Out at a friend's grandma's house in the countryside. All 3 exposures at +/- 2.0.

[Nate P.]

Love the second one, Metric. Did you use Photomatix?

[Metric]

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.

A few more:

[Jtrain43791]

anyway i can get this in 1680x1050

[smee]

anyway i can get this in 1680x1050

+1, that pic is just amazing!!