Night Shots - HDR

[jdgreen92086]

Sorry if anything in this post doesn't make sense, I'm on 4 different medications due to having wisdom teeth removed, so I feel very strange and drowsy .

Anyway, I've finally been able to use my Canon 400D some! I have pictures located on my photobucket account. I have the 3 HDR pictures on the front page, and then if you look on the left of the page, I have an album called Iola Lake and Corn Factory. They aren't very good, but it was my very first time out with my camera! Feel free to look at them if you'd like.

For the HDR pictures I used a bracketing of 1. Is -1EV/0EV/+1EV the right way of expressing the bracket? When I take the pictures, I have to hold the button for all 3 exposures. Any of you know a setting that will allow me to press the button once, instead of holding it? I had a tripod, but I believe my hand shaking while holding the button lowered the quality. I basically just want as much critique as possible.

I had my friend move in this picture to simulate activity at the memorial, and blurred the background in photoshop cause I didn't set my camera right. I was so happy to finally take pictures I forgot to set my camera 100% correctly.

This picture was taken a couple feet away from the memorial. It's a picture of William H. English.

This is my favorite picture that I took. Except for the lens distortion on the left side, I think it looks great! The only thing wrong with it besides the distortion is the green traffic light in the middle of the image. It's burnt out or something, I'm not sure what happened there.

So critique as much as possible, novice needs tips! :thumbup::hug::
​

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I'll throw my two cents at your second shot:
It's not poorly composed, but the fact that the background is so much brighter than the subject (statue, I assume is the subject) really kills the shot for me. The statue is just too dark and underexposed compared to the overexposed building, you know what I'm saying?

 

[logan9967]

wow first one is sweet, first time i've seen a pic like that i want to get one of those myself now. great and sharp with lots of reflections and plus the blurred background, it really works for hdr. and having him move in it too. very creative. i don't like the last two as much as the first

 

[ScottS]

Honestly, I don't think that they are good HDR's. You still have blown out highlights, and shadows. What did you use to compile them? ( program )

 

[passerby]

I'm on 4 different medications due to having wisdom teeth removed, so I feel very strange and drowsy .​

Anyway, I've finally been able to use my Canon 400D some!​

Well man, one of them was responsible of whatever that are produced here. So which one you want to blame? one is definitely a guilty party I am sure - or both.​

No:3 is too over exposed. The only thing salvagable there are two park benches on the fore ground and the green grass.

No:1 background also way over exposed and BLUR. But part of the forground is sharp enough and clear to view. I can read the words Vietnam war, than God, Honour, Duty, Country on the stones.

No:2 is ok but still the flood light flooding the building is so bright. Look at lower right window with closed blind, you can't see a feature of window there. Our brain is very complex computer which has the ability to work out the hidden view. That is why we can work out that over blown window.

You can come back to those locations and re shoot them with shorter exposure.

Sorry man.

 

[logan9967]

i think one is fine, the blurredness is the effect of it

 

[jdgreen92086]

I'll throw my two cents at your second shot:
It's not poorly composed, but the fact that the background is so much brighter than the subject (statue, I assume is the subject) really kills the shot for me. The statue is just too dark and underexposed compared to the overexposed building, you know what I'm saying?

Yeah, I need to go back and post-process thoroughly. Yes, you're right, the statue is the subject. Even though this was my first time trying HDR, I don't think the exposure range was large enough. Thats just an assumption though. I tried to make the statue brighter, but I couldn't do to much. I'll try going back and editing each picture individually before combining in Photomatix.
Thanks for your input, I know exactly what you're saying.

wow first one is sweet, first time i've seen a pic like that i want to get one of those myself now. great and sharp with lots of reflections and plus the blurred background, it really works for hdr. and having him move in it too. very creative. i don't like the last two as much as the first

The blurred background was done post-processing. It doesn't look good to me because I can tell it wasn't shot that way. I was wanting a busy shot, and I think I achieved that somewhat, even though there are a lot of flaws. Hope the point came across, but I can tell I lack on the execution. I will get better though! Thanks

Honestly, I don't think that they are good HDR's. You still have blown out highlights, and shadows. What did you use to compile them? ( program )

I used Photomatix. Could you give some tips instead of just saying they aren't good? So you know, this was my first time trying HDR. Thanks for the comment.

Well man, one of them was responsible of whatever that are produced here. So which one you want to blame? one is definitely a guilty party I am sure - or both.[/left]

I don't understand what that means, really. Shot in the dark, but I think you're assuming I am blaming the mediation and/or the camera(or maybe that I haven't used it much) for the shots being bad. When I said I'm on medication, I said that cause I was writing this and I was very drowsy, so it was a warning for typos and things not making sense. Yes, I am an amateur when it comes to photography. Ive only used my camera about 4 or 5 times. I blame being an amateur for the bad shots

Hope I clarified that, hehe.

I will go back and try to reprocess these shots, and I'm going to re-shoot the photos soon, and I hope I can get better results.

Still looking for more critiques and tips, thanks all!

Edit: Camera was completely stock. Nothing extra. Lenses, filters, etc.

 

[jdgreen92086]

I have another question... How do I get a shallow depth of field at night? Longer the exposure, great the dof, right?

I'd like to get a shallow dof like I have in photogrph one, only without adding it during post-processing.

 

[dwarrick]

is it just me or is there a ghost in picture 1

 

[ScottS]

I used Photomatix. Could you give some tips instead of just saying they aren't good? So you know, this was my first time trying HDR. Thanks for the comment.

Sure thing, I just wanted to know what program you were using so I could give the right advice.

IMO, HDR should be used when there is a huge difference in the dynamic range of a photo. After all the whole reason of HDR is to expand that range because your camera cannot capture a huge amount of DY. In night time shots, there usually isn't a huge gap in the dynamic range that your camera captures.

In these photos, I think you would be better off editing one exposure, instead of compiling and HDR. I have tried doing some night time HDR, both in photomatix, and PS2. Neither of them gave results that were better than just editing one photo.

For those night time shots, instead of using HDR, try playing with the shadow/highlights slider in PS. I used that, along with levels, contrast, and color saturation.

I hope your feeling better!

 

[ScottS]

I have another question... How do I get a shallow depth of field at night? Longer the exposure, great the dof, right?

I'd like to get a shallow dof like I have in photogrph one, only without adding it during post-processing.

For a shallow DOF, you want to use the biggest aperture that your lens allows. IE....2.8

 

[peterbj7]

After all the whole reason of HDR is to expand that range

Surely the purpose of HDR is to compress exposure dynamic range in the finished result.

 

[ScottS]

Surely the purpose of HDR is to compress exposure dynamic range in the finished result.

....:er:

 

[jdgreen92086]

Thanks for your advice ScottS. I'll definitely go back and edit the photos, play with contrast, curves, etc, and see what I come up with again.

I used f5.6(I think), which is the largest aperture on my stock 400D. Largest may be f5.3... Anyway, I asked around and was told I wouldn't achieve the pictures I wanted without a better lens. I was told to get one with atleast f2.8 if I remember correctly.

I really don't want to spam threads, so any advice for replacing a stock 400D lens would be amazingly helpful.

Somebody suggested the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to me yesterday. At B&H Photo it cost ~$400, but there are two, and they seem identical except for Imported or USA. I read some reviews and it seems softness is an issue at great focal lengths. Hopefully not too difficult to sharpen post-processing. So although it seems like a good lens, it doesn't have the f2.8 aperture I was told would be great.

I'm very weary about buying lenses, because I do not understand how to evaluate them like I would a... computer component, like a video card or CPU. Reviews help, but I don't want to rely on them, I'm sure you understand. Anyway, let me know if this lens is good. I'm going to try figuring out how to evaluate a lens properly

I'm not feeling much better, things are still funky and sore, but thanks for the concern.