HDR Shootout #30

[GeorgieGirl]

Nothing worthwhile in anything that has been said other than the comments made about the photos posted. Some stupid remarks were made followed by stupid comebacks. Didnt accomplish anything. You and the rest arent any wiser about HDR and it just makes enemies when confrontations like this occur. Nobody can stop you from coming into any forum and saying anything you want. But how about lets keeping it to the topic at hand -- and thats the pics that are posted. Now I wonder how long this BS is going to continue. Can anyone post an HDR image here ----- please, please, please.

You clearly have a limited scope of view and are narrow minded.

Discussions of meters, their usefulness, dynamic range EV's and two good published references for photography have been introduced. You just shoot images so you don't need insight.

Others may.

 

[480sparky]

Sparky - If the metered range let's say is 1/125 for the lightest area of a scene and 1/4 for the darkest area of the scene the range is a 6EV gap.

125, 60, 30, 15, 8, 1/4

You need to shoot 7 exposures if you use a 1 EV gap to accomplish bridging the entire range.

So a meter will ultimately be telling you what your number of exposures is going to need to be.

You might enjoy Practical HDR by David Nightingale. Perils and Pitfalls of processing, how to work around them and details of Photoshops HDR Tools, FDR Tools and Photomatrix. I think its a fantastic book.

Enjoy your meter, you will be very happy with this tool.

OK, that's exactly how I'm currently doing my HDRs. I've left the 'defaults' of -2/0/+2 or -1/0/+1 or -4/-2/0/+2/+4 behind. If the range of the image is 4 stops, I take 4 frames, 6 to CMA. If it's 9, I take 9 or 11. If it's required to take 13 frames, I'll take all 13 plus 2 more for luck. If the subject is moving, I may not be able to get a dozen frames and will have to live with 2-4.

Now, it seems you're trying to say preventing blown-out highlights and digital black all in the same image can be accomplished with this Zone method with just one frame. If so, which one single frame of my OP are you going to use as an example? Care to fill us in on this mystery?

 

[GeorgieGirl]

OK, that's exactly how I'm currently doing my HDRs. I've left the 'defaults' of -2/0/+2 or -1/0/+1 or -4/-2/0/+2/+4 behind. If the range of the image is 4 stops, I take 4 frames, 6 to CMA. If it's 9, I take 9 or 11. If it's required to take 13 frames, I'll take all 13 plus 2 more for luck. If the subject is moving, I may not be able to get a dozen frames and will have to live with 2-4.

Now, it seems you're trying to say preventing blown-out highlights and digital black all in the same image can be accomplished with this Zone method with just one frame. If so, which one single frame of my OP are you going to use as an example? Care to fill us in on this mystery?

Sparky it may be independent or an overlap... Not sure which.

I still have yet to be sure about blown out highlights but am sure from my most recent attempt at HDR that highlights were blown out without this in mind.

I will try to to find directions for the Zone. Which was introduced at least by Ansel Adams in his photography.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR is easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.

I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.

Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.

GeorgieGirl...

I have to say this.... yes.. HDR is easy, and anyone can do it. BUT not many can do it well.... most do it with a sledge hammer, instead of a scalpel.

Your statement about having little personal interest in it, unless you can do it well is a paradox or oxymoron.... you can't do it well unless you learn how.... and that requires the interest to pursue. That is like saying "I would love to be able to cook, but I cant.. so I have no interest in learning how". I am confused!

We are here for that very reason.. we are interested, and want to learn to use it well. That is why I find it so interesting that others (who profess a lack of interest) have the gall to come in and basically tell us we are wasting our time... lol! Are we going into your thread (assuming you have one) and telling you that "NO.. that is not the best way to do it! My way is better, or that way over there is better"? If you are going to bash it.. fine, but tell us why you don't like it... what your experiences have been, etc... so that we can hopefully learn from what you have to say.

I am glad you have found an alternative... one that I am interested in also, but not on this thread! I am not trying to be negative.. or "twist your words"... just saying....

Going back to the book I referred to: Digital Landscape Photography...

The Zone System as it applies to Landscape Photography and what should be, IMHO of course, used as the platform basis for any attempt to excel at HDR with that critical 0EV, I'd encourage anyone to obtain this book and read it. It goes through blending, processing, and HDR.

It essentially descrbes the need to start with the correct highlights for landscape photography. Landscape photogrpahy is based on correct lighlights. Expose for the highlights. It explains how to determine the critical highlight that must remain detailed and of the correct color, and for example if that is a waterfall, that it will need to be placed in Zone 7 for white or nearly white. Pastels go into Zone 6. It explains how with correct metering to get there and get the camera settings correct to achieve zone placement that can be checked back via the histogram.

I often asked in the past on this HDR forum how do you know who many shots you need and where to start your exposure and the responses were: take 3 to 5 shots at least. Not once did anyone ever say this is how you start to be sure you have your correct exposure for 0EV. Not once did anyone say this is what you need to meter. I found my answers because I was detemined to find them. And IMHO it starts with a hand held meter and detail work to find the measured dynamic range for HDR. So I think its more than a taking a stab at it approach.

I don't mean to sound confusing. Simply put, (I hope) I want to produce a technically solid landscape in one shot if possible, in two shots by blending. I do not want to produce a properly metered EV range for HDR until I have completed producing techncially solid landscapes. When I accomplish that, and I don't know when that will be, I might decide to produce high dynamic range photos. I do feel certain though that its a step by step approach and that as a result of what I am pursuing now, HDR efforts will be worthwhile rather than what just anyone can do as a result of software.

I am putting my one foot before the other for me.

By the time you learn to do it, the cameras would be advanced enough to capture what human is capable of seeing.

 

[Compaq]

The last time I was in this thread, we were on page 2, I think...


What I've found to be a good way to get the exposures, when purposefully shooting for HDR treatment, is to start at the shadow. I turn on live view, and see with my own eyes on the screen when the shadow tones are mid tones in the over exposure. That's my first shot. I then shoot frames somewhere between 1EV and 2EV apart until I've gotten my highlights as midtones. Whether that's 4, 7, 9 or 13 frames, I don't really care. I capture the frames and move on. I may not need them all.

As for the debate whether this image is suitable for HDR treatment, that's a waste of time. Everyone have different opinions. That said, those who participate in this are similarly minded and wish to learn to tone map better and all that stuff that's been mentioned in the last 5 pages.

 

[Bynx]

I use a camera to take my pictures, not a book. I have tons of photography books I use for reference. I skim through them as I get them and if a single thought gets saved thats ok. I can always reference the book. But if I were you Id pick up the camera and learn the hard way. What did those people do before they wrote their books -- do you suppose they just read books by others?

 

[Compaq]

Ah, Bynx, you're touching upon an important thing here. There are those to mainly stand on the shoulders of giants, and those who.. ehhr, build their own shoulders? and those who... hmm... let people stand on their shoulders?

Ahh, I don't remember the kicker, but you get my point. I can relate to what I'm studying. We're reading textbooks, having lectures of all the great things other people have accomplished. But, darn it, I want to accomplish things of my own, and can't wait to start on my master's!

 

[Bynx]

Photography, especially digital photography is so great because you simply take the small box anywhere you want and take any kind of picture you want be it a good one or a bad one. And hopefully, from each picture you learn something. Now film photography is a whole different thing because by the time you took the picture and got it developed in a week and got the pictures back that you were lucky if 1 or 2 out of the lot were remotely acceptable and the lesson was lost unless you took careful notes. Having a digital camera is like having the photo lab right there so everything is instantaneous. I take pictures in manual mode only and I rely on my built-in meter. When I have determined my best 0 EV settings then I use that as my mid point for the bracketing shots of 1 EV for each shot, which is usually 4 under and 4 over. I have set my Nikon D7000 User modes to aid in that bracketing so it takes 9 shots in quick succession. Pulling out a spotmeter, and a book to read before I take a picture might save me a couple of exposures, but its not saving me any time. After Photography, reading is my pastime so I dont mean to be knocking the use of books. This thread is about comparing one person's style of tone mapping against another's. Perhaps, if there was a thread set up called "How To Take A Photo" it would be a better place for some of the comments made so far.

 

[cgipson1]

I will typically just spot meter the highs and lows.. and do a full bracket based on that.. maybe one over / under on each side of the meter also. To paraphrase Compaq.. if it is 3 shots, fine! If it is 12 shots, fine!

We all do it our own way.. and we are capable of sharing information and critique amicably.

BUT..... We don't need no stinkin Know-It-Alls telling us what we be doing wrong! lol!

 

[Bynx]

Amen and bless you my son.

 

[cgipson1]

Amen and bless you my son.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Nobody likes ball busters either.

 

[McNugget801]

We don't need no stinkin Know-It-Alls telling us what we be doing wrong! lol!

best part about this entire thread considering you fellas are the ones acting like the know-it-alls

 

[Bynx]

McNuggett why not submit your version of the Shootout instead of yap yap yap.

 

[SlickSalmon]

I purchased a book I really liked titled: Digital Landscape Photography by Michael Frye and I thought the book was one of the best I have had the change to read where landscape photography is concerned. It goes into details about using the Zone System to blend photos in PS very similar to the idea of HDR photography using multiple exposures, but the results were dramatically different in that the combination of the images created a realistic photo, which is unlike the results often found with HDR.

Thanks, GeorgieGirl, for alerting me to this book. I love these kinds of analyses.