Hibiscus

o hey tyler · Jul 23, 2012

The Barbarian said:
There is, and it's considerably greater range than you'd get from a simple shot. It's just more subtle than you like. Look at the HDR of the night heron. Then look at the finished image.
<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=14579"/>

The finished image may not be an obvious HDR (although most people who understood the process would know what it was) but it looks better than the RAW image or the HDR.

Often I do, if the HDR doesn't give me what I want, by itself. HDR is supposed to support your vision, not replace it. It's a tool, not an end in itself.

The finished image of your heron is a totally inefficient use of HDR. The sky is still totally blown out.

You could get a similar finished product with 1 raw file and some fill light.

The Barbarian · Jul 23, 2012

There's room for everyone's work, after all. I even enjoy extreme HDR images, if they are well done and have a purpose to be extreme.

prodigy2k7 · Jul 23, 2012

Best HDR is take with multiple shots. It's not like the flower was running off anywhere. Why didn't you take multiple shots?

Edit: the original heron looks better than the "hdr" one because it's closer to properly exposed. (on my phone anyway)

o hey tyler · Jul 23, 2012

The Barbarian said:
There's room for everyone's work, after all. I even enjoy extreme HDR images, if they are well done and have a purpose to be extreme.

I don't think you are getting what HDR is. It's for a HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE. So when part of the dynamic range is clipped according to the histogram, it doesn't fully encapsulate the entirety of the dynamic range in the photograph.

You can't really call it an HDR if the single raw file you are using doesn't fully encompass the dynamic range of the scene.

HughGuessWho · Jul 23, 2012

prodigy2k7 said:
Best HDR is take with multiple shots. It's not like the flower was running off anywhere. Why didn't you take multiple shots?

Edit: the original heron looks better than the "hdr" one because it's closer to properly exposed. (on my phone anyway)

No, the best HDRs aren't taken with multiple shots, rather ALL HDR's are made with multiple shots. It is impossible to extend dynamic range with only one shot. You can sort of make one shot LOOK HDR-ish and tone mapped but it is still NOT an HDR nor will the dynamic range ne increased

prodigy2k7 · Jul 23, 2012

You say tomato I say tomato. Wait that doesn't work well for text lol. That's what I meant. Lol

The Barbarian · Jul 23, 2012

The finished image of your heron is a totally inefficient use of HDR.

No. The definition in the feathers, scutes, beak, etc. is much better than in the original RAW image, even after processing.

The sky is still totally blown out.

Those big, OOF dark things in the sky? Clouds. "Blown out" means there's no information whatever. Blank white.

You could get a similar finished product with 1 raw file and some fill light.

Nope. Set aside, for the moment the impracticality of a telephoto fill light in wetlands photography, you'd never get that kind of definition and clarity in a non-HDR image. This is what HDR was conceived for.

The reason you can use one RAW shot to do HDR has to do with the nature of the data received by the sensor. A JPEG has already been edited, and the dynamic range inherent in the shot is lost. The RAW image retains that information, and can be used to several images with different EVs. And that's what you need to make an HDR. Try doing this with one JPEG, even with all the manipulation in the world, you won't get more dynamic range.

There are methods like AutoHDR, which can kinda sorta simulate HDR. But it wouldn't have worked with the heron shot, because greater dynamic range was exactly what was needed.

HughGuessWho · Jul 23, 2012

The Barbarian said:
No. The definition in the feathers, scutes, beak, etc. is much better than in the original RAW image, even after processing.

Those big, OOF dark things in the sky? Clouds. "Blown out" means there's no information whatever. B

Nope. Set aside, for the moment the impracticality of a telephoto fill light in wetlands photography, you'd never get that kind of definition and clarity in a non-HDR image. This is what HDR was conceived for.

The reason you can use one RAW shot to do HDR has to do with the nature of the data received by the sensor. A JPEG has already been edited, and the dynamic range inherent in the shot is lost. The RAW image retains that information, and can be used to several images with different EVs. And that's what you need to make an HDR. Try doing this with one JPEG, even with all the manipulation in the world, you won't get more dynamic range.

There are methods like AutoHDR, which can kinda sorta simulate HDR. But it wouldn't have worked with the heron shot, because greater dynamic range was exactly what was needed.

Whatever you say.
Bottom line.... you can't capture 9 or 10 stops of light that can only capture 4 or 5 stop. But it sounds like you have some secret formula for that. Good luck.

o hey tyler · Jul 23, 2012

The Barbarian said:
No. The definition in the feathers, scutes, beak, etc. is much better than in the original RAW image, even after processing.

Those big, OOF dark things in the sky? Clouds. "Blown out" means there's no information whatever. Blank white.

Nope. Set aside, for the moment the impracticality of a telephoto fill light in wetlands photography, you'd never get that kind of definition and clarity in a non-HDR image. This is what HDR was conceived for.

The reason you can use one RAW shot to do HDR has to do with the nature of the data received by the sensor. A JPEG has already been edited, and the dynamic range inherent in the shot is lost. The RAW image retains that information, and can be used to several images with different EVs. And that's what you need to make an HDR. Try doing this with one JPEG, even with all the manipulation in the world, you won't get more dynamic range.

There are methods like AutoHDR, which can kinda sorta simulate HDR. But it wouldn't have worked with the heron shot, because greater dynamic range was exactly what was needed.

You are hopeless, and most likely destined for photographic failure.

Sorry to break it to you, but you are simply wrong on so many levels, it's not even worth my time to respond to everything that you said that is incorrect. Perhaps this is why you've been registered since 2005, yet still shoot and process images like you've been shooting for a week.

Good luck on your adventure. Maybe some day you will understand.

The Barbarian · Jul 23, 2012

Bottom line.... you can't capture 9 or 10 stops of light that can only capture 4 or 5 stop. But it sounds like you have some secret formula for that.

It's not difficult to do at all. Nine stops would be at the upper limit, though.
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1050/how-many-stops-can-a-digital-camera-capture

Edit; note the sticky on HDR for beginners. It estimates 8-11 stops for a camera sensor.

Good luck.

It's not about luck. It's about learning what you can do with the equipment you have.

The Barbarian · Jul 23, 2012

You are hopeless, and most likely destined for photographic failure.

Well, you know how ignorant Barbarians are...

Sorry to break it to you, but you are simply wrong on so many levels, it's not even worth my time to respond to everything that you said that is incorrect.

Perhaps there's an "ignore" feature here, so you don't have to look at my images any longer.

Perhaps this is why you've been registered since 2005, yet still shoot and process images like you've been shooting for a week.

I'll defer to your leaned judgement on that, then. But I still kinda like it. Before you write me off entirely, perhaps you can show me one of your wildlife shots from which I can take instruction. Or you can look at my Stop 'N Go shot and show me a better way from your photos. I can always learn something new, and I'd be pleased to see how you do it.

Good luck on your adventure. Maybe some day you will understand.

Possibly not. If I haven't learned since 2005, what hope is there? Still, I'm certainly open to seeing your images. Show us.

o hey tyler · Jul 23, 2012

I don't shoot nature or wildlife. I shoot people for money and get paid quite well.

The Barbarian · Jul 23, 2012

I don't shoot nature or wildlife. I shoot people for money and get paid quite well.

That's certainly a big plus if you're a real professional; I am truly impressed. No sarcasm intended. Especially the "paid quite well" part. Shooting wildlife probably isn't all that different than shooting people, except you get wet and dirty, and the subjects tend to run or fly away from you.

So do you have any HDRs from which I could learn a better way?

o hey tyler · Jul 23, 2012

The forum members Trever1t and are quite good with HDR images. There is a sticky at the top of the forum that has a great guide. I don't shoot HDR images in my line of work because it's generally too fast paced. That, and I don't really like the time consuming process of shooting HDRs.

Also, weddings can get quite wet and dirty depending on the venue. You'd be surprised.