Life's a Drag C&C Welcome

[zombiemann]

I am still lost I dont understand a flash in HDR did I miss something here I have never read or seen anyone use one . Is it possible to use a flash in HDR ?

I am far from an expert but to the best of my knowledge flash doesn't work with HDR. What we are seeing in this thread isn't a multiple exposure HDR, it's a tone mapped single image.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

dude, softer lighting may allow him to look more feminine, rather than out of a horror script

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Drag queens need special makeup to make them look feminine - you should know what racing stripes, contouring, and blending are if you're around drag. The same is true with lighting. Direct flash doesn't work because all you do is cancel the contouring makeup. Get you a few light stands and some cheap radio triggers. This was done in a studio setting at After Dark, but you could do nearly the same thing with some speedlights and some grids or snoots. Put them at the end of the runway, over head, facing down. Nearly a butterfly lighting-ish affect.

 

[rexbobcat]

Drag queens need special makeup to make them look feminine - you should know what racing stripes, contouring, and blending are if you're around drag. The same is true with lighting. Direct flash doesn't work because all you do is cancel the contouring makeup. Get you a few light stands and some cheap radio triggers. This was done in a studio setting at After Dark, but you could do nearly the same thing with some speedlights and some grids or snoots. Put them at the end of the runway, over head, facing down. Nearly a butterfly lighting-ish affect.

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18958"/>

Idk. I've seen some very naturally feminine drag queens lol.

 

[Jaemie]

What brand/model of flash and what flash settings did you use?

I know I already asked, but I'm still curious.

 

[amolitor]

Can't you do HDR from RAW files without multiple exposures? The problem is the same, squashing a bunch of tonal range into a smaller one. I don't see that multiple exposures are required for "real" HDR.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Idk. I've seen some very naturally feminine drag queens lol.

I've seen some that can give Pam Anderson a run for her money. Have you ever watched Crystal Summers perform?

But 90% of queens need, or usually use some form of highlight/shadow contouring techniques - which is what I meant.

 

[rexbobcat]

I've seen some that can give Pam Anderson a run for her money. Have you ever watched Crystal Summers perform?

But 90% of queens need, or usually use some form of highlight/shadow contouring techniques - which is what I meant.

Yeah I understood. I was just being funny.

There's a drag queen where I live who is just local but does very little (that I can tell) to get dressed up. He naturally has a feminine bone structure.

 

[rexbobcat]

Can't you do HDR from RAW files without multiple exposures? The problem is the same, squashing a bunch of tonal range into a smaller one. I don't see that multiple exposures are required for "real" HDR.

Yeah. It's just that shadow noise could possibly be an issue.

 

[zombiemann]

Can't you do HDR from RAW files without multiple exposures? The problem is the same, squashing a bunch of tonal range into a smaller one. I don't see that multiple exposures are required for "real" HDR.

Not trying to debate "real" but I don't really see how? If I expose a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125th I can "fake" a higher or lower exposure but the bottom line is I still am stuck only with the information gathered in that 1/125 whereas with a bracket I have information from 1/125 and (just for example) 1/250 and 1/60. Sure you can reduce to 1/250, but how can you increase to 1/60? RAW isn't a magical process that automatically obtains all the light ranges possible with 1 click of the button. The photons still have to reach the sensor. With that being said it is possible to create a nice looking "fake" via tone mapping etc

 

[amolitor]

RAW does capture more range than can be rendered on any normal output medium, though. It captures a High Dynamic Range image. Maybe only "pretty high" to be sure, but there's usually a 2 to 4 stops of information that is usable which you have to throw away (normal processing) or figure out what to do with (HDR-style processing). Does that make sense?

 

[zombiemann]

RAW does capture more range than can be rendered on any normal output medium, though. It captures a High Dynamic Range image. Maybe only "pretty high" to be sure, but there's usually a 2 to 4 stops of information that is usable which you have to throw away (normal processing) or figure out what to do with (HDR-style processing). Does that make sense?

Actually, I've been thinking about this. I think your best bet would be to figure what your longest exposure should be, shoot that, and then work backwards from there, as opposed to the typical shoot neutral and then worry about the ups and downs.