Subtle, Soft, HDR

[myshkin]

When you get the geese in one frame and not the other 4, is it random how photomatix decides to put that in the final processed HDR or if its in the 0 exp it will be in the processed one everytime?
I find with ghosting that if I process a few times I get slightly different results

 

[pbelarge]

NIK has a new HDR software program. When there are moving objects such as cars, tree limbs, birds, etc... the software will take the best movement portion of the images and use that one for the final product image, making ghosting a relatively non-existant problem. A pretty neat function.

 

[McNugget801]

I do my HDR shots manually. This was 5 shots jpeg with my Nikon.

I am still skeptical but I do apologize.
Not sure how you could of waited that long and not picked up any ghosting on tree branches or anything

NIK HDR - I have it and will take photomatix over it any day of the week.

 

[Bynx]

I do my HDR shots manually. This was 5 shots jpeg with my Nikon.

I am still skeptical but I do apologize.
Not sure how you could of waited that long and not picked up any ghosting on tree branches or anything

NIK HDR - I have it and will take photomatix over it any day of the week.

If you paid attention I said there was no wind, the clouds were stationary or rather moving so slowly it didnt matter. If there were branches right over my head in the picture they would not have been any ghosting. As for what you can see in the picture ghosting isnt a problem anyway for the most part. The tree is too far and the grass is too low and busy. Since it was so calm out I shot it the way I already explained. Besides that I took a few more dup bracketed shots, just in case. But I didnt have to use them. So be as skeptical as you want, but next time ask the question first instead of making an erroneous accusation.

 

[Bynx]

When you get the geese in one frame and not the other 4, is it random how photomatix decides to put that in the final processed HDR or if its in the 0 exp it will be in the processed one everytime?
I find with ghosting that if I process a few times I get slightly different results

Thats a good question. I used Photomatix 3 until recently. I used ghosting at times and found it worked pretty good. But that was having the same object in different positions. In the case of the geese in my pic they were only in the one shot. Photomatix 4 included them in the shot and I didnt have ghosting selected because there weren't any ghosts. I do notice that the geese aren't as dark as they original shot so some of the sky has lightened them up a bit. But it softened them up to match the softness of the rest of the shot so I wasnt concerned.

Myshkin, I tried an experiment. I took two images that had birds in the sky and put them into Photomatix 4. There was 1 fstop between the two images. So A= -1 and B=0. B is the image with the single flock you see in my first post. A is the image with a few flocks in it. Now during HDR processing Photomatix 4 has a box with assorted presets. As I clicked through each preset image B (0) stayed constant. The birds did get a wee bit lighter but not that much. Interestingly, A changed with each preset. Different birds would disappear with each preset. So it seems ghosting can be fixed by selecting the right preset. I dont know how informational this is but its interesting and maybe worth pursuing.

 

[myshkin]

Im going to play with this a little. Its good idea to wait for something to move out once you get it in one frame. I have noticed in the past when this has happened to me by accident that the moving object gets lighter. The empty space on the other frames lightens the look of the object on the one frame.
It would be cool if you could pick an area of a photo and choose one frame to have represented in that selected area.
For example if you could make a circle around the flock area and then select just one frame to be in that circle without blending. Maybe in the future

 

[Bynx]

Ghosting isnt a problem for something like flying birds because you can always clone them out. Tree branches and bushes are nasty because they are very busy but the ghosting is still visible. Sometimes you can fix that situation with layers in photoshop. Everything can be fixed, but its nice when you can get it to pop out the first time.

 

[McNugget801]

If you paid attention I said there was no wind, the clouds were stationary or rather moving so slowly it didnt matter. If there were branches right over my head in the picture they would not have been any ghosting. As for what you can see in the picture ghosting isnt a problem anyway for the most part. The tree is too far and the grass is too low and busy. Since it was so calm out I shot it the way I already explained. Besides that I took a few more dup bracketed shots, just in case. But I didnt have to use them. So be as skeptical as you want, but next time ask the question first instead of making an erroneous accusation.

ok well if you want to be a douche .....
I still think its one image.. TONEMAPPED (and not done very well)
I see not reason at all for this image to be HDR, its lacking one very important detail.. DYNAMIC RANGE!

also your WB is way off and you should clean your sensor or at least hide that sensor dust

 

[Bynx]

Well first you call me a liar now you call me a douche. How about just staying out of my posts until you grow up a bit.

 

[Provo]

I think you meant fake HDR right.

Care to explain such a stupid remark?

Sure, I made that assumption because the birds are not ghosted from the backeting. I should of asked if you tonemapped this from a single image (and we all know that Tonemapping does not make anything HDR) or if you made local adjustments to remove the ghosting.

I dont mean to offend.

Mcnugget surely you have heard of masking layers to remove ghosting in hdr correct? You can witness this if you look at my pool side hdr post; I use a mask to remove the ghosting around the little girl. Assumption has led to making you be a jackass who chooses to talk smack about something that you have not bothered to look up please feel free to educating yourself on how to remove ghosting prior to bashing yet on another post.

Here read this Trey Ratcliff explains how to remove ghosting I strongly recommend this to you.
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial-part-3/

 

[Higgs Boson]

I believe you Bynx, and honestly, I don't care how you arrived. It looks nice.

Life may be about the journey, but post processing is about the destination!

 

[Robin Usagani]

I love it Bynx. Here is my PP.. it may look too processed but I didnt have the high res.

 

[McNugget801]

Mcnugget surely you have heard of masking layers to remove ghosting in hdr correct? You can witness this if you look at my pool side hdr post; I use a mask to remove the ghosting around the little girl. Assumption has led to making you be a jackass who chooses to talk smack about something that you have not bothered to look up please feel free to educating yourself on how to remove ghosting prior to bashing yet on another post.

Here read this Trey Ratcliff explains how to remove ghosting I strongly recommend this to you.
HDR Tutorial Part 3

Thanks but I do know how to remove ghosting.
I think you should re-read this thread and see who statring "bashing" first.
also notice I apologized twice... thanks

 

[Bynx]

I like your take on it Schwettylens. If you email me Id be glad to give you the hi res files. The sky didnt have any of that yellow to it and the strong colors werent there but to anyone else it is a nice looking pp job.

 

[ann]

I would agree with the edited one as well. I always felt the first needed a bit more contrast; however, i tend to like things a bit more contrasty and frankly feel like a broken record these days with "tweak with curves