Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photos' started by dave6253, May 10, 2012.
For all those people looking at newer software,
From Canon Rumors:
The entire bundle
You can get the entire Nik Collection from Google for $126.65 for a very limited time (until April 2, 2013). Use the code northlight at checkout. I use the Silver Efex Pro 2 and Viveza 2 products all the time and paid considerably more for the entire collection!
I have looked at HDR Efex Pro 2 for a while, am going to pull the trigger.
Just thought some of y'all mind find this bundle interesting.
question. if it's not cartoon-y how do you tell if it's HDR? seriously. and is there a differences between pics shot in HDR and pics that were post processed to look HDR? and i understand that HDR is a melding of three shots at slightly different exposure settings. is that what ppl do when processing? copy one pic a few times, adjust the exposure/contrast, and then merge them into one pic again?
Answer: most photos in this thread are not HDR.
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range - the idea of which is to expand the dynamic range beyond the capabilities of your camera so that you get more data at each end of the range (because our human eye can see such a larger range than a camera sensor).
Because so many people "over process" HDR... the "overpopped" style has become known as "HDR"... but in reality most "HDR" photos these days are just tone mappings made to look HDR like; perhaps "HDR style" photography would be more apropos.
For example.. in the photo below I used HDR techniques (I took 3 photos with an under-exposed and an over-exposed) to bring out the details in the church - I was shooting into the sun and my camera was incapable of showing the details of the near side of the church (which were in full shade). If I were to adjust the exposure so that I could see the details in the face of the church, then the mountain in the background was completely washed out. By merging the data from the over exposed and the under exposed image I was able to keep the detail in the church face and the mountain (which the human eye is capable of seeing when standing there; but a camera's sensor is not capable of capturing)
Hope this helps
Me, again with "cartoon-y" bike pix :
One more example.. crappy point'n'shoot snap shot but it shows the idea:
stock image; notice the top of the mesa in the distance is washed out and the bike's detail is in full shadow so you cannot see it:
photo of 3 merged exposured to give a higher dynamic range - now look at the top of the mesa and the details in the bike:
I definitely dig your "grunge" style of processing
One other "technical note" that might help:
EV stands of "exposure value". It is an interval of a camera's photographic exposure scale.
Outdoors with natural light - there is/are about 15 EVs visible.
The average point'n'shoot camera can only capture 5 or 6 EVs. (hence you get blown out skies when you shoot shadows or blacked shadows when you shoot skies)
An expensive DSLR type camera can capture perhaps 7-9 EVs. (hence why a good camera's photos look so much better than point'n'shoot!)
Say you had a really nice DSLR which could do 9 EVs.
By taking a photo at -2 EV, 0 EV and then +2 EV, you are now seeing 13 out of 15 visible EVs in natural light (you are adding 2 EVs below the normal photo and then adding 2EVs above the normal photo).
Pretty impressive and close to what you see when you are standing there - 13 versus 15.
This was the original intent of HDR. That said, it is difficult to pull exactly the data you want from each of the images (trying to get EV -1 and -2 and EV +10 and +11 exclusive data added into your EV 1-9 photo).
The HDR processing is supposed to allow you to pull the data from the 3 images and merge them. Because of the overlap in data that is visible in all 3 images, you often end up with "pop" because items in your image have 3 values that are all valid. How the end user chooses to merge (or process) this overlapping data is what determine's one's personal HDR style (the most famous perhaps of which was Ansel Adams way back when - and Trey Ratcliff in the internet age (and what most HDR images these days are styled after).
Ansel Adams was amazing in that he did HDR the "old fashioned way" with film!
Trey Ratcliff's style - made famous through his "Stuck in Customs" website
This is why when you look through this thread you can see many images that are very similar in style - they are using the same software/filters (i.e. algorithms) to merge the overlapping data.. and hence end up with something similar.
The same goes for tone-mapping (i.e. "coloring" a single image to give a similar style).
Clear as mud?
p.s. if you are interested in how Ansel Adams managed to do HDR pre-existence of computers.. you might enjoy this article:
Thanks for that link. I have always loved Ansel Adams work. I think his work really makes me want get out and see the world.
Thanks for the clarification of HDR.
I won't mess up here anymore, just watching, Promised.
You are not messing up in anyway - I look forward to seeing more of your work!
Do you have any more photos of this bike? :
I'd love to hear your post processing steps
I see HDR photos similar to water color paintings with lots of detail. All varieties and techniques are nice to see.
I have learned what is HDR all about for some years. However I am just a squid in photography so never taken any real HDR. Yeah, you right, just color blending to get it looks (somehow) HDR for fun.
My CX650 cafe racer build thread has its link on my signature. Welcome to see and comment.
Thank you for the link! I just found this pic in your thread; and it is inspiring. I have a 1976 R90/6 tucked away in the back of my garage that I'm going to do exactly this with
I got my project bike on the road today and went on photo safari...
I figured as much. Thanks.
Not to belabor the point too much. I've tried to pull detail out of a few images. Where I've gone into Aperture, and created 2 new images from an existing one, +/- 2EV. I've been able to go creative, get artsy, but never actually improve the overall image.
Here are a few images I've capture using +-2 EV (usually exposure time), that there is no way I could have otherwise captured what my eye saw.
I've taken a few pictures of bridges, where HDR has allowed me to pull out the detail of the beams. With just a single exposure, the rivets on right side of the image where barely noticeable, as they where in the shade. Pulling in the detail from the +2EV image really, IMNSHO, gives the image a lot more interesting detail.
The following image could have really used +-4EV as well, but without HDR there is no way I could get the bike and the center tree/clouds visible in the image.
I've still got A LOT to learn. To all of the other posters, and to Dave for starting the thread, THANKS, for inspiring me.