If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So im trying some HDR attempts and since my camera doesn't shoot RAW i tried with 1 jpeg after reading various tutorials (especially one from Christiaan L.)
Well here is my try at it, original on top the HDR on bottom, tell me what ya think!
Great attempt...but not exactly HDR. HDR demand that you have at least three photos each with a differing EV that is 1 -2EV, 1 0EV, and 1 +2EV. This way you can merge them together, and then get the dynamic range from all. Yours show only saturation.
If you use Photomatix, you can make three copies of one jpg and load them into the program and it'll automatically adjust the exposures for each one, and you'll get the same end result as you would with three separate photos.
If you use Photomatix, you can make three copies of one jpg and load them into the program and it'll automatically adjust the exposures for each one, and you'll get the same end result as you would with three separate photos.
Yeah i do use photomatix 3.1. I actually went into CS3 and used the curves to make a dark and light version of the original photo. Then loaded those into photomatix and tried to do something with them, my thing is i can't find the best toning options in photomatix and my shots come out looking very saturated.
If you use Photomatix, you can make three copies of one jpg and load them into the program and it'll automatically adjust the exposures for each one, and you'll get the same end result as you would with three separate photos.
That is good, but not exactly then HDR...adjusting the exposure of an already shot picture will only darken it or lighten it. What +2 and -2 does is look for the lightest and darkest areas, and adjust for them. Photomax does a decent enough job, but you should still use the tried and true method of taking three, or more, individual shots, adjusting the exposure each time.
That is good, but not exactly then HDR...adjusting the exposure of an already shot picture will only darken it or lighten it. What +2 and -2 does is look for the lightest and darkest areas, and adjust for them. Photomax does a decent enough job, but you should still use the tried and true method of taking three, or more, individual shots, adjusting the exposure each time.
I have tried that method, but my shots never ever come out looking HDR material. I even go from -2.0 --> -1.7 --> -1.3 etc.. all the way up to 2.0 EV. That is why i tried to do it with one shot and see how it worked. My "ISO" speed also varies each time i change the EV should i instead keep it at a certain speed?
You gotta shoot it on manual. The only thing that should change is your shutter. Aperture and ISO should stay the same!
What do you mean by HDR look? HDR can either look real or fake depending on what you're going for.
When I shoot the interior of buildings for clients, we want our pictures to look real and not look HDR since we're there to show what the interior looks like. It's all in how you process them to get the look you want. It takes experimentation.
Also, I get what you're going for with the 1-shot HDR. It's not considered HDR, but the editing gives the images a certain grungy, dark effect? Correct? The following link is to one of my favorite photographers. He does absolutely amazing work, but it's all in his lighting techniques and his editing. The way he edits is called tone-mapping.
If you look at his music portfolio, you'll see a lot of amazing shots (as well as everywhere else you look.) Just with the music, I can tell you that 99% of those are one single image, just edited heavily. I've seen the behind the scenes video of the shots with Chris Brown and his setups are absolutely amazing.
Tanner is right. We too often see pictures that are too saturated, or have blown highlights, but still look pretty good, and they are called HDR. HDR really means taking the different portions of the image that is captured, and through a process of combining differing exposures, bring out details that might normally be lost in just one picture. Don't confuse oversaturation with DRI orHDR.
A good HDR shot should not be easy to recognize as HDR.
I agree, and I have to say I think HDR for the most part looks shite and is way overused in situations that simply don't need it. Taking a very average photo of a totally boring and uninspiring scene and 'HDR'ing' it, either by creating more than one exposure from a RAW file or on the actual camera isn't clever and isn't a breakthrough in creativity. I'd rather see a really classy, well exposed and tastefully shot 'normal' photo than a HDR that looks unnatural and unbalanced any day!
Alright im going to try and compose some nice shots first and so i should ONLY be changing the shutter (EV) and nothing else? Leave those settings on auto or have a specific value and set them at that.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment