Not sure if this will be read, as there hasn't been an entry here in 2 years!!!! I bet this isn't a tip at all, as everyone probably knows but I didn't......
When shooting in RAW, you don't need to take three or more images for HDR. You can use your one RAW image, and save it as different exposures. Then when combining them for HDR, there is no movement to contend with, like when you take seperate images.
Or is this common practice that I'm just finding out now?????
Does that not mean that the three simulated exposure adjustments are only as good as the post processing software's programming; rather than working directly with camera caught variants which may provide better "depth" because of the increase in volume of digital information available, using three separate photographs? :-\
I have CS5 extended but you can also do similar cheets on Capture NX 2. Usually bought by Nikon users. Not as powerful as CS 5 but it's good
I'm not into HD. I like some of them
Andy, most decent RAW processors can easily add or subtract one or two stops without any problems. You can create the fake bracketed photos with just about every RAW editor, although I would not recommend Photoplus for this. Lightroom, Aftershot Pro, Silky Pix, ACR (in Elements too) are all fine for the job.
Chris is right, it is a good and easy way to get a no wobble HDR, the sole proviso being that the starting shot is exposed for the mid range. I find that this method often gives better results than using the tripod and five bracketed photos - often there is less noise too.
Personally I would not use Photoshop's HDR merge to create any HDR - the performance is nowhere near as good as Photomatix or Dynamic Photo IMHO, but I have only had trial versions of CS as I didn't want to sell any body parts to get an image editor.
Quote from: Hinfrance on October 01, 2013, 04:44:45 PM
Andy, most decent RAW processors can easily add or subtract one or two stops without any problems. You can create the fake bracketed photos with just about every RAW editor, although I would not recommend Photoplus for this. Lightroom, Aftershot Pro, Silky Pix, ACR (in Elements too) are all fine for the job.
Chris is right, it is a good and easy way to get a no wobble HDR, the sole proviso being that the starting shot is exposed for the mid range. I find that this method often gives better results than using the tripod and five bracketed photos - often there is less noise too.
Personally I would not use Photoshop's HDR merge to create any HDR - the performance is nowhere near as good as Photomatix or Dynamic Photo IMHO, but I have only had trial versions of CS as I didn't want to sell any body parts to get an image editor.
I can see it would be time saving, and I have used the method of combining the same image as it were, from adjusted for exposure files using Silky Pix, while editing and combining them as layers in Serif. :tup: I considered that as just getting added depth into a shot rather than full blown HDR, but then I am not tech' minded.
ooo, glad there's a debate going! I not sure about HDR either, but when I do try, my efforts are pants
I`ve done less hdr since getting my d700 but likely to do some more with my back up D7000 as it has bracketing better suited to HDR. Of course one reason for using 3 separate shots in hdrs is when you want to show movement. Examples that have worked well for me are wind turbines and long hay in the foreground of shots. Of course moving people and cars etc are another matter. gets a lot of bad press HDR but when done well is a great tool. I like doing OTT stuff for some subjects and more subtle in landscapes. In a flickr Leeds session one guy that expressed his contempt for HDR on a regular basis on ce bagged my HDR landscape in a print swap session. I had such pleasure i telling him it was an HDR when he asked about my settings to get movement in the field of hay.
Well Im pants at it!
Quote from: DigiDiva on October 01, 2013, 10:18:28 PM
Well Im pants at it!
No you're not - just need more practice at it. :tup:
What software you using DD - I agree with H that Photomatix is hard to beat. Just cannot get the same results with Photoshop. Doing some now with my table Mountain shots - will share if any good though hand held in low light they seem noisy just now.
I don't have a clarity slider in my adobe camera raw......this seems to make a massive difference, as I tried it on my son's photoshop (newer version, Im CS3) and it seems to play an important part. Don't understand why I don't have a clarity slider as it seems to be part of my version. (I have a CS3 book and it refers to it in there).
Jinky - I've never used bracketed exposure to capture movement; I'll have to try that. One of the reasons that I went for the Pentax K5 rather than the Nikon 7000 at last 'upgrade' was the fact that the Pentax has 5 frame auto bracketing. As I was used to using that from earlier Pentax models the 3 frames offered by Nikon seemed a bit mean.
DD, have you got the latest version of ACR compatible with your CS3? You should have the clarity slider in there somewhere. If you want very fine control over clarity then Topaz do a clarity plugin (http://www.topazlabs.com/clarity/). I find that the best clarity tool I have is in Photoplus X6 (http://www.serif.com/photoplus/?MC=SERPPCSLPhP&gclid=CJHSwKvE97kCFTPItAodiVgAhA), for some reason that one works so well it has cut a lot of my editing down to clarity 15% and cropping ;)
I have issues downloading upgrades as my MacPro has an ancient processor and theres not much I can upload. Will have a word with my son ans see what he thinks, he's the IT geek of the family
Ah, sorry didn't realise you were using a niche computer. :legit:
Serif Photoplus and the full version of Dynamic Photo don't (like maybe 90% of non major company stuff) run on Macs. :( Topaz runs on 10.6 upwards on Macs.
You should definitely get the latest compatible version of ACR if you can.
Quote from: DigiDiva on October 02, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
I have issues downloading upgrades as my MacPro has an ancient processor and theres not much I can upload. Will have a word with my son ans see what he thinks, he's the IT geek of the family
Yours is a PowerMac G5 (I am assuming a G5 and not a G4), if I recall correctly. A MacPro is the Intel based version. I have meant to mention this before as people try to help you but they think you have a different machine when you call it a MacPro and they give incorrect advice.
If I am wrong, just tell me, but I think I recall this from when you got it over on the DCW forums.
I love HDR . I use photomatix. It has a good function which cuts out ghosting
The problem that I have with HDR is that it is over used. I have always believed that when HDR is employed it should never be noticed, it is primarily to enable detail to be visible both in areas of highlight and shadow in a particularly contrasty scene.
There are a myriad of filters available that go some way to replicate the sometimes strange effects that arise when HDR is overemployed, but each to his/her own. :tup:
I agree with Alan, mostly, although as sometimes a little bit of surrealism is not inappropriate.
I tend to find HDR is better for indoor shots, especially in dim old buildings like these.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8517/8592304362_f8eeee61b5.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinfrance/8592304362)
and
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8507/8592402998_4e0d432383.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinfrance/8592402998/)
Although actually neither of these are 'real' HDR. They're each from one jpg run through the Redynamix (http://www.mediachance.com/plugins/redynamix.html) plugin
I am not a fan of the current vogue of over the top 'Harry Potter' processing that I see so many landscapes suffering from.
Quote from: ABERS on October 02, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
The problem that I have with HDR is that it is over used. I have always believed that when HDR is employed it should never be noticed, it is primarily to enable detail to be visible both in areas of highlight and shadow in a particularly contrasty scene.
There are a myriad of filters available that go some way to replicate the sometimes strange effects that arise when HDR is overemployed, but each to his/her own. :tup:
I prefer my HDR to look real as well. The concept of HDR was to get a greater range of exposure than what the camera sensor would pick up. That is, to make it closer to what we can see with our eye.
Quote from: donoreo on October 02, 2013, 05:25:19 PM
Quote from: ABERS on October 02, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
The problem that I have with HDR is that it is over used. I have always believed that when HDR is employed it should never be noticed, it is primarily to enable detail to be visible both in areas of highlight and shadow in a particularly contrasty scene.
There are a myriad of filters available that go some way to replicate the sometimes strange effects that arise when HDR is overemployed, but each to his/her own. :tup:
I prefer my HDR to look real as well. The concept of HDR was to get a greater range of exposure than what the camera sensor would pick up. That is, to make it closer to what we can see with our eye.
I'm in full agreement with Don. In the early days of digital I and many other photographers would take 2/3 exposures and manually blend them in Photoshop. This gave us the detail in shadows and highlights without the over processed images we constantly see these days.
Harry
Quote from: donoreo on October 02, 2013, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: DigiDiva on October 02, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
I have issues downloading upgrades as my MacPro has an ancient processor and theres not much I can upload. Will have a word with my son ans see what he thinks, he's the IT geek of the family
Yours is a PowerMac G5 (I am assuming a G5 and not a G4), if I recall correctly. A MacPro is the Intel based version. I have meant to mention this before as people try to help you but they think you have a different machine when you call it a MacPro and they give incorrect advice.
If I am wrong, just tell me, but I think I recall this from when you got it over on the DCW forums.
I don't have an intel processor. Its another processor the name of which I always forget to the despair of my son. My machine used to be used by the kids show Byker Grove in the editing suite. When Byker Grove was scratched, it ended up at a place called Dene Films which is where my son works. He got me the machine for a really stupid price (£100 I think, maybe £200) when Dene Films upgraded.
"I don't have an intel processor. Its another processor the name of which I always forget to the despair of my son."
A Post-it sticker, with the name of the processor, on the side of the computer, or somewhere close, could solve this problem.
It's worth it, if it saves your son from despair.
Quote from: DigiDiva on October 03, 2013, 07:31:01 AM
I don't have an intel processor. Its another processor the name of which I always forget to the despair of my son. My machine used to be used by the kids show Byker Grove in the editing suite. When Byker Grove was scratched, it ended up at a place called Dene Films which is where my son works. He got me the machine for a really stupid price (£100 I think, maybe £200) when Dene Films upgraded.
Isn't it a ARM processor? :doh:
Quote from: Oldboy on October 03, 2013, 09:08:24 AM
Quote from: DigiDiva on October 03, 2013, 07:31:01 AM
I don't have an intel processor. Its another processor the name of which I always forget to the despair of my son. My machine used to be used by the kids show Byker Grove in the editing suite. When Byker Grove was scratched, it ended up at a place called Dene Films which is where my son works. He got me the machine for a really stupid price (£100 I think, maybe £200) when Dene Films upgraded.
Isn't it a ARM processor? :doh:
No, it is a PowerPC processor. Macs used them from the 1990s to mid 2000's. That is why it is called a PowerMac. Photo right at the top here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh Apple kept the same design case for their MacPro line when they switched to Intel. IBM still uses the PowerPC processors (newer and more powerful versions) in their AIX (UNIX) servers.
Its a G5 I have, and camera raw 4.0...I need to maybe add a plug in but tried and it didn't work.