Fighter HDR - Facts and how to do

[NFLineast]

Thank you very much for the kind comments. I just take one picture and make 3,4 or 5 separate RAW conversions and then glue them together in Photomatix.

somehow the piece of hill doesn't add up.. Nice work though g.. d..mn!

Not sure what that means...? The hill is not pasted in.

[powermaccie]

Wow excellent pictures

I just take one picture and make 3,4 or 5 separate RAW conversions

Over and under exposure conversions ? Wich levels ?

Grtz

Ludo

[Hans Rolink]

Wouzers
Wat een fotoo's
(wat is hdr eigenlijk ?)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Basically, the problem of an image not having a wide enough distance between lights and darks is repaired. Hence, the deep shadows without the blown highlights.

Must give it a try too.

Hans.

[Zipper]

Hi...

wat is hdr eigenlijk

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.
If you want to know (much) more about this type of pictures, just google HDR and you get a LOT of info.

What you see here are not HDR pictures in the "true" matter of speaking but "pseudo-HDR".
Normally you take three, or better, five different pictures with your camera on a tripod... one shot with normal exposure, one with +1 over-exposure, one with +2 over-exposure, one with -1 under-exposure and one with -2 under-exposure.
Best way to work is with the timer on the camera so there is absolutely no camera-motion or vibration at all !!!
These photo's are processed and merged in a HDR program.
The more pictures you have, the better the result but 3 is the minimum.

When you have only one picture, like these aircraft photo's (you can't take five from a tripod, when the object is moving fast of course), you can create the under- and over exposure photo's with a Photo Editing program like Photoshop and then proces them to HDR.
The result can be really good but not as good as when you work with five different pictures.
Best is to have RAW pictures, BTW.

Grtz.
Zipper

[Richard from Rotterdam]

@NFLineEast: could you maybe post one of the original pictures before you processed it as HDR? I would like to see the difference between the two.

thanks in advance!

Richard.

[NFLineast]

When you have only one picture, like these aircraft photo's (you can't take five from a tripod, when the object is moving fast of course), you can create the under- and over exposure photo's with a Photo Editing program like Photoshop and then proces them to HDR.
The result can be really good but not as good as when you work with five different pictures.
Best is to have RAW pictures, BTW.

You can not do RAW conversion in Photoshop. You can do it with Adobe Camera Raw which works as a plug-in but is a separate platform. I work with Capture One 5 which I find to be excellent. I have taken lots and lots of landscape HDR shots with multiple exposures (as in several different frames), and the difference is minimal. In fact, I can't say for sure that I'd be able to tell the difference. Additionally, with multiple frames you introduce other factors that can (and usually will) become a problem: Moving clouds, moving trees or leaves, other moving objects. Even if you shoot a bracketed burst with the mirror up from a tripod with a cordless release you will get parts of the image "mushy" looking. Finally, with multiple frames you increase the likelihood of chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. At least that's what I have experienced.

[Glidepath]

HDR,

many positive reactions, hardly critical comments. as for most compo's and shapness, that's quite understandable, not much left to desire.

but what a bout the colours? seems saturations and true colours are axed in favour of brightness and lightness. the price to pay...?

Would be fair to agree the colours are a wee bit off in most if not all pics displayed here... hence funny for some trials at home, but certainly not of use for all purposes.

[Key]

Well, where the effect is strong, I admire them as works of art, but I cannot see them as photographs. That is to say, I enjoy the way they look and respect the way they were made, but they do not tell me what it was like.

Erik

[Iwan Bogels]

Hi Erik,

Sorry to say, but I slightly disagree on this. Quite often the real world looks brighter, deeper, more vibrant than photos do. If not overdone, HDR sometimes comes closer to my memory than the average photo. I think we are used to the way how a photo should look, and get an "unnatural feeling" with HDR images. So the right question is if we should adjust our mind or the image.....

After all our eyes have a much higher dynamic range than camera sensors have....

Please understand well that I agree with you on the over-the-top photos.....but images like the one below are just brilliant !

Cheers,
Iwan

[Key]

Iwan, we probably do agree. That is why I said

where the effect is strong

Take the same photog's Mystere as an example: a really strong image, but it looks like a drawing because of the amount of contrast in details. To my eye*, that is not reality, it is derived from reality. I really like it but I think it strays from what Triple Nickel actually saw. To an extent, that goes for any photo, but our eyes* are used to the way reality is depicted in photos and at least I interpret them as such.

* To be precise, eye should be substituted by brain here.

Photographers and camera makers worldwide have gone to great lenghts to show 'reality' within the bonds of photography. As a matter of fact, I believe there lies the origin of HDR: reducing the amount of contrast the eye can cope with, to something displayable in one photo (like with a bright sky over a dark subject). Many of the works here however create an amount of contrast that my eye would not register on the scene, and therefore look unnatural to me.

Having said that, photos like these can easily be more interesting than 'natural' ones, but that is a different story.


Erik

[FALCONCREST]

how do you get 3 different exposures from a very fast moving jet ?
For "real" HDR you need to stag a couple of shots on top of each other for the best result.
Or, do you take a RAW file and tweek it with the different settings?

[Key]

Johan, start near the bottom of page 1 of this topic. It's all explained from there.

Erik

[Iwan Bogels]

Hi guys,

Some more great shots here. Well done, and thanks for sharing.

I have a question about HDR-software. I use Photomatix 3.0, and I find it difficult to get the result that I have in mind. Often I do manage to get a decent preview in Photomatix, but when I apply the chosen settings to create a TIFF-file, the result is quite different from the preview. Does anybody recognize this problem ?

I'm also curious to know which HDR software other posters use in this forum.

Looking forward to any reply.

Cheers,
Iwan

[dinovandoorn]

Hi,

I have created an tutorial on my website (http://gmap.nl) how to create an HDR image and what the settings are
i used in Photomatix. I added all the screenshots so it will be very simple to follow my steps.
Improvements or better settings are welcome bacause i am still a newbie on HDR images...
So i hope this tutorial will give some added value to you

Enjoy

[Thijs]

On request this topic has been split into a "show your HDR photo's" and a "how to do HDR processing" part.

HDR photo's can be found here:

http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=60768" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thijs