Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 21, 2009, 1:27 PM   #221
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

I prefer the HDR (# 1) but I see what you mean about beeing in doubt.

This happens very often (to me anyway...). One gets to see different renderings and takes of a motive, so much so, that one gets confused. One starts to see one good thing after another in one picture. Then you scrutinise another and think; "..no, this is it.." and so on. And the more you look at them, the more confused you get.


Anyway, mtngal - the HDR has a slightly (and this puzzles me! Given the circumstances, I would have expect a much bigger difference in values between them. This must be a tribute to your K7!) better span of values than # 2 - but the contrast is nicer in #2. Why don't you just increase the contrast in the HDR-pic a little? And the top-one is a thad warmer than the bottom one - I think....?

Great shot BTW - very bizarre, but beautiful shapes and forms all around. Must have been difficult to expose correctly? One thing I am couriouse about, mtngal. What lens did you use? In the EXIF it says 15mm (equivalent). Does Pentax have such a 15mm wide lens?

Well done!
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2009, 9:14 PM   #222
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I think I'll adjust the curves a bit on the HDR picture, but not much, having spent today looking at something different (including snow) and looking at the pictures with fresh eyes, the HDR version is very close to what I want. Photo matix does sometimes increase the saturation of certain colors, so its not surprising that the HDR version is warmer.

The camera pretty much handled the exposure - I was shooting at a constant aperture and leaving the camera to sort out the rest. If I saw some blinkies, I'd take an autobracket series (and in a couple of instances, used the in-camera HDR feature). It did pretty well for most of the time, though the white balance really struggled at the end (about 2:30) when the sky got rather overcast and the light flat. I should have left it at daylight, rather than auto. At one point I tried to set a custom white balance using the "photo pass" that was white, but didn't like it (I think the paper they used was slightly bluish, which probably threw off the meter).

Believe me, I had many pictures that were well beyond the camera's dynamic range, but not so much with this particular one. It was pretty hazy/grey and the light was flatter than if it had been bright - that actually worked in my favor in some places, against me in others. There wasn't as much reflected light as there could have been, so I didn't get that many pictures like the one above.

Pentax has several options for the 12-15 mm range - the DA 10-17 fisheye, the DA 12-24 (pentilinear), the DA 14mm f2.8, and the DA 15mm Limited. I took the picture above with the DA 10-17 fisheye, it was a fun lens to use. This picture was taken in Lower Antelope Canyon, not the Upper Antelope Canyon (which is the one most visit). I ended up using the DA 10-17 and the FA 77 f1.8 lenses, with my hubby happily (and more creatively, sigh!) with the K20 and DA*50-135.

We both had a wonderful time, and came away thinking that the pictures I took (and that I've seen both posted and printed) don't quite capture the true feeling of the place. I want to go back and do more thinking about what's there and how to capture it. Also more time to just look around and admire it.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2009, 9:20 PM   #223
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38
Default

My first attempt!

nepali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2009, 7:48 PM   #224
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

In case anyone is interested, I did some comparisons between the K-7's in-camera HDR feature and Photomatix. It's only one picture, and each scene seems to be different as far as which work with the in-camera feature and which don't. I can't predict what works well - in the case I posted, the HDR2 didn't work, while HDR1 gave me the closest to what I remember of the scene. I like the Photomatix version, even though it's not accurate. The thread is at: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pe...hotomatix.html .
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2009, 11:12 AM   #225
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

So guys, I did two HDR's of our village church - all the AEB's where shot handheld (-1/0/+1). I did the HDR's with Photomatix Pro:

#1

Name:  kirche_1_hdr_pp_small.jpg
Views: 253
Size:  235.4 KB

And the middle-exposure:

Name:  kirche_1_middle_small.jpg
Views: 244
Size:  216.9 KB

#2

Name:  kirche_2_hdr_pp_small.jpg
Views: 246
Size:  227.0 KB

And the middle-exposure:

Name:  kirche_2_middle_small.jpg
Views: 245
Size:  200.9 KB

C&C very welcome, thank's for taking a look!
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2009, 1:16 PM   #226
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

The point of the HDR is to extend the dynamic range of the single shot. You didnt go far enough to include the windows. You need a very underexposed shot which will show only the details in the windows. When thats added to the couple of shots for the interior then you have a complete HDR. Yours is only 2/3 there.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2009, 1:36 PM   #227
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nepali View Post
My first attempt!

nepali congrats on trying HDR , this is a little over cooked for my tastes but everyones will differ it is just the reds that are over saturated for my liking but i hope to more from you soon
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2009, 1:38 PM   #228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

maggo i really like the first shot if the windows were right it would be perfect
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2009, 2:46 PM   #229
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I agree - the darkest exposure should have exposed for the windows only. On the other hand, the first one does show what sometimes happens with PhotoMatix - the program tries to make something darker and it ends up dull/greyish. It's very noticeable (to my eyes) in your first picture, which is otherwise beautiful. I prefer the second one because of that. Your church is really beautiful, I hope you re-shoot the bracketed series as I'd love to see the windows more, along with the beautiful detail in the church.

If Photomatix continues to do weird things with the windows, you might try taking the properly exposed windows and putting them on the HDR photo above. It may or may not work (I've only rarely been able to make it work right, seems like I can never get the windows to match in right).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2009, 7:00 AM   #230
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

Hello maggo85!

What a very nice church you have in your village! You did two honest good shots, even though the windows are burnt. This is the curse of handheld HDR's because once your first 3 automatic brackets are taken, you cannot "reload" - without moving the camera - to take another 3 shots with let's say minus 3 EV for the windows alone.

Next time, bring your tripod and you will get a perfect HDR of that church interior. Start by measuring the light through the windows and take some shots for them only, befor you shoot for the interior.

Taken into consideration that you only started HDR some three weeks ago, I think you did a decent job her. My favorite is # 2 with it's symmetric composition. Churches are symmetric by nature - I wonder why... - and it shows the church less distorted by lens-distortion.



Last edited by Walter_S; Dec 26, 2009 at 7:07 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:50 AM.