View Full Version : New Type of Digital Photography
sirbingo
05-15-2006, 16:55
It's called, HDR (High Dynamic Range)
3 images are taken with 3 different exposure settings. One over-exposed, One normal, one under-exposed. Then a software program (Photomatix) is used to combined all exposures into one image.
Usually a tripod has to be used because all images have to perfectly match. I read that some digital cameras will come with this capability as an automatic setting.
I'm totally fascinated by the images, because according to the HDR fanactic, they most closely match the way the human eye works. They have a dream-like quality to them.
I can't wait to try this next time I go hiking in the Gunks
Here's an example:
http://static.flickr.com/37/101336947_d5b94b53db.jpg?v=0
http://static.flickr.com/39/122864785_60c42b6485.jpg?v=0
http://static.flickr.com/34/72199647_ee1428cafe.jpg?v=0
Isnt that the coolest thing!?! My Canon has that feature built in and I have been using it for some technical photography. Love it!
Just Jeff
05-15-2006, 17:48
That's awesome - they almost look 3D.
Rain Man
05-15-2006, 17:57
Isnt that the coolest thing!?! My Canon has that feature built in and I have been using it for some technical photography. Love it!
Which Canon do you have with that feature?
Rain:sunMan
.
Which Canon do you have with that feature?
Rain:sunMan
.
I have 2, the Canon PowerShot Pro1 and a Canon Rebel.
betic4lyf
05-15-2006, 21:54
just a thought, but couldnt you set a film slr to bracket, say by 3 stops, on color negative film, then scan it. seems like that would give even more dynamic range.
that one with the dog, is awesome
betic4lyf
05-15-2006, 21:55
just a thought, but couldnt you set a film slr to bracket, say by 3 stops, on color negative film, then scan it. seems like that would give even more dynamic range.
that one with the dog, is awesome
and i know that elan 7n can autobracket, as my friend just got one
Emsadida
05-15-2006, 22:18
If you have Photoshop, here's a nice way to do it. I'm going to have to try this out tomorrow just to see how my little CoolPix will do...
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-cs2-hdr-32bit.html
Whistler
05-15-2006, 23:56
That's weird. It reminds of that kind of 'Lord of the Rings' polished/ vibrant/ semi-fake kind of look. Very cool, though. I love the textures.
-Mark
SGTdirtman
05-19-2006, 13:15
yea wow... a way to photoshop your pictures before they even leave the camera?
seems pointless to me
Gray Blazer
05-19-2006, 13:31
Sgt., you can do the same thing with pro seal and 100mph tape.
What an amazing tool! It looks as though any shot that would normally make me reach for a graduated neutral density filter is a candidate for HDR.
In fact, the images may almost look "too good", the way heavily PhotoShopped images sometimes do. Not that I have a problem with that, as all of my shots are run through PS and some undergo much more than just a little tweakin'.
As push-button software replaces what formerly required technical skill to acomplish, it will be the creative aspects of subject and composition that will make one's work stand out.
Rain Man
12-23-2006, 21:07
I'm just wondering if any WhiteBlazer has been using this form of "photography" and how it's best done and what the results are?
Is it what it sounds... too good to be true???
Rain:sunMan
.
bigcranky
12-23-2006, 22:04
I've used the HDR technique (the Photoshop version) on several projects. One particular image stands out in my mind: an interior shot of the chapel on our campus. The chapel has huge glass windows where each pane is tinted a slightly different color. A single photograph won't keep detail both inside the chapel and in the window panes -- if you can see the inside of the chapel, all the windows are featureless white blobs. However, a 7-exposure HDR composite will do so. (See attached file.)
I'm not sure how well this technique translates to outdoor/nature/landscape photography. Every one of the multiple exposures has to match exactly -- no moving leaves or blowing blades of grass allowed. Certainly no moving people.
-------(Warning -- there's a lot of boring stuff after this point.)
That said, it's possible to do something similar with a single shot. If you start with a RAW camera file, you can process it several times through a RAW converter, making two or three or four different versions that emphasize different tonal areas of the image. For example, you could have one conversion that holds detail in the sky, but everything on the ground is too dark. Another conversion could hold detail in the trees, but the sky blows out (is overexposed). Then you can combine these different conversions as layers in a single Photoshop file, and blend them together to make a final image.
An even simpler technique is to create some Adjustment Layers in Photoshop, then use the Layer Blending modes to darken or lighten the adjustment layer (use Multiply to darken and Screen to lighten -- it's a math thing that would take more space than we have to explain, if I could even figure it out myself.) Then blend the various adjustment layers with the background for a final image. This technique can be used on a JPEG file straight from a camera, and it's the main technique I use for general Photoshop retouching. Once you get it down, it's quick and easy, and does a great job of expanding the apparent tonal range of a digital image.
These techniques are much better explained in the Bruce Fraser book, Real World Photoshop CS2. Mr. Fraser unfortunately passed away last weekend, which is a great loss to the photographic community.
namehere
12-24-2006, 03:52
sorry if this is a hijack- sounds like the responders to this post are way more into photography than i am. here goes...
regarding the 3 shot format, if a person were to take 3 stabilized shots from any camera (i know, probably fairly difficult to accomplish with a point and shoot), and blends in later w/ ps or whatever program, almost any shot could be enhanced.
in the world of lightweight hiking, what do you gearheads use when forced to compromise by bringing a point and shoot camera? i am looking at the lumix lx2 (similair to the leica dlux 3 model). as long as i stick with shots around the 100 iso setting, is this camera (at the sub $400 price range), a good value? i just want a manual point and shoot box that has a great lense :) of course, the sigma dp1 - foveon sensor, 14 mpxel is not slated out till some time next year, and may delayed too far to consider for the short term.
Rain Man
12-24-2006, 11:20
I've used the HDR technique (the Photoshop version) on several projects. One particular image stands out in my mind: an interior shot of the chapel on our campus. The chapel has huge glass windows where each pane is tinted a slightly different color. A single photograph won't keep detail both inside the chapel and in the window panes -- if you can see the inside of the chapel, all the windows are featureless white blobs. However, a 7-exposure HDR composite will do so. (See attached file.)....
Wow... the photo you attached of the inside of the chapel is quite amazing! Good work!
Hopefully, I'm getting a tripod for Christmas and will try some HDR outdoors, just to see if it's worth the trouble. I feel it will be, but just have to experiment and learn.
Thanks for the feedback!
Rain:sunMan
.
bigcranky
12-24-2006, 11:41
Rain Man,
The tripod is definitely a good idea. I would go so far as to say it's a requirement, actually. You might try some interior shots first, before you go outside -- but I do have a couple of outdoor architectural shots that worked reasonably well.
Happy Christmas,
--Ken
StarLyte
12-24-2006, 11:51
This is a great thread.
Much needed information.
Thanks.
terrapin_too
12-24-2006, 12:05
in the world of lightweight hiking, what do you gearheads use when forced to compromise by bringing a point and shoot camera? i am looking at the lumix lx2 (similair to the leica dlux 3 model). as long as i stick with shots around the 100 iso setting, is this camera (at the sub $400 price range), a good value? i just want a manual point and shoot box that has a great lense :) of course, the sigma dp1 - foveon sensor, 14 mpxel is not slated out till some time next year, and may delayed too far to consider for the short term.
In '90 it was a Ricoh SLR. Later it was a little Olympus Stylus P&S. Later still, it was a Canon G2. For this last section, a Canon A620. The Canon has a fine lens, 3x zoom, large 1/1.8 sensor, and weighs just under 12 oz with its four AA batteries. Battery life is incredible. The A620 served me well but now I'm casting about for something lighter still, in the 4-5 ounce range. I may stick with the A620 still, because it's tried and proven.... Always looking to shed a few more oz, but not at the expense of decent photos!
I just got the Canon A710 IS... 7.1 megapixel, 9.5 ounces with 2AA's, 6x zoom, 2.5" screen, 80-800 ISO, auto or manual....
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/a710.html