Love this photo

stunning shots there the13thduke, especially the B&W. one question, did you convert it to B&W after the HDr process or before?

My first attempt was this from a 5 shot of the River Dee. It was very bright so needed the long range of 5 shots.

Ive since been trying to keep with the natural look on HDR's

Love the last one of those, looks like long exposure and HDR?

To answer your question I do HDR first, then convert to monochrome. Never actually tried it the other way but I'd have thought it was easier to get the overall tonality of the image correct in colour first?

Couple more mono examples:

and if you're going to over-egg the HDR pudding, why not on a Skoda?

LOVE this thread!

Those are all superb, the ones submitted today

Yet another thing I need to try out - this HDR malarky!

Cheers,

Steve

I use Photoshop to create the 3 images (under, normal and over exposure) then use everyone's favourite - Photomatix, to create the actual HDR image.

Do you take 3 seperate photos or do you use the cameras ability to take 3 at same time, I can't recall the name of it, its possible to set the level of under/over exposure.

Photomatix is a hell of a lot better!

Is that free software?

3 separate photos Gaff, with different exposure settings.

PhotoMatrix is $99. There's a trail available and this doesn't expire, but does apply a watermark. More info @ HDR photo software & plugin - Tone Mapping, Exposure Blending & HDR Imaging for photography

Steve

Love the last one of those, looks like long exposure and HDR?

thanks and yup, last shot was about 8 seconds and photomatix picked up the blur in the sea.

I use Photoshop to create the 3 images (under' date=' normal and over exposure) then use everyone's favourite - Photomatix, to create the actual HDR image.

Do you take 3 seperate photos or do you use the cameras ability to take 3 at same time, I can't recall the name of it, its possible to set the level of under/over exposure.

I think Harry was talking here about creating a HDR from one shot. Ive not tried it with photoshop as I usually do this method with lightroom by exporting 3 images with exposure set to -2, 0 and +2. This will give you no alignment errors as the image is always the same but some forums call it something else as its not strictly a true HDR.

Gaff, the thing youre talking about with the 3 images in camera is using exposure compensation, ie my canon can be set to take images at 0, -2 and +2 (or anything you decide in 1/3rd increments). You can point and squeeze the shutter for three exposures and it will do the compensation automatically without you having to change the settings between pictures. Of course its better on a tripod but can be done handheld if youre steady enough.

Thanks to the13thdukes tip ive processed this handheld three shot HDR tonight then converted to B&W witha bit of levels. Might go and try it on a few others now

Padeswood Cement Kiln

Wow, awesome pictures in this thread:eek:

Very inspiring. Nice work:thumbup:

If I had a hat I would take it off, those pics are stunning!

Some of them are great. I hope nobody takes offence at my opinion, that the ones with the Skodas in, could mainly do without. Much as we all love our Skodas, landscape they ain't.

Sworrall's second and third look like the kind of stuff that used to adorn the National Geographic cover - and that's a compliment

Not had a chance to have a go at 'proper' HDR shots as yet but found a tutorial on the web that gives a guide to how to create a similar style with one image in Photoshop CS3..... These are my 'fake' HDR shots.

As i say nowhere near as good but a similar effect.

Cheers

Dave.

Edited 31 August, 200817 yr by WaveyDavey

I thought you usually blank your plates out Dave?

Good shots though. Is that second one Chatsworth?

Steve

I thought you usually blank your plates out Dave?

Good shots though. Is that second one Chatsworth?

Steve

Oops those slipped through!!!!!

Yeah first and second shots are Chatsworth.

Cheers

Dave.

We're getting some good ones now! I totally agree with a lot of them looking 'over HDR's' and 'cartoony' MUCH prefer the subtlty. Thats what I tend to go for with mine. The one of my car was just playing with luminosity, I like my beach one much better.

The13thduke - love your first one, and sworrall, your last one!

All these photos are amazing! How long you guy been going photograpic?

I got to buy my SLR:)

Nice pics, everyone... especially as a lot of those are first attempts. Bravo!

I have no idea what HDR is but...

From what I can tell it's a version of photo-stitching... which in turn is a variation of what people used to do in traditional darkrooms with sky shots.

Hardcore darkroomers of old used to have libraries of "sky shots" and then used these shots to add depth to photographs where the sky had over-exposed - film can (generally) only see around three stops of exposure. The final print is made up by using the sky negative and the original negative together.

Am I close to the point here?

That's more compositing. HDR attempts to capture a 'high dynamic range' using three or more source frames of the same image; one over exposed, one correctly exposed and one under exposed. They are then merged in a way to keep full shadow, mid-range and hilight detail which would be impossible to capture in a standard exposure due to technology limitations with high contrast subjects.

One more, taken this week and entered for a friendly photocomp elsewhere.

First I used the Pentax K10D's ace multi-exposure mode to stack/blend 5 separate shots (in camera!) at three different exposure settings, then took the resulting three images to combine as HDR. A little more 'unreal' than my usual efforts but I like it...

...which would be impossible to capture in a standard exposure due to technology limitations with high contrast subjects.

That's kind of what I meant. Modern terms, bracketing the exposure and combining in the (digital) darkroom.

Or have I missed the point again? :confused:

:P

Kind of. But in your example, you'd be using the actual sky from the scene rather than a library shot.

It's not a new technique by any means. In digital terms an 8bit JPEG file will allow you 256 tones for each channel (Red Green and Blue), a RAW file will likely be 12 or 14bit (4096/ 16384 tones) a 'true' HDR image will contain around 4.2 billion tones (32bit) per channel

The problem arises in that a normal display device (ie monitor) cannot display all those tones properly. So you need to 'tone map' the image, which is where it can become cartoony or surreal.

HDR and compositing mainly differ in that you are combining all the image information, not just combining parts of a picture. So an under exposed sky instead of an over exposed sky is different to the combination of both of them then tone mapped to fit the average exposure.

I think it's still possible with traditional darkroom techniques, but a lot harder?