|
|
|
|
joe
May 26, 2007, 4:51 PM
Post #1 of 18
(5662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
Who here is experimenting with tone mapping and/or HDR photography? It seems like climbing photography would be tough since you pretty much have to use a tripod, but bouldering photos would be a good way to experiment with HDR. I'm on a linux box, editing with the GIMP so no 16-bit for me but there's a new thingy called Qtpfsgui (who what now?) that I'd like to start playing with. (One day, when I grow up, I'll be a proper photograph person and get a Mac and Photoshop but until then, it's the penguin for my broke-ass.)
Most of the HDR photos I see suffer from "overdoing it" and look really gawdy and fake, but you run across one every once in a while that looks great. There's a bouldering area I really want to shoot a lot of this summer and it's really tricky to get good lighting due to its orientation so tone-mapping might be the ticket, since I'm not really into the remote-flash trend that you see more and more of.
Here's the wiki, if you're wondering what I'm babbling about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ynamic_range_imaging
Sorry if this topic has been covered before.
(This post was edited by joe on May 26, 2007, 4:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
May 27, 2007, 12:14 AM
Post #2 of 18
(5636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I mess with HDR. For the most part i'm not into the real extreme tone mapping.out of thousands of final images on my hard drive only about 20 are HDR/tone mapped. i've really only seen about 100 shots that weren't my own that I loved in HDR. Most are horrible but thats personal tast because some that I thinkare horrible others (and many others) love. I tend to prefer it be used in softer light. Night shots, indoors (slow shutter speeds and soft light), and twilight work best to my eye. Oh, thats what works best for non HDR to 
The problem is i think people start taking photos of anything with the idea it will look great in HDR. You still need a subject of interest. It's like using Velvia because its punchy but there is nothing of interest other then the colors.
I posted a HDR shot of the tulip fest in the non climbing photos. I HDR'd it from the get go since I was photographing in early afternoon light and I figured it might be salvageable. Turned out ok. Not a personal favorite. I also posted a shot of the foliage at sunset early in the thread. That was a favorite, but the software I used didn't correctly line the images so the leaves looked a little pastel-ly, turned out to be nice affect.
As far as climbing, you can tone map with a single RAW file. It works and sometimes the results look better then a multifile, especially if your going for the real but larger DR look. At least thats been my results.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jun 27, 2007, 4:50 AM
Post #3 of 18
(5375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
I find a good way to get high dynamic range is to shoot several shots of the subject, exposing for the different intensities of light with each shot, and stitch em together in Photoshop.
This Panorama of the Whitney Crest has 15 images shot with 28 mm equiv lens. 5 across the top, 5 across the middle, and 5 along the bottom.
peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jun 27, 2007, 11:26 PM
Post #4 of 18
(5319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
karlbaba wrote: I find a good way to get high dynamic range is to shoot several shots of the subject, exposing for the different intensities of light with each shot, and stitch em together in Photoshop. This Panorama of the Whitney Crest has 15 images shot with 28 mm equiv lens. 5 across the top, 5 across the middle, and 5 along the bottom. [image]http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/2549/whitneystoneandice4webfs8.jpg[/image] peace Karl
Nice! I tend to take a similar tack - though mostly with single-line panoramas, rather than mosaics. This one's a fairly recent one of the Coogee Bay Baths in Sydney at twilight. From memory, exposures ranged from around 1/20th for the lights, to over a second for the walls on either side.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jun 28, 2007, 12:48 AM
Post #5 of 18
(5286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Sweet. It's great to be able to shoot any vista that inspires us rather than be limited by the scope of our gear.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jun 28, 2007, 10:37 AM
Post #6 of 18
(5255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I have been reading up up on HDR but I haven't used the technic yet. I do plan on playing with it in the future. YOu two picture have inspired me to get moving on it.
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Jun 28, 2007, 2:11 PM
Post #7 of 18
(5216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Very cool photo Karlbaba! It's amazing how the differences in exposure between the various frames are not evident.
Off topic: I enjoyed reading your trip reports. What is the radio that you refer to in your East Butress of Middle Cathedral trip report?
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 28, 2007, 7:37 PM
Post #8 of 18
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In the 'overdoing it' category i think you can break it down to two generaly offenses:
1) running images through an HDR process that don't actually have a high density range. If you just want to increase colour saturation then do just that.
2) pushing the software/ process to extremes where you get surreal, acid trip colours and white glowing borders around everything... it's easy to lose perspective and want to make things 'pop' more and more, but even if the line between quality and absurdity is a little hazy and subjective, it's still there and can definitely be crossed.
I've only played a little bit with HDR. As you can see from these results I have had no overwhelming successes (although i am fond of a couple). I probably could have done better if I had made more of a conscientious effort to get the captures I needed instead of running bracketed exposures through Photomatix as an after-thought.
in regards to applying it to climbing photography... I don't generally se a reason to. As was already mentioned, you can tone map from a single RAW file since digital sensors can actually capture a broader EV range than will be visible in the output file, but I'm hard pressed to think of a lot of scenarios where you'd need this. i can think of some, but in most of these cases I can think of a better solution pre and/ or post capture.
For the bouldering area you're talking about, what is the general lighting situation/ problem?
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Jun 28, 2007, 7:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
stevenosloan
Jun 28, 2007, 8:53 PM
Post #9 of 18
(5157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2006
Posts: 16
|
I used to use HDR almost exclusively, but that was back when I was shooting waterfalls. I ended up 'tone-mapping' it myself just letting the HDR process if photoshop shoot out a super low contrast photo and then selectively layer unsharp masks with curves layers. Its also great for long high-ISO exposures as it really reduces noise.
As you can see with this one though, if stuff like branches move you run into huge problems
a little OT, but @ Kriso...how do you like your lensbaby?
@ Joe, its going to be difficult to use HDR for bouldering [or any climbing really] as there are major parts of the image that is going to be moving [the climber]. It may be better to take to shots [one for the blown out part, the second for the dark part] and manually merge them....maybe shooting with a big softbox could help make flash photography be more pleasing to you.
peace,
Steven
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 28, 2007, 9:25 PM
Post #10 of 18
(5142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
The lensbaby is a lot of fun, but it's not something I pull out all that often. I'll use it when i have something specific in mind, and you can get pretty solid control with the locking system on the 3G, but I have a hard time sticking it on my camera without anything specific in mind.
If you just shoot randomly, it is a cool effect, but an effect, nonetheless, that can only be used so much (like fish eye... i hate looking through fifty consecutive fish eye photos from somebody that can't get enough of it).
I tend to stick with the higher aperture rings for a less dramatic effect, but it will work fairly well to get a selective plane of focus if you crop in a bit, or just for a soft border (wedding portait-isg feel).
|
|
|
|
|
bigfatrock
Jun 28, 2007, 9:43 PM
Post #11 of 18
(5125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2006
Posts: 1321
|
How are you "stitching" them in Photoshop? Are you layering the photos then just cutting certain areas out with the marque tool? How are you getting your transitions from the different sections to be smooth?
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jun 29, 2007, 3:00 AM
Post #12 of 18
(5081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Replying to some questions"
The only radios I use are regular FRS family band radios. It's amazing how far they can communicate if you have a real line-of-sight.
As for photoshop, I use the automate-photomerge and always save the results as layers. Then I let the situation and image dictate how I merge, erase, and adjust.
For the Whitney picture (EPIC!) I did 5 preliminary images, stitching the bottom, Middle, and top of each segment, then stitched the 5 images together in the end.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
stevenosloan
Jun 29, 2007, 5:27 AM
Post #13 of 18
(5056 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2006
Posts: 16
|
I stacked 'em using the 'merge to HDR' in photoshop. usually saving in layers to tweek the merging
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 29, 2007, 7:14 AM
Post #14 of 18
(5037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
<a title="Take Me Out To The Ball Game - "The Joe" - Joeseph L. Bruno Stadium" href="http://flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/657163334" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1207/657163334_261261e45b_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>
Three image pano HDR. I messed up, shooting in manual I forgot to change the ISO to 100-400 and shot this in 1600 (which is what I was shooting the game in). Noise was horrible, not as though I can't/won't retake it. Missed the sunset anyhow.
And while this pano wasn't true HDR, I used the same technique blondgecko used. Actually this was the first time i shot a pano using different exposure times. Usually, the goal is to keep everything homogeneous when shooting stiched images, but the difference in lighting in the corners and mid rink (both seats and rinK) was so bad I had no choice, worked out quite well. for a spur of the moment shot using a garbage can as a tripod.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jun 29, 2007, 7:41 AM
Post #15 of 18
(5031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
pico23 wrote: Usually, the goal is to keep everything homogeneous when shooting stiched images, but...
I used to do it that way, but almost never anymore, unless the lighting is utterly homogeneous. These days I mostly just leave it in aperture priority, snap away and adjust the lighting to taste afterwards. A rule of thumb I find useful is to increase the amount of overlap between adjacent images as the gradient in lighting increases - in some extreme cases, I'll overlap as much as 80%.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 29, 2007, 3:48 PM
Post #16 of 18
(4997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Good tip to know about increasing overlap. I sort of did that unintentionally with the ball park and it worked in that the players didn't show up twice or ghost. I noticed that last night.
I had been overlapping less and less like 15% of late becaue I found my results were better and, well, less work for me stitching. Arcsoft Pano maker always needs a fine tune for some reason on a few frames.
you shoot in a lot more bad light than I try to shoot in (and your photos look good) so I'll definitely have to try your method when shooting daylight panos in contrasty light.
blondgecko wrote: pico23 wrote: Usually, the goal is to keep everything homogeneous when shooting stiched images, but... I used to do it that way, but almost never anymore, unless the lighting is utterly homogeneous. These days I mostly just leave it in aperture priority, snap away and adjust the lighting to taste afterwards. A rule of thumb I find useful is to increase the amount of overlap between adjacent images as the gradient in lighting increases - in some extreme cases, I'll overlap as much as 80%. |
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jun 29, 2007, 8:51 PM
Post #17 of 18
(4970 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I usually stitch my panos using http://www.panoramafactory.com/, mainly because it has a few features that make it extremely tolerant of things like parallax error, small movements and big changes in lighting. Basically, as well as correcting for lens distortion, it also creates a correction matrix by comparing and adjusting the overlay of small segments of the overlap region. Finally, it gradually blends the images over the entire width of the overlap (or any fraction thereof), and outputs the lot to a layered photoshop file. This means you can make any changes in brightness as abrupt or as gradual as you like. Also, any problems with moving objects can be easily repaired by erasing them from one of the two layers in Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
|
crimping_bum
Nov 30, 2007, 9:55 PM
Post #18 of 18
(4221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2005
Posts: 30
|
You can create a High Dynamic Range image from a single RAW file.
first, you open the RAW file in a program that will allow you to manipulate the image's exposure.
Save anywhere from 3-9 different exposures at even intervals to a folder on your computer.
(when you save the images try to exclude as much metadata as possible, it will interfere with the programs ability to accurately generate the HDR file)
Then, use those differently exposed images (Which are of course the exact same image) to create your HDR
From here you can tone map it or do anything you like. There will be no blur or ghosting at all if you do it correctly.
I have made several HDR's using this technique and it allows me to create an HDR from any single image. It is no different from taking a normal image, I don't always need a tripod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
