 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
645 online
Server Time:
2024-04-20 03:27:15
|
|
|
 kjohnnytarr
  
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Gender: Male
Team Asbestos: CoMO
 |  |  | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 20 on 1/22/2007 10:17 PM >
|  | | | I like the original best, stamps aside.
It seemed like a good idea at the time... |
|
tron_2.0
  
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | |  | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 21 on 1/23/2007 12:12 AM >
| | | | Well, since I've never been to the arch, I cant really say what I would do if I was photographing it. I dont know what the lighting conditions are there, etc. What I was saying was that the arch (with the exception of its bases) is almost black, and since the whole point of HDR is to get the full, or close to the full dynamic range of the scene, it basically circumvents the entire point of shooting the arch for the purposes of HDR. I can understand if you really liked the reflections of the city lights on the water, and if you wanted the dynamic range of them, but I assume you wanted to get the arch too, so therefore I dont really see the point of the HDR in this circumstance.
In other words, you probably could have gotten close to, if not all of what is presented in these images through precise exposure and careful post processing rather than using HDR.
Granted, its a pretty hard scene to record, but you could have done it. Also, you could have exposed more for shadows in the arch and made separate shadows/highlights exposures accordingly. You also could have shot the scene right after sunset, or during sunset to pull more shadow detail out.
I hope thats clear enough.
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
White Rabbit
 
Women's Advocate
Location: Missouri
Gender: Male
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 22 on 1/23/2007 4:05 AM >
| | | | Posted by tron_2.0
What I was saying was that the arch (with the exception of its bases) is almost black, |
Er... I could be totally off here, but are you sure it's not your monitor? Neither one of those pictures shows the arch anywhere near black on mine. In fact, I can see the individual panels on the arch pretty much from the base to the tip.
I noticed, though, that it looks that way on my monitor at work, though, which is much darker. Monitor difference maybe?
| I can understand if you really liked the reflections of the city lights on the water, and if you wanted the dynamic range of them, but I assume you wanted to get the arch too, so therefore I dont really see the point of the HDR in this circumstance. |
Well, I tried just photoshopping a few of the individual pictures. The problem I ended up with was that I either end up with no reflection on the water, or I end up with the river front area (the orange area in front of the water) massively overexposed. I couldn't seem to get them both in there without making an HDR.
But, admittedly, I suck at Photoshop.
| Granted, its a pretty hard scene to record, but you could have done it. Also, you could have exposed more for shadows in the arch and made separate shadows/highlights exposures accordingly. |
You're gonna have to dumb that way down for me. 
You also could have shot the scene right after sunset, or during sunset to pull more shadow detail out.
|
If I lived in St. Louis or the area, I'd experiment with the Arch constantly. I just had to take what I could get while I was there, though, which was 5 a.m. on my way out of town.
Thanks for the advice, though. I appreciate it. I am far from a photography nerd, although I wish I was.
[last edit 1/23/2007 4:09 AM by White Rabbit - edited 1 times]
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 23 on 1/23/2007 8:38 PM >
| | | | ahh yeah my bad, its weird, my macbook pro seems to make shadows muddier, maybe it has something to do with my color calibration...i may have to adjust.
anywho, what i was saying was something like this:
lets say you made three exposures, the first one was the middle tonal range (i.e. correct exposure), the second was for shadows (overexposed), and the third was for highlights (underexposed).
Now, lets say this is your (hypothetical) exposure table:
First (normal) Exposure: 1/30 @iso 100, f/8.0
Second (underexposed for highlights) Exposure: 1/60 @iso 100, f/8.0
Third (overexposed for shadows) Exposure: 1/15 @iso 100, f/8.0
So, if you wanted to pull the shadows out of that exposure set, I would adjust the new exposures to get the desireable shadow detail of the arch. So the new exposure table may look like this:
First (normal) Exposure: 1/30 @iso 100, f/8.0
Second (under)exposure: 1/125 @iso 100, f/8.0
Third (over)exposure: 1/8 @iso 100, f/8.0
You probably would have to make more than three exposures to get the proper balance and tonal range out of that set, but I think it provides a decent understanding on how to pull more shadow detail out. You probably would have to change the mid tone shutter speed as well, but I'm not sure what you would have to set it to. You see, you over expose in on bracket to pull out more shadow detail, and to counterract this, you underexpose even more for highlights.
Really, its just personal discretion on how much you should expose and the amount of exposures bracketed. Its important that you carefully examine the scene and understand where the lowest values (in terms of color and intensity) as well as the highest values. The zone system uses a similar concept (finding highest, lowest and middle values and giving them names [zones].)
Anywho, my mistake due to my computers calibration, but I still feel that a lot of HDR used these days could be accomplished by using the zone system (there are always exceptions).
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
White Rabbit
Women's Advocate
Location: Missouri
Gender: Male
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 24 on 1/23/2007 8:52 PM >
| | | | Well, I used four pictures total to make the HDR. The highest exposure was 30" at f8.0 at ISO 64. My camera doesn't go any higher than 30". Then each photo went down one full EV step.
So, if my shadows picture is already at my camera's limit, what could I do to bring out the shadows in the HDR more than that, other than turning up the ISO to like 100 or 200? Like, separate my pictures by 2 EV steps instead of 1 and only take 3 or something?
(Also, can you use an odd number of photos to make an HDR, or do you have to have one "normal" shot? That occurred to me when I was making this one.)
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 25 on 1/23/2007 10:52 PM >
| | | | I would try shooting at iso 100, or 200 if youre willing to put up with the grain. Other than that, there isnt much you can do besides wait for better lighting conditions.
[last edit 1/23/2007 10:53 PM by tron_2.0 - edited 1 times]
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
Air
   
Location: Canada
| | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 26 on 1/25/2007 6:18 AM >
| | | | Posted by White Rabbit
I made a new version that I think looks better (and no more Photomatix stamps).
 |
The wierd thing is I had this crusty zenitar fish-eye and it always made my night stuff look like that. I'll try to post it. The color was always oversaturated red, and soft.
The lens was dropped and re-assembled. And acted funny since then.
So I'm not dissing your photo, but there might be something $#%^ about your lens. Try some long exposures out under different conditions to check.
[last edit 1/25/2007 6:20 AM by Air - edited 1 times]
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
White Rabbit
Women's Advocate
Location: Missouri
Gender: Male
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 27 on 1/25/2007 2:21 PM >
| | | | Posted by Air 33
The wierd thing is I had this crusty zenitar fish-eye and it always made my night stuff look like that. I'll try to post it. The color was always oversaturated red, and soft.
|
Yeah, the originals aren't nearly as saturated as that. I think the HDR process makes it a lot worse. I also think I probably should've played with the white balance before I took the pictures.
But, the whole landscape actually did have a pretty red tint to it that morning. Just not quite as bright as it is in the picture.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 28 on 1/25/2007 7:39 PM >
| | | | It would be redundant to play with the white balance before shooting the photo if youre shooting in RAW. You can change all of that junk in photoshop before and after HDR.
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
White Rabbit
Women's Advocate
Location: Missouri
Gender: Male
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 29 on 1/25/2007 7:57 PM >
| | | | Posted by tron_2.0
It would be redundant to play with the white balance before shooting the photo if youre shooting in RAW. You can change all of that junk in photoshop before and after HDR.
|
I haven't been doing RAW (although I probably should for better results).
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
|
Air
Location: Canada
| | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 30 on 1/25/2007 9:48 PM >
| | | | Posted by White Rabbit
I haven't been doing RAW (although I probably should for better results).
|
Do try it, u can snatch a raw converted online for free I bet (or try bittorrent). It makes for a great improvement. Also dont forget to desaturate the photo after the photomatix and play with the color levels and curves.
That way you could remove the red (which always seems to be the problem in HDR).
Bsidez has a group on flickr which has some very helpful instructions :
http://www.flickr.com/groups/qualityhdr/
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
White Rabbit
Women's Advocate
Location: Missouri
Gender: Male
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 31 on 1/25/2007 10:02 PM >
| | | | Yeah, I've been meaning to start playing around with RAW images. Honestly, I've just never done it and I was loathe to dive into (yet again) something new
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
|
UrbanExGirl27
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Gender: Female
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 32 on 2/1/2007 1:18 AM >
| | | | crazy reflection, but try and find a way to get the stamp in just one corner because it cheapens the picture and makes it look tacky and draws your attention away from the skyline.
-Zvati- |
|
White Rabbit
Women's Advocate
Location: Missouri
Gender: Male
| | | Re: St. Louis Arch HDR
<Reply # 33 on 2/1/2007 1:55 AM >
| | | | Posted by UrbanExGirl27
crazy reflection, but try and find a way to get the stamp in just one corner because it cheapens the picture and makes it look tacky and draws your attention away from the skyline.
|
? The Photomatix stamp?
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 94 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 738563517 pages have been generated.
|
|
