43 replies to this topic

[RetroRacer21]

Gibbo

I dont like it sorry (I guess, its what happens when I work with photographs everyday)
the closest on this thread to a HDR image is from wooly123 friend.

I think people get confused to what actually is a HDR image.
I think you worked over your image though too much Gibbo. sorry. (dont take it the wrong way)

try it in B&W also.
but could use a better location. for it.

[Gibbo]

Wow some people love to pigeon hole stuff.

I don't take offence at all, I just love to argue.


The C**p location, and as I said actually a rubbish photo is because I spedn my life working or writing my thesis so the only photo I can take is outside my house, or in my work car park.

I overworked the photo because it was a C**p image and I liked the look it gave overworked more than the look it gave realistically, because it was a C**p photo.

why is it though that its not HDR if it doesn't look too real? Fine then, its not HDR, I still like it and HDR techniques were used to create it.

No offence taken at all, but i'm not going down without a fight!

Hopefully one day soon I can actually find the time to take some real photos.

[Black.Ghost]

Well I like it. And its good to see what mine will look like when I put my overriders on! I have chrome covers over those arches though. At least at the moment.

Edited by TneMini, 09 March 2008 - 10:27 AM.

[Adcuz]

Gibbo

I dont like it sorry (I guess, its what happens when I work with photographs everyday)
the closest on this thread to a HDR image is from wooly123 friend.

I think people get confused to what actually is a HDR image.
I think you worked over your image though too much Gibbo. sorry. (dont take it the wrong way)

try it in B&W also.
but could use a better location. for it.

I don't think people get confused about it at all, the first image in this thread IS an HDR (Any image with an increased high dynamic range is an HDR, there is no doubt about it... that is what HDR stands for.) and has correctly been named as one.

the closest on this thread to a HDR image is from wooly123 friend.

Going to have to disagree with you there, the image posted by Gibbo is an HDR, none of them can be closest if they are all one. If you meant the one posted by wooly123 is the more well executed HDR then I will agree with you. You can't say a bad HDR is not one... because it is.

Edited by Adcuz, 09 March 2008 - 01:14 AM.

[robson]

if i provide you with some images, fancy doing one for me?

[Adcuz]

NOT HDR


IS HDR


As you can see, anything that would of been a shadow is now well illuminated, as you would see it with the human eye. Obviously the colors will be different, but the lightness is closer than what it would of been if it was a single exposure.

I better stop rattling on.. nobody cares anyway.

Edited by Adcuz, 09 March 2008 - 01:23 AM.

[RetroRacer21]

I don't think people get confused about it at all, the first image in this thread IS an HDR (Any image with an increased high dynamic range is an HDR, there is no doubt about it... that is what HDR stands for.) and has correctly been named as one.

Going to have to disagree with you there, the image posted by Gibbo is an HDR, none of them can be closest if they are all one. If you meant the one posted by wooly123 is the more well executed HDR then I will agree with you. You can't say a bad HDR is not one... because it is.

The first image might have the basic understanding of how a HDR image works.
but I know its not a High Dynamic Range.

both the under exposure and over exposure need to be more.
to create a better contrast and balance between them.

then over working on the image after and adding a paint effect. clearly does not show what an HDR image can do.


wooly123's image is... why?

because of the High Dynamic Range that has been processed in the image.
it has a better Tone and contrast values between the set of 3 images that was used.


I'll find some examples later if you wish of true HDR images.

And I think people yes... still get confused over that an actual HDR image is.
just because you took 3 exposures all different, and put them together.

doesnt mean its a HDR image if you dont know how to put it together. (sorry if it sounds harsh)

I could explain all day, but again... I'm no expert.
but its a good start on the images. anyhow

and Gibbo...

your right about the photo.. being in a C**p location.

and you said yourself...

I overworked the photo because it was a C**p image and I liked the look it gave overworked more than the look it gave realistically

for a realistic HDR image to work... it cant be overworked on. (and added paint effects)

hope my post doesnt sound nasty
I'm just trying to explain that HDR is over rated alot.

can I ask what camera, lens, and program you used to create the image?

[RetroRacer21]

NOT HDR


IS HDR


As you can see, anything that would of been a shadow is now well illuminated, as you would see it with the human eye. Obviously the colors will be different, but the lightness is closer than what it would of been if it was a single exposure.

I better stop rattling on.. nobody cares anyway.

I have to still say...
that isnt a HDR image there either.

I could create the exact same picture below just using a single exposure (like the first image) just in photoshop.
not even needing to create 3 exposures...

unless you want to argue your point
can you post the 3 images you used to create it?

[Gibbo]

both the under exposure and over exposure need to be more.
to create a better contrast and balance between them.

can I ask what camera, lens, and program you used to create the image?

I know the images aren't exposed enough either way, I used AEB to take those three +- 1 ev, I did take more images at further exposures by manual means but because i'd just run outside quickly to do it one was blurry and the other didn't align properly. Once I sort my tripod out it'll be easier, and I have the time to go somewhere that isn't just out on the street.

I used a panasonic dmc fz50 by the way, standard leica lens.

and used photomatix for the "HDR" part.


just for the record please don't judge my photography skills on the lack of merit of this one or three photos.

some more HDR images for people to look at.

edit; not my images though.

Edited by Gibbo, 09 March 2008 - 10:33 AM.

[Gibbo]

if i provide you with some images, fancy doing one for me?

I can put my unskilled hands to it if you want.

As said though, ideally the images need to be fairly different in exposure, +- 2ev.

[RetroRacer21]

I know the images aren't exposed enough either way, I used AEB to take those three +- 1 ev, I did take more images at further exposures by manual means but because i'd just run outside quickly to do it one was blurry and the other didn't align properly. Once I sort my tripod out it'll be easier, and I have the time to go somewhere that isn't just out on the street.

I used a panasonic dmc fz50 by the way, standard leica lens.

and used photomatix for the "HDR" part.


just for the record please don't judge my photography skills on the lack of merit of this one or three photos.

some more HDR images.

Never once did I judge you
All I said, it wasnt I true HDR image.

the link you just gave me... proved that. some great HDR images on that link.

You'd benifit more if you was shooting Raw with a DSLR for HDR images, for greater control over your shoots.

but yea.
please dont take offence.

I'm only offering advice (even if you dont want to hear it)

should take a few more today. (sunny outside at the moment)

[Gibbo]

I would love a DSLR, couldn't justify the cost though. The panasonic is a comparable camera though to a lot of low end DSLR's to be honest.

I also have a 1970's olympus Om1, obviously not digital, but by far the best camera i've ever used. I love it, and it gets some amazing photo's. There is no way to take a photo with it unless you take a few minutes setting it up properly.

The photo's in that link aren't mine by the way. Just in case anyone accidentally thinks that. Just a representation I found for people who were wondering about the HDR debate.

unfortunately can't take any today, I get a day off work, and I'm going to the lane

[RetroRacer21]

I would love a DSLR, couldn't justify the cost though. The panasonic is a comparable camera though to a lot of low end DSLR's to be honest.

I also have a 1970's olympus Om1, obviously not digital, but by far the best camera i've ever used. I love it, and it gets some amazing photo's. There is no way to take a photo with it unless you take a few minutes setting it up properly.

The photo's in that link aren't mine by the way. Just in case anyone accidentally thinks that. Just a representation I found for people who were wondering about the HDR debate.

unfortunately can't take any today, I get a day off work, and I'm going to the lane

yea Om1 are pretty good.
Ive seen them in action.

old SLR's work just as well, but you never know what your getting, till its processed.

yea.
those links I knew you didnt do, as the camera's used aswell as the lenses are way different

but yep.
thats what HDR images at its best are

[Gibbo]

old SLR's work just as well, but you never know what your getting, till its processed.

First time I used it, went through 3 rolls of film on holiday touring ireland, took them to be developed half way through the holiday and realised that there was a fault in the camera and nothing had exposed at all. film was catching and tearing.

fixed now, but 120 photos i'll never see.

[Adcuz]

I have to still say...
that isnt a HDR image there either.

That's like walking up to a mini and saying, that's not a mini!
Sorry but for a professional you are quite ill-informed. I don't want to argue with you but the image I posted IS an HDR, just because you don't think it looks like one doesn't mean it isn't because IT IS!!!!!!!! Ever heard of subtle?

Edited by Adcuz, 09 March 2008 - 11:04 AM.