43 replies to this topic

[RetroRacer21]

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?

Yes... I'm
lets just leave it at that.

no point argueing when we all have different minds what is and what isnt.
sorry.

but you can clearly see from the Link Gibbo gave.
they are HDR images.

just because you put 3 different images together, does not mean it is.

[robson]

what resolution of picture or does it not matter? do you want -2, 0 and +2 or any more in between also? Thanks

[Adcuz]

but you can clearly see from the Link Gibbo gave.
they are HDR images.

Yep they are, and so are the rest in this thread, just because some are subtle... that does not mean they are not an HDR. The ones in the link are extreme examples. Nice though!

just because you put 3 different images together, does not mean it is.

If it illuminates areas that would of been dark, then it is. No matter how well or badly executed the technique is.


HDR does not always mean extreme, it could just be slightly increased dynamic range.. like the recent range of EOS cameras brought out in 2007 (1d mkiii) can do inside the camera.

Edited by Adcuz, 09 March 2008 - 11:46 AM.

[RetroRacer21]

If it illuminates areas that would of been dark, then it is. No matter how well or badly executed the technique is.

no.
anyone can create a image that is dark and make it lighter. (this isnt HDR)

go research how HDR works.

just because you "illuminate" and area that would have been dark.
does not define it as a High Dynamic Range image.

and like I said, you can so easly do this just with a single exposure.
you could even create a HDR from a single exposure in Raw, but again... still not going to be true.

I could argue with you all day if you wish....

but at the end of the day, argueing on a forum... is pointless.
and I'm trying to tidy my room to make way for my new TV

plus... I'd think Gibbo would rather stick on topic.
then us two get our handbags out

[Adcuz]

No.

[paulrockliffe]

I don't want to start a war or anything, but I've been meaning to have a play with HDR for ages. I don't really know anything about it, I just took 3 shots of Jason 2 EV apart and then played around with Photomatix. I don't think the image really lends itself to HDR because it has a fairly shallow depth of shot (correct me if I'm wrong!), so I've just been playing around with settings to try and see what does what.

I haven't tried to make the shot look more realistic, I'm just trying to make a picture that I think looks good. I'm sure you could create the same image from one exposure in photoshop, but I like to find out about new stuff and I'm sure I can use the technique in a more orthodox fashion in the future. Anyway, hope you like:

[Ethel]

You ought to have a go with image stitching software too. So you not only optimise the exposure across the image but also the focus.

[paulrockliffe]

You ought to have a go with image stitching software too. So you not only optimise the exposure across the image but also the focus.

I just got a free download off the net, I actually had to alt+printscreen to get the image out of the software. How does image stitching afect the focus? I focussed the camera then locked it so it didnt' change between shots.

[Adcuz]

IMAGE

That's a nice minus!!

[Adcuz]

You ought to have a go with image stitching software too. So you not only optimise the exposure across the image but also the focus.

I just got a free download off the net, I actually had to alt+printscreen to get the image out of the software. How does image stitching afect the focus? I focussed the camera then locked it so it didnt' change between shots.

I think it's something to do with focus stacking, when doing macro stuff you can make the depth of field bigger.

[Ethel]

Using your minus: the grill is nice and sharp but the door handle is a little blurred and the bushes in the back ground are well out of focus - unavoidable with the the lens focused on the front of the car. If the picture was a composite of, say, eight photos each one could be focused at optimum distance resulting a very sharp image that looks almost 3D. You can end up with huge numbers of pixels but even reduced the images are impressive.

There are some good panorama views on the web. I've only done landscape photos, but shots like that gate with a strong foreground and background composition would look good.

[Adcuz]

Here's another HDR I did.

[roofless]

Here's another HDR I did.

that works better as an image as it has a clear focal point and mood. most of the hdr images I've seen look terrible and you wonder why they bothered.

I understand and value the use of Hdr, but it should used as PART of the composition of an image, dont just do the HDR - try and make the image more interesting.

[nurseholliday]

As far as the argument goes I'd have to agree with Adcuz.