Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Fullerton HDR

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Opposition Stronghold
    Posts
    69

    Default Fullerton HDR

    Hi Bros & Sis!

    This is my first take on HDR.
    Shot on 7th June.
    Handheld shots at EV +/- 1 stop each.
    The sky is overcast that day so I'm generally bringing attention to the building's details.
    Mapped by Photomatix.
    I felt lost... Please be harsh & enlighten me so I can improve.
    Advanced Thanks!

    --edit start--


    Larger Version Here
    --edit end--
    Last edited by SheepYeo; 8th June 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Placed a link to a larger version.
    SE K770i, Nikon D80 Kit 18-135mm, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, Sigma 28-300mm :sweat:

  2. #2

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Eeeehh.... It's too washed out. You lost the color saturation.
    Alpha

  3. #3

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    no details in the sky. cropped too tight and building looks like it's falling over.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    新加坡
    Posts
    1,811

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    hello! you may wanna try doing another HDR again hehehe!
    becos... the skies r way blown (understand that we can't control the weather)

    so you have to take note of that! 1 of the reason for HDR is to keep both shadow and highlight in their prime state. (rich colors skies + exposed buildings will help you produce a very stunning image!)

    anyway, good try on the hdr here!
    Last edited by y0ngcheng; 8th June 2008 at 02:41 PM.

  5. #5

    Talking Re: Fullerton HDR

    Erm to me HDR is more on skies and natural landscape. In this picture, the hdr is not at all flattering to the subject. To a certain extent its abit desaturated...... would have been better if there is more sky...

    Final note: i still prefer more skies!!!!!

  6. #6

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Guess the problem is because it was a cloudy day and there wasn't any blue skies? But like what y0ngcheng said, there's nothing you could do about the weather.

  7. #7
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    1) sky is washed out.

    2) the fullerton looks so dam dirty!
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    you may wanna do more exposure rather then just a +- 1 EV.

    play around with the setting in the photomatix such as colour sat and even the smoothing. Is ur monitor calibrated?
    P&S: Sony U20, Pana-leica FZ5, Canon S90, Pana DMC-T3
    SLR: Nikkor F60, Oly E-510, Oly E-5

  9. #9
    Member emlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,761

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    despite all the negative comments, i do feel you brought in a lot of details on the building. I thought that part was very well done.
    the sky is a given.
    on HDR, if you didn't have dramatic lighting, usually you can't really make full use of the technique.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    HDR can improve dull lighting situations (see here for example).

    Ihe key in all HDR is the metering. In ur pic the sky is overexposed, or more precisely you did not capture correctly exposed data for the sky.

    to meter for a HDR capture, you need to meter the shadows - use spot metering - which in this case would be shadows in the building, and the highlights, and then calculate how many stops and EV intervals you need to properly and fully capture all the data for HDR processing.

    for example, if shadows are 1/10 and highlights are 1/250, at some constant f#, then the dynamic range of the scene is about 4+ stops. You can then either do a 5 stop or 3 stop capture at +/-1EV or +/-2EV respectively centered on 1/40 or 1/30.

    Generally it is better to overexpose for the shadows to minimise the noise when you do the HDR processing. under exposure of highlights are less of a problem.

    In this pic I do not know what was the centre point and why you decided on +/- 1EV for its capture, but apparently the data is not good enough to process a good sky.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Opposition Stronghold
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Thanks everyone for your outermost sincere comments and critiques.

    Quote Originally Posted by changster View Post
    no details in the sky. cropped too tight and building looks like it's falling over.
    It's a bad weather day that's why I tightly cropped the compo. Didn't want too much of the skies in it since there's not much tonal differences. As for "falling over" part please enlighten me.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanonS3IS View Post
    Erm to me HDR is more on skies and natural landscape. In this picture, the hdr is not at all flattering to the subject. To a certain extent its abit desaturated...... would have been better if there is more sky...
    Final note: i still prefer more skies!!!!!
    In my understanding, (Correct Me If I'm Wrong) HDRs are not used to flatter the subject but to bring out details of the subject. I didn't want to pour in too much saturation because I didn't want to exaggerate the HDR, prefer to make it look natural with details of the building. I guess its personal preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by viewwing View Post
    you may wanna do more exposure rather then just a +- 1 EV.

    play around with the setting in the photomatix such as colour sat and even the smoothing. Is ur monitor calibrated?
    Yeah! Agree. Will redo the shot again in favorable conditions. Didn't want to make the overcast clouds as a excuse either

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    HDR can improve dull lighting situations (see here for example).

    Ihe key in all HDR is the metering. In ur pic the sky is overexposed, or more precisely you did not capture correctly exposed data for the sky.

    to meter for a HDR capture, you need to meter the shadows - use spot metering - which in this case would be shadows in the building, and the highlights, and then calculate how many stops and EV intervals you need to properly and fully capture all the data for HDR processing.

    for example, if shadows are 1/10 and highlights are 1/250, at some constant f#, then the dynamic range of the scene is about 4+ stops. You can then either do a 5 stop or 3 stop capture at +/-1EV or +/-2EV respectively centered on 1/40 or 1/30.

    Generally it is better to overexpose for the shadows to minimise the noise when you do the HDR processing. under exposure of highlights are less of a problem.

    In this pic I do not know what was the centre point and why you decided on +/- 1EV for its capture, but apparently the data is not good enough to process a good sky.
    Thanks espion for such detailed technical explaination. I did do metering (spot) for the following subject on the day of shoot:
    . a neutral gray, in this case, the hotel building -zeroed, since its the main subject
    . the tiny portion of the sky (since its not the main subject) - +2.5 stops but not overexposed.
    . highlights on the bridge - +1.5 stops
    . some random shadows - -0.5 to -1.5 stops

    Have I done my metering wrongly or I may have done my metering of my sky wrongly?
    Maybe I should expand the dynamic range by taking more shots maybe EV+/-2?
    I may have I did the mapping incorrectly?
    SE K770i, Nikon D80 Kit 18-135mm, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, Sigma 28-300mm :sweat:

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    May I ask what software you used for your HDR processing? If you used an automated function (such as in Photoshop CS3) chances are that you will not get pleasing results. You get a lot more control over the output image if you make the individual layer masks yourself and adjust the HDR manually. There is an excellent tutorial on how to do this HERE.

    The composition is also a bit troublesome. The location of the bridge in the image, with no space below it, makes the image fell cluttered. Neither of the subjects (Fullerton or bridge) are framed correctly to stand out on their own because they are cropped too tight. Perhaps you could try a different angle to emphasise one subject over the other? Like shooting over the end of the bridge to emphasise its pillars? Or moving further back and to the right to emphasise the Fullerton.

    Anyway, hope this helps! Just keep on taking pics!
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Opposition Stronghold
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwolf View Post
    May I ask what software you used for your HDR processing? If you used an automated function (such as in Photoshop CS3) chances are that you will not get pleasing results. You get a lot more control over the output image if you make the individual layer masks yourself and adjust the HDR manually. There is an excellent tutorial on how to do this HERE.

    The composition is also a bit troublesome. The location of the bridge in the image, with no space below it, makes the image fell cluttered. Neither of the subjects (Fullerton or bridge) are framed correctly to stand out on their own because they are cropped too tight. Perhaps you could try a different angle to emphasise one subject over the other? Like shooting over the end of the bridge to emphasise its pillars? Or moving further back and to the right to emphasise the Fullerton.

    Anyway, hope this helps! Just keep on taking pics!
    I agree the composition is bad. LOL~
    I used Photoshop CS3 to merge my shots & Photomatix Tone Mapping plugin for my processing. Looks like you guys are really so into it man! So much more to learn. Will do a new one soon. Promise. Meanwhile keep the critiques coming.
    SE K770i, Nikon D80 Kit 18-135mm, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, Sigma 28-300mm :sweat:

  14. #14

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Quote Originally Posted by SheepYeo View Post
    ... outermost sincere comments and critiques.
    ... uttermost ...

    and best to demo u the metering ... a 5 min thingy .. come along next time I go shoot ... :-) (PM me to know when)
    Last edited by espion; 9th June 2008 at 11:46 AM.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Opposition Stronghold
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    ... uttermost ...
    *ahem* critiques only on the HDR pls

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    and best to demo u the metering ... a 5 min thingy .. come along next time I go shoot ... :-) (PM me to know when)
    Sure thing
    SE K770i, Nikon D80 Kit 18-135mm, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, Sigma 28-300mm :sweat:

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Composition is tight, and cluttered. I don't actually see much of a high dynamic range here, which is what HDR is actually about.

    The bridge distracts viewers from the Fullerton, the Fullerton distracts viewers from the bridge. Neither the Fullerton nor the bridge are framed completely. There is nothing in the frame that draws the eye; the viewer's eye is left wandering.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default Re: Fullerton HDR

    Your crop is too tight. Shoot with width in mind.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •