I was wondering whether it was my eyes or the photo causing the haloing. Glad that its not my eyes then....
Thanks for the tip about the sun, will take note of it. I actually used Photoacute and then Lightzone for this.
to me, it is not overdone. but it also does seem to defeat the purpose of using hdr in the first place, since frankly, this scene can be achieved by exposing for the sun, and dodging the details in the foreground out, i.e. no need to use photoshop.
seefei probably means that he cannot see the foreground details.
Personally I think photography exists in many forms. Natural, down to earth looking is only one form. There are photographs which are presented in many other forms:
1. Black and white or Mono for one is really unnatural. Not many sees the world in BW or Mono tinted. But this is made acceptable because photography started mono due to lack of technology.
2. Photographs made so dreamy to tell about a dream or nightmare, which is really out of realism too.
3. Photographs with backgrounds blended with extra texture for bring out the feel. This is also no true to the world.
4. Cross processing of photographs in the film era which are not natural due to all the colours shift made many people famous photographers, not just labeled as Visual Artists.
I think there are more examples of photography styles which aim is to divert from realism...so HDR surreal treatment may not be so well accepted because its newly introduced in the digital era. With time and with some good HDR photographers sticking to surreal style, it will eventually be accepted as a photography style.
This is just my opinion on photography and my feel for the direction of HDR.
Im using Photomatix 3.0 for HDR making
1) however, all the HDR when generated comes out greenish, is it supposed to be like this?
2) i use a D90 and autobracketing. do you guys use the high FPS mode and press and let the camera take all the pics within a few seconds or do you take single shots 1 at a time? Is there a difference?
Last edited by winzee; 8th October 2008 at 09:18 PM.
If you are keen to investigate into HDR, log into flickr and check up on Daniel Cheong, http://www.flickr.com/people/danielcheong/.
He is has quite a mastery on HDR as well as intensive post processing skill. Some might feel this post processing makes the picture unreal. I, myself, like HDR to bring out what eyes are meant to see. As you all knows, meanwhile technology has not been able to successful mimic the response curve of eyes and therefore we are not able to capture both extremely highlight portion of the scene and extreme shadow of the scene together. HDR offer such a capability using multiple exposure, and compress the high dynamics range of luminance using tone-mapping and other techniques.
Whether it's real or not real, I think at the end of the day, no one can give a definitely answer. Because sometimes what the photographer/artist wants to bring out is just another side of the scene. An unreal side, an artistic side, rather than just reclaim the lost details.
As long as you feel it's nice, he/she succeeded
I illustrate my opinion graphically,
here I shall post a few humble works of mine.
Real or unreal, nice or not nice, it's up to the eye of the beholder
Enjoy brothers and sister
i use a D90 and autobracketing. do you guys use the high FPS mode and press and let the camera take all the pics within a few seconds or do you take single shots 1 at a time? Is there a difference?
thanks in advance!
with regards to my views on acceptance, the conditions are simple. as long as the photographer knows what he or she is doing, by all means. by blindly whacking the inputs and hoping to get a mutant mix for the sake of getting a mutant mix which will make people go wow because they have rarely seen this before.. that's another thing altogether. one can say yes, the results are all that matter, and i also firmly believe in that. but i also question how far a person can get without a well-thought through concept. once, perhaps. twice, maybe you get away with it. for long? naw.
Personally, I would be just so tired of tweaking and staring at the monitor for every shot, which I'd rather be out there getting the finest details of nature as is; being able to share more within the same period of time done to produce ONE hdr photo; which may not always tell a story.
Ya, I agreed with you point that glowing halo and many other artifacts of HDR are not desired, thats why I mentioned Good surreal HDR photos. Just like IR, its totally out of this world and not what we see with our eyes...but its still called photography.
Consistency of producing Good HDR photos is important as I did mentioned Good HDR Photographer forming a style.
Anyway, this is a arguable topic that won't end. Lets forget about it after we have exchanged and discuss about our view on HDR. Its just personal view and opinion afterall.
Nonetheless it will form a person style after some time of shooting.
PS: Actually, with the correct theme (ie shooting Frankenstein theme), mutant mix may be a good treatment and it could be achieved with HDR.
Last edited by lastboltnut; 9th October 2008 at 08:57 AM.
For software tool, you can look into this tool called Hugin... it is not bad.
I use AEB in high FPS to minimise scene changes (moving leaves, water, objects etc.). I use a cable release and take all shots in succession, and sometimes several sets if the scene is invaluable. If your camera is on tripod (which you should always try to do), then the various exposures will be very identical in details, and you will avoid ghosting effects. If you need to handhold your camera, then make sure you set your aperture or ISO such that the overexposed bracketed shot (the +2 EV) will be done at 1/125 shutter speed or better.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by LifeInMacro; 13th October 2008 at 11:42 AM.
Yikes, that "stuckincustoms" blog is precisely what is wrong with the HDR folks. Such unbelievable crap. I could do that without the whole jumble of HDR -- just play with curves in PS and you'll end up with something like that.