Fullerton HDR


Status
Not open for further replies.

SheepYeo

New Member
Dec 5, 2007
69
0
0
Opposition Stronghold
#1
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. :dunno:
Mapped by Photomatix.
I felt lost... Please be harsh & enlighten me so I can improve. :sweat:
Advanced Thanks!

--edit start--


Larger Version Here
--edit end--
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
Eeeehh.... It's too washed out. You lost the color saturation.
 

y0ngcheng

New Member
Nov 24, 2003
1,811
0
0
30
新加坡
#4
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! ;)
 

CanonS3IS

New Member
Sep 26, 2006
183
0
0
Toa Payoh
www.flickr.com
#5
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!!!!!:bsmilie:
 

thengz

New Member
Aug 29, 2007
901
0
0
#6
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. ;p
 

viewwing

Senior Member
Nov 6, 2006
575
0
16
North
#8
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?
 

emlee

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2008
1,763
1
38
Ang Mo Kio
#9
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.
 

espion

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2005
1,524
0
0
#10
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.
 

SheepYeo

New Member
Dec 5, 2007
69
0
0
Opposition Stronghold
#11
Thanks everyone for your outermost sincere comments and critiques.

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.

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!!!!!:bsmilie:
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.

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 ;p

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?
 

#12
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! :)
 

SheepYeo

New Member
Dec 5, 2007
69
0
0
Opposition Stronghold
#13
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. :sweat: Will do a new one soon. Promise. Meanwhile keep the critiques coming. :cool:
 

espion

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2005
1,524
0
0
#14
... 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)
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#16
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom