View Full Version : Ping Ebbs (HDR)
AquaPython
04-22-2010, 10:53 AM
or anyone else...
so i got my canon SLR a few weeks ago and started taking RAW shots to play with HDR the "right" way.
after messing with codecs and adobe updates to be able to read the new canon raw CR2 files, and pull them into CS4 (windows 7 , 64 bit) , i finally got into the HDR process.
So here is what i tried first:
1)
opened a single CR2 file. it loads onto a RAW reader window, where i can slide some exposure and other settings. I tried first to save several different exposures as Adobe raw files called "digital negatives" or something to that effect. DNF files i think?
2)
then under automation..HDR i brought these DNF files in but they are all the same, without the changed settings (which means i guess it is still a raw that has all settings in it, not just one....)
ok
so i went back to 1) did the same thing but saved as Jpegs.
back to 2) but when i selected the Jpegs for the HDR process, it posts a warning about how i really should be using RAW files for best quality HDRs !
wtf?
i said OK and went ahead with it, but the results were not too hot.
i went to pirate bay and DL'd photomatix 3 pro and ran the same jpeg pics with much better looking HDR.
only thing is, either way they only save as Tiffs, and CS4 doesnt allow me to save AS jpeg?
so i am little confused in the process here. any help would be appreciated.
also if i have the raw, is Lightroom not necessary? i think you said at one point that light room is best used to make the different exposures of an existing Jpeg, when you dont have the Raw. yes?
marko138
04-22-2010, 11:31 AM
Check this:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/HDR_ps/hdr-ps.htm
AquaPython
04-23-2010, 11:57 AM
bump - that link is good, but kind of old and not really what i am talking about.
That fad is over. Thank god. hdr trickiery ftl
Mr Lefty
04-23-2010, 06:25 PM
or anyone else...
so i got my canon SLR a few weeks ago and started taking RAW shots to play with HDR the "right" way.
after messing with codecs and adobe updates to be able to read the new canon raw CR2 files, and pull them into CS4 (windows 7 , 64 bit) , i finally got into the HDR process.
So here is what i tried first:
1)
opened a single CR2 file. it loads onto a RAW reader window, where i can slide some exposure and other settings. I tried first to save several different exposures as Adobe raw files called "digital negatives" or something to that effect. DNF files i think?
2)
then under automation..HDR i brought these DNF files in but they are all the same, without the changed settings (which means i guess it is still a raw that has all settings in it, not just one....)
ok
so i went back to 1) did the same thing but saved as Jpegs.
back to 2) but when i selected the Jpegs for the HDR process, it posts a warning about how i really should be using RAW files for best quality HDRs !
wtf?
i said OK and went ahead with it, but the results were not too hot.
i went to pirate bay and DL'd photomatix 3 pro and ran the same jpeg pics with much better looking HDR.
only thing is, either way they only save as Tiffs, and CS4 doesnt allow me to save AS jpeg?
so i am little confused in the process here. any help would be appreciated.
also if i have the raw, is Lightroom not necessary? i think you said at one point that light room is best used to make the different exposures of an existing Jpeg, when you dont have the Raw. yes?
I use Photomatrix and Lightroom only... I have never even tried PS... it's too much for me... :idk:
so what I do, is inport my Raw Files directly into Lightroom from the Camera or Memory Card. then using a Plug in found Here (http://www.hdrsoft.com/download/lrplugin.html) it imports it directly into Photomatrix.
I do the merge and tone mapping, then when it's rendered the product is automatically imported back into Lightroom.
from there you can save as .jpg if you want.
cool?
and trips just salty because he recently realized he's a douche nugget.
marko138
04-23-2010, 07:27 PM
That fad is over. Thank god. hdr trickiery ftl
Sounds like a guy who can't take quality pictures.
Sounds like a guy who can't take quality pictures.
No that's what hdr is for, covering up shitty pictures.
I am not a photographer, but can appreciate good photography. There is a lot of shitty wannabes with much more accessible quality equipment that they don't know how to use. So they do things like photochop or hdr.
marko138
04-24-2010, 05:47 PM
No that's what hdr is for, covering up shitty pictures.
I am not a photographer, but can appreciate good photography. There is a lot of shitty wannabes with much more accessible quality equipment that they don't know how to use. So they do things like photochop or hdr.
I disagree...but I also don't care what your take on HDR is...so...see ya.
I disagree...but I also don't care what your take on HDR is...so...see ya.
HDR is exactly like raccoon aerials. An attempt to hide shit no one wants to see. :nee:
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 06:06 PM
HDR is exactly like raccoon aerials. An attempt to hide shit no one wants to see. :nee:
no... HDR brings OUT things.+
it's a different FORM of photography... just like B&W or using filters.
I agree... it gets over done most of the time. but just because it's not to your liking doesn't make it crap.
to be honest Trip... if you saw a well done HDR shot, you wouldn't know it unless you saw the before/after
no... HDR brings OUT things.+
it's a different FORM of photography... just like B&W or using filters.
I agree... it gets over done most of the time. but just because it's not to your liking doesn't make it crap.
to be honest Trip... if you saw a well done HDR shot, you wouldn't know it unless you saw the before/after
Yeah it brings out your lack of talent because you had to use HDR.
It's not photography. It's the same as airbrushing a model for playboy. It's something you couldn't do with your equipment and so you had to clean it up afterwards. It's ghey plain and simple.
Lots of people feel this way, just do a basic search on the internet.
My opinion does make it crap in my eyes and others eyes. That's why it's an opinion. It can be non crap to you, but to a lot of us it's pure shit.
Why do it at all if you can't tell? Why not just get better with your equipment so you didn't have to do it?
By the way, if that is considered photography, when I take one of your photos and add looter to it, that should be considered photography as well.
So, since I am a decent chopper, that makes me a decent photographer as well too. Sweet. I mean I am really bringing things OUT by creating that killer photo of the sharktopus.
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 06:41 PM
no... all I'm doing is merging photos... I the subject matter doesn't change... just a new way of viewing it. it's more of an artistic style IMO.
just like B&W you have to choose certain subjects for HDR... not everything looks good in HDR... just like not everything looks good in B&W.
great... rely on the internet to tell you what's crap and what's not... :lol:
as far as not being able to tell... there is a change... just that YOU wouldn't be able to pick it out as HDR with out the original photos.
no... all I'm doing is merging photos... I the subject matter doesn't change... just a new way of viewing it. it's more of an artistic style IMO.
just like B&W you have to choose certain subjects for HDR... not everything looks good in HDR... just like not everything looks good in B&W.
great... rely on the internet to tell you what's crap and what's not... :lol:
as far as not being able to tell... there is a change... just that YOU wouldn't be able to pick it out as HDR with out the original photos.
It's a more artistic style by adding new subjects. I am just merging photos too. It's definitely a new way of viewing a photo if looter man shows up LOL. It's the same shit and you refuse to admit it and it's hilarious.
B&W can be done by the equipment. Adjusting your dynamic range can be done by the equipment. Taking the photos and making changes afterwards shows the lack of quality equipment or lack of photographer skill.
The change also depends a lot on the equipment itself. A low range camera won't have the same ability to shoot the dynamic range of a high end camera. So yeah if you get a high end camera and make very subtle changes it will be hard to tell. Taking a shitty camera and make a bunch of changes would be a lot easier to tell.
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 06:53 PM
http://ebbs15.com/Motorcycles/DR-Z400s/EBS8404050607080910-1/846477922_CorM7-M.jpghttp://ebbs15.com/Motorcycles/DR-Z400s/merge-1/846479273_zZyRx-M.jpghttp://ebbs15.com/Motorcycles/DR-Z400s/HDR-1/846491805_qsFKf-M.jpg
Personally I like the middle one the best... the top is over done...
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 06:59 PM
It's a more artistic style by adding new subjects. I am just merging photos too. It's definitely a new way of viewing a photo if looter man shows up LOL. It's the same shit and you refuse to admit it and it's hilarious.
B&W can be done by the equipment. Adjusting your dynamic range can be done by the equipment. Taking the photos and making changes afterwards shows the lack of quality equipment or lack of photographer skill.
The change also depends a lot on the equipment itself. A low range camera won't have the same ability to shoot the dynamic range of a high end camera. So yeah if you get a high end camera and make very subtle changes it will be hard to tell. Taking a shitty camera and make a bunch of changes would be a lot easier to tell.
please tell me how I'm adding new subjects if I take the same photo 3 times and merge it?
NO you cannot change your dynamic range with equipment. you can take a -1 and a +1 and a 0 and MERGE them but that's the only way to increase dynamic range... MERGING more than one photo.
the dynamic range is static based on the exposure you use. using a -1 exposure allows you to gain more shadow detail, but blows out highlights it's a give and take. HDR is about trying to replicate what the eye sees... as our eyes have a much broader dynamic range than a camera can capture, as our eye adjust on the fly.
please tell me how I'm adding new subjects if I take the same photo 3 times and merge it?
NO you cannot change your dynamic range with equipment. you can take a -1 and a +1 and a 0 and MERGE them but that's the only way to increase dynamic range... MERGING more than one photo.
the dynamic range is static based on the exposure you use. using a -1 exposure allows you to gain more shadow detail, but blows out highlights it's a give and take. HDR is about trying to replicate what the eye sees... as our eyes have a much broader dynamic range than a camera can capture, as our eye adjust on the fly.
You are doing the same thing, taking data that wasn't there and adding it to the photo. It's not the same photo. It's 3 different photos once you change the dynamic range of each photo.
Changing equipment to better equipment can give you better dynamic range.
One could also argue the artistic merit of HDR.
It's like filters, the artist is the computer not the individual. It's like a filter on photoshop, there is little to no artistic merit for the individual vs the computer's ability.
A photochop, there is much much more artistic merit behind a decent creator.
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 07:20 PM
You are doing the same thing, taking data that wasn't there and adding it to the photo. It's not the same photo. It's 3 different photos once you change the dynamic range of each photo.
Changing equipment to better equipment can give you better dynamic range.
better equipment MAY give you a slightly broader dynamic range (I don't know) but it will not be the same as what your eye sees.
so I guess the only good photos are the ones un touched... cause any amount of post processing even cropping is adding or removing data and thus... not photography in your mind. gotcha...
get over it... just cause you and a hundred thousand internet experts dislike the genre doesn't make it worthless or a fad.
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 07:22 PM
One could also argue the artistic merit of HDR.
It's like filters, the artist is the computer not the individual. It's like a filter on photoshop, there is little to no artistic merit for the individual vs the computer's ability.
A photochop, there is much much more artistic merit behind a decent creator.
no... you still have to pick a decent subject, you have to set the adjustments right... you can't just merge and do auto tone mapping and have the computer turn out a perfect HDR image.
yes you need to have a creative mind when photochoping... but you have to have just as a creative mind to find a subject that lends it self well to HDR...
better equipment MAY give you a slightly broader dynamic range (I don't know) but it will not be the same as what your eye sees.
so I guess the only good photos are the ones un touched... cause any amount of post processing even cropping is adding or removing data and thus... not photography in your mind. gotcha...
get over it... just cause you and a hundred thousand internet experts dislike the genre doesn't make it worthless or a fad.
Of course it won't give you the same as an eye. The eye is a much more complex device that we haven't made the tech to equal as of yet. Give it time. We will probably move beyond it one day.
No, some post processing has value, but it is beyond the photography as an art aspect and more to do with marketing and production.
Dude, you are an internet expert.... You are just the same as us.
Yes, it is an internet fad and it's fading from it's hey day thank god. Not as many people are using it anymore. I am seeing more and more threads referring to not using "HDR trickery" than I am seeing HDR threads.
no... you still have to pick a decent subject, you have to set the adjustments right... you can't just merge and do auto tone mapping and have the computer turn out a perfect HDR image.
yes you need to have a creative mind when photochoping... but you have to have just as a creative mind to find a subject that lends it self well to HDR...
It's the exact same with photoshop filters.
Not really, because HDR is shitty, so you can really do it with anything. Nothing really lends itself well to that crap. :lol:
Mr Lefty
04-24-2010, 07:53 PM
Of course it won't give you the same as an eye. The eye is a much more complex device that we haven't made the tech to equal as of yet. Give it time. We will probably move beyond it one day.
No, some post processing has value, but it is beyond the photography as an art aspect and more to do with marketing and production.
Dude, you are an internet expert.... You are just the same as us.
Yes, it is an internet fad and it's fading from it's hey day thank god. Not as many people are using it anymore. I am seeing more and more threads referring to not using "HDR trickery" than I am seeing HDR threads.
not really... I'm not bashing this and that because I don't like it... I'm supporting something that know a little about...
your whole argument is that HDR is shit because of what? that it changes the photo... but then say that a little post processing is ok... sorry... can't have it both ways.
either Photos should be untouched (even in camera) or any type of post processing is ok (not saying you have to like it... )
It's the exact same with photoshop filters.
Not really, because HDR is shitty, so you can really do it with anything. Nothing really lends itself well to that crap. :lol:
sounds like someone who has no experience with actually trying it :lol:
not really... I'm not bashing this and that because I don't like it... I'm supporting something that know a little about...
your whole argument is that HDR is shit because of what? that it changes the photo... but then say that a little post processing is ok... sorry... can't have it both ways.
either Photos should be untouched (even in camera) or any type of post processing is ok (not saying you have to like it... )
sounds like someone who has no experience with actually trying it :lol:
You don't have to bash to be an internet expert. You have no formal training in photography. You are an internet expert on it, just like me. I understand what it does and what it is far better than you think. I am very accustomed to using photoshop and a lot of it's higher level resources from designing stuff for video games before I got into motorcycling. I worked with light maps for 3d models and understand dynamic range far better than you think. Photoshop does have HDR capabilities, but they aren't as easy to use as software that you use that is specifically designed for that function like you are using.
I think HDR is shit because most of it is ugly and looks retarded. The ones that aren't are ones that you can't usually tell anything is been done to them, so it's not even worth doing.
Dude, you have no idea how much time I have spent messing with filters and messing with light maps to adjust the lights and the darks of models. I burnt myself out on that shit long before I came onto TWF. You can ask my wife, before my TWF addiction, all I did was create shit for this video game and play that game.
AquaPython
04-26-2010, 10:14 AM
trip you can bash whatever you want, but most HDR you are seeing is the more artsy / photochoppy of the two ways to merge THE SAME PHOTO. the realistic method takes takes all of the raw data that the equipment captures (but yet cannot visually reproduce it because it is 32 bit image), and recombines them to show details closer to how the naked eye would see it.
so your argument that it is bad equipment is bunk, the equipment actually captures it, but you cant see it all on a 2d screen, thats why it is a RAW. by processing it via HDR, you are able to pull out the details in the lights and darks like you would see it.
all of the HDR shots with the crazy colors etc is the "fad" , that can have it's place, but that is all opinion.
trip you can bash whatever you want, but most HDR you are seeing is the more artsy / photochoppy of the two ways to merge THE SAME PHOTO. the realistic method takes takes all of the raw data that the equipment captures (but yet cannot visually reproduce it because it is 32 bit image), and recombines them to show details closer to how the naked eye would see it.
so your argument that it is bad equipment is bunk, the equipment actually captures it, but you cant see it all on a 2d screen, thats why it is a RAW. by processing it via HDR, you are able to pull out the details in the lights and darks like you would see it.
all of the HDR shots with the crazy colors etc is the "fad" , that can have it's place, but that is all opinion.
It's not the same photo unless you take 3 or more different exposures at the same time which some cameras can do. You transform the photo to bring out more whites and more blacks to increase the dynamic range of the photo. Most times, there is too much pure white added to the photo that isn't realistic at all as light sources aren't pure white.
AquaPython
04-26-2010, 10:30 AM
you can do it nicely with one photo that is a raw.
the white point and the black point are sliders that people have control of, so when you see it done poorly (to your taste) its people who are starting out , and trying to learn to do it better.
you can do it nicely with one photo that is a raw.
the white point and the black point are sliders that people have control of, so when you see it done poorly (to your taste) its people who are starting out , and trying to learn to do it better.
The white and black sliders are adding data that wasn't there to get your result. That is editing a photo, the same as any photoshop filter. A true HDR photo is taken in different exposures and is true data, not post editted to get a false HDR.
AquaPython
04-26-2010, 10:55 AM
not really, where are you getting that definition from?
from what i have read, as linked in the first reply, the images need to be either Tone Mapped or Tone compressed (unreal / realitstic) to get the desired result.
Because you are adding false dyanmic range into the single photo. Your dyanmic range is determined by the the difference between the lightest and darkest areas. If you are adding data to give yourself more light and more dark to create your image, then that is not realistic. By shooting the same photo in different exposures, you are capturing a more realistic light source.
AquaPython
04-26-2010, 11:17 AM
so what you are saying is that it's ok in Trip's big book of validity as long as one does not touch the white / black point sliders when processing HDR photos?
so what you are saying is that it's ok in Trip's big book of validity as long as one does not touch the white / black point sliders when processing HDR photos?
No, I don't like multiple exposure HDR either.
Mr Lefty
04-26-2010, 01:54 PM
The white and black sliders are adding data that wasn't there to get your result. That is editing a photo, the same as any photoshop filter. A true HDR photo is taken in different exposures and is true data, not post editted to get a false HDR.
No. the data is there... in the RAW format.
take for example... a .jpg... try to adjust the exposure. doesn't take much before the photo looks like shit... because it doesn't have the data and has to "guess"
do the same with a .raw image... and you can do MUCH more. because that info is there (again still a range) just because you can't see it in the initial preview, doesn't mean the camera doesn't capture it.
No. the data is there... in the RAW format.
take for example... a .jpg... try to adjust the exposure. doesn't take much before the photo looks like shit... because it doesn't have the data and has to "guess"
do the same with a .raw image... and you can do MUCH more. because that info is there (again still a range) just because you can't see it in the initial preview, doesn't mean the camera doesn't capture it.
You are still doing the same thing changing the white point/contrast of the same file, a .raw is pretty much like a negative on film. There is a little more info there that makes it easier to play with contrast and change light color, but it's not the same as capturing different exposures to gather even more light info.
Mr Lefty
04-26-2010, 08:37 PM
which chapter of "Trips book of everything" is this info on?
AquaPython
04-26-2010, 09:37 PM
I use Photomatrix and Lightroom only... I have never even tried PS... it's too much for me... :idk:
so what I do, is inport my Raw Files directly into Lightroom from the Camera or Memory Card. then using a Plug in found Here (http://www.hdrsoft.com/download/lrplugin.html) it imports it directly into Photomatrix.
I do the merge and tone mapping, then when it's rendered the product is automatically imported back into Lightroom.
from there you can save as .jpg if you want.
ok so i only have PM 3.0 and not the newer one that has the add on, do you have it? if so, PM me please.
it was also a big pain to get my .CR2's to open up in PS, etc, but i still havent gotten them to show up in lightroom 2.3
which chapter of "Trips book of everything" is this info on?
get that sand out of your vagina.
Mr Lefty
04-27-2010, 04:10 AM
ok so i only have PM 3.0 and not the newer one that has the add on, do you have it? if so, PM me please.
it was also a big pain to get my .CR2's to open up in PS, etc, but i still havent gotten them to show up in lightroom 2.3
the add on? the add on I have is for lightroom... but I only have 3.0 for PM. I don't use PS at all... don't even have it.
get that sand out of your vagina.
too much... can you help?
Papa_Complex
04-27-2010, 07:36 AM
HDR is exactly like raccoon aerials. An attempt to hide shit no one wants to see. :nee:
HDR can look good when done well, but usually it's absolute over-pushed crap. Damned near every time someone posts a HDR effort on one of the photo forums I'm on, I have to bite my tongue and hide my keyboard so that I don't ask all of the "oooooo..... ahhhhhhh" posters if they've lost their fucking minds.
shmike
04-27-2010, 10:17 AM
or anyone else...
so i got my canon SLR a few weeks ago and started taking RAW shots to play with HDR the "right" way.
after messing with codecs and adobe updates to be able to read the new canon raw CR2 files, and pull them into CS4 (windows 7 , 64 bit) , i finally got into the HDR process.
So here is what i tried first:
1)
opened a single CR2 file. it loads onto a RAW reader window, where i can slide some exposure and other settings. I tried first to save several different exposures as Adobe raw files called "digital negatives" or something to that effect. DNF files i think?
2)
then under automation..HDR i brought these DNF files in but they are all the same, without the changed settings (which means i guess it is still a raw that has all settings in it, not just one....)
ok
so i went back to 1) did the same thing but saved as Jpegs.
back to 2) but when i selected the Jpegs for the HDR process, it posts a warning about how i really should be using RAW files for best quality HDRs !
wtf?
i said OK and went ahead with it, but the results were not too hot.
i went to pirate bay and DL'd photomatix 3 pro and ran the same jpeg pics with much better looking HDR.
only thing is, either way they only save as Tiffs, and CS4 doesnt allow me to save AS jpeg?
so i am little confused in the process here. any help would be appreciated.
also if i have the raw, is Lightroom not necessary? i think you said at one point that light room is best used to make the different exposures of an existing Jpeg, when you dont have the Raw. yes?
I'm not going to get into the HDR debate, but there is a guy on our local forum that can will convert your images into HDR format, for a nominal fee.
He also offers PS classes, for a nominal fee.
AquaPython
04-27-2010, 10:34 AM
I'm not going to get into the HDR debate, but there is a guy on our local forum that can will convert your images into HDR format, for a nominal fee.
He also offers PS classes, for a nominal fee.
badoom chishhhhhhhh
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.