Please, when posting follow this method
and under 800
FT does not host photos, so you need to host them yourself. There are many sites out there that you can, example is Flickr.com
You can add your photo by using the image icon when you post.
TITLE
PLACE
DESCRIPTION
CAMERA + LENS
EXPOSURES
PHOTO
St. Mary's Church
Krakow, Poland
Photo I took on a cloudy day in Krakow, Poland of St Mary's church. Clouds came out real nice.
Canon EOS 400D / 18-55mm kit lens
ISO 100
-2,0,2
Have just begun to do a bit of HDR. Nothing has worked out particularly well yet. I wondered about your choice of 2, 0, -2 for bracketing. Any advantage to shooting five images at 2, 1, 0, -1, -2?
Nice shot. HDR images often have an otherworldly feeling -- this one is a good example.
What camera and lens did you use?
Cheers,
T.
Added that information above
Another one I took is
Bridge and Buildings
Vail, CO USA
Photo I took in Vail, CO of the stream that passes through Vail
Canon EOS 400D + 18-55mm kit lens with Tripod
ISO 100
-1,0,+1
Have just begun to do a bit of HDR. Nothing has worked out particularly well yet. I wondered about your choice of 2, 0, -2 for bracketing. Any advantage to shooting five images at 2, 1, 0, -1, -2?
Well, during the day with sunlight 2 might be a bit too much. Including when it hits +2, it might be too bright. 2 I use for night time or when its dark. 5 exposure bracketing is better than 3, but my camera only does 3.
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeAAttle
Have just begun to do a bit of HDR. Nothing has worked out particularly well yet. I wondered about your choice of 2, 0, -2 for bracketing. Any advantage to shooting five images at 2, 1, 0, -1, -2?
I am not an expert, but it would seem that the more exposures you have (as long as they are not way too dark or bright), the more dynamic range you will end up getting in your HDR image. The sources I have read have referred to anything between 5 and 12 original images used to create a final HDR image.
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,338
I haven't done much with HDR, but I'm curious if anyone's tried this. By shooting RAW with my Canon 10D, I can adjust the exposure +/- about 4 or 5 stops after the fact. Wouldn't it be possible to take a single shot, import it three times into something like Photoshop, using the raw converter to seat a different exposure for each, and then use the Automate to HDR function to produce a single shot with a vastly expanded dynamic range?
I tried this once and Photoshop reported an error, something like, "insufficient dynamic range to produce meaningful HDR" or something. I don't see why this wouldn't work, though, as the RAW importer is actually manipulating the exposure on import.
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
I haven't done much with HDR, but I'm curious if anyone's tried this. By shooting RAW with my Canon 10D, I can adjust the exposure +/- about 4 or 5 stops after the fact. Wouldn't it be possible to take a single shot, import it three times into something like Photoshop, using the raw converter to seat a different exposure for each, and then use the Automate to HDR function to produce a single shot with a vastly expanded dynamic range?
I tried this once and Photoshop reported an error, something like, "insufficient dynamic range to produce meaningful HDR" or something. I don't see why this wouldn't work, though, as the RAW importer is actually manipulating the exposure on import.
I don't think this works. You are, in effect, trying to extract more information from the original image than it actually has -- unless the 10D (which I have not used) automatically brackets exposures.
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa
I don't think this works. You are, in effect, trying to extract more information from the original image than it actually has -- unless the 10D (which I have not used) automatically brackets exposures.
Cheers,
T.
The 10D can bracket exposures. However, I always thought that was the idea of RAW -- you can adjust exposure after-the-fact because the raw sensor image does contain more data than the processed image.
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
The 10D can bracket exposures. However, I always thought that was the idea of RAW -- you can adjust exposure after-the-fact because the raw sensor image does contain more data than the processed image.
True, RAW contains more information than e.g. JPEG. However, RAW images are typically about 12 bits per pixel (slightly less for Nikons, which actually compress RAW slightly) and good quality HDR should have at least 15 bits per pixel.
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
Programs: UA 1K, HH Diamond, National ExElite, Anti-Apostheid Platinum, PWP CentCom
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
The 10D can bracket exposures. However, I always thought that was the idea of RAW -- you can adjust exposure after-the-fact because the raw sensor image does contain more data than the processed image.
Usually, the raw data will contain ~1-2 stops of additional information, depending on camera. I've heard that you can recover a ridiculous amount of highlights from the new Fuji S5Pro.
Additionally, some raw converters can reconstruct color channel data if not all three channels are blown (Adobe Camera Raw comes to mind).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa
True, RAW contains more information than e.g. JPEG. However, RAW images are typically about 12 bits per pixel (slightly less for Nikons, which actually compress RAW slightly) and good quality HDR should have at least 15 bits per pixel.
That's not universal for Nikon. The D40/50/70/80 I believe all store compressed RAW files, but even pixel-peepers over at DPReview are hard-pressed to see any significant differences. The D200 gives you the option to shoot compressed or uncompressed (which is the testbed used to see if there are any differences), and I think the D2 series only shoots uncompressed RAW. The uncompressed RAWs should all have 12-bit depth.
I've found that if I expose images until the brightest parts just slightly blow out in the JPEG preview on the camera, they come out almost dead-on in RAW. On my D70s, that means I walk around with +0.33 exposure comp as the default.
__________________ Join the FT Flickr group and share your travel photos!
PWP!
Does anyone else here work in Linux? I found this interesting link that describes some of the software involved in HDR under Linux. Some others might find it useful.
Join the 
