Hdr

[rhoffart]

ok don't laugh but I just moved from photoshop 7 to CS3 and Photomatix Pro

So I am trying a new flow for nature stuff.

1) Capture NX create three exposures from one raw a +2, 0, -2 save as 16bit Tiff.

2) Photomatix to create HDR

3) CS3 with original photo add the HDR as a layer then adjust from 25% to 75%

Some have a touch of the HDR layer and some are almost 100% HDR ... feedback?
http://rhoffart.smugmug.com/gallery/...43355454_tVvFw

[uwishuknew]

I like them all. I'm hoping for Photomatix for a birthday present. I LOVE all HDR's, subtle ones to over the top, I like them all.

[venchka]

Interesting response Shannon. Done right (in my opinion) you wouldn't know that anything like HDR had been done to the original.

Rick,

Try making your over & under exposures in the camera. I have found, working with old negatives, that 2 stops isn't enough. I have one negative that needs -4 stops and +1 stop. Experiment in the camera. It's digital. Exposures are free.

[rhoffart]

Originally Posted by venchka

Interesting response Shannon. Done right (in my opinion) you wouldn't know that anything like HDR had been done to the original.

Rick,

Try making your over & under exposures in the camera. I have found, working with old negatives, that 2 stops isn't enough. I have one negative that needs -4 stops and +1 stop. Experiment in the camera. It's digital. Exposures are free.

thanks

ok help me a bit with that ... your saying use the bracketing and shoot 5 ??? My reason by using post-processing with a RAW was I would not have to worry about movement ... such as clouds, shake, animals walking ... the clouds were racing across the sky this evening.

maybe i'm way off on my way of thinking.

[uwishuknew]

Originally Posted by venchka

Interesting response Shannon. Done right (in my opinion) you wouldn't know that anything like HDR had been done to the original.

I think that's why I like it so much. It has endless options. I guess I should have clarified, done it the right context and make an image pop.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by uwishuknew

...and make an image pop.

Shakes his head..........

[uwishuknew]

Originally Posted by venchka

Shakes his head..........

Ok, whatever.

[jeffkohn]

I think your approach works well, most of these look very natural. The only one that doesn't work for me is #4, which has that "HDR" look I'm not crazy about. #3 is on the edge but still looks pretty good.

I use a similar technique, combining HDR tone-mapping with other blending techniques including manual layers (usually with multiple separate exposures though). Photomatix alone almost never works for the entire image in my experience. Photomatix does a really poor job on large even-toned areas as it will make them uneven. It often does a poort job of handling skies so that's where I usually have to use another approach.

[rhoffart]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I think your approach works well, most of these look very natural. The only one that doesn't work for me is #4, which has that "HDR" look I'm not crazy about. #3 is on the edge but still looks pretty good.

I use a similar technique, combining HDR tone-mapping with other blending techniques including manual layers (usually with multiple separate exposures though). Photomatix alone almost never works for the entire image in my experience. Photomatix does a really poor job on large even-toned areas as it will make them uneven. It often does a poort job of handling skies so that's where I usually have to use another approach.

Thanks Jeff

[venchka]

Subject movement has it's own set of limitations, but...

What I was getting at is that the original scene may need a wider range of exposures than just +2 and -2. The exposures may not need to be evenly spaced either. In the example I used, a very bright sky and clouds required -4 stops and the shadows only needed +1 stop. I tend to give shadows full exposure.

[rhoffart]

Originally Posted by venchka

Subject movement has it's own set of limitations, but...

What I was getting at is that the original scene may need a wider range of exposures than just +2 and -2. The exposures may not need to be evenly spaced either. In the example I used, a very bright sky and clouds required -4 stops and the shadows only needed +1 stop. I tend to give shadows full exposure.

Ok, following this example did you shoot +1 to -4
-or-
Did you shoot +4 to -4 then decide in post what to use

[venchka]

I shot 3 frames of film a hundred years ago. I scanned each negative to a TIFF file. I exported 3 versions from Lightroom, -4 stops for the clouds & sky, 0 for the sunlit parts of the scene, and (CORRECTION) +2 for the shadows. PTGUI and TUFUSE glued everything together.

I just checked the files. The shadows got +2 stops.

[venchka]

ps: With a bit more wisdom and knowledge now, when I do something like this again I will bracket my exposures in the camera.

[rhoffart]

Thanks Wayne ...

[venchka]

You're welcome. Hope I helped a little.