backingwinds.blogspot.com— All you need is a digital camera that lets you set the exposure manually, a tripod, and Photoshop CS2 to make some sweet looking pictures.
Oct 11, 2006View in Crawl 4
Oh i see what you mean now Daffy, apologies. I probably like it because it *doesn't* look like an HDR image. Having now read the article the author actually ends up with an image that doesn't look as horrifically processed as some. BTW, nice image Daffy - i like that one a lot.
@neebickYou can use JPG files to do this. You don't need RAW. If you are shooting with lets say, a Canon 350D in high quality JPG and produces 3 or more exposures in a bracket, they would work fine to produce an HRD image. Raw of course will be better, but if you just want to get your feet wet, then JPG is fine to start with. The nice part of combining images like this is that not only are you extending the dynamic range, but you are also averaging out any noise that is inherent in the exposure due to the JPG compression. I do a similar type of thing when combining long exposure astrophotography. Taking many 5 minute exposures of a nebula and combining then improves signal to noise. Since the signal is constant and the noise is random, many shots are combined to produce a much smoother image. Where the HDR part comes in is when a bright area gets washed out you can add in a bracket of shorter exposures to help reveal detail in those areas. While JPG compression is based on a constant algorithm rather than randon, there will be enough variance in the JPG compression artifact due to the change in the exposures to make it work similar to averaging frames with randon noise.
emorphienOct 12, 2006
Used that a few times, but only for certain things. It's way overdone by people that don't know how to use it, and it just doesn't look right.
numptydumptyOct 12, 2006
Oh i see what you mean now Daffy, apologies. I probably like it because it *doesn't* look like an HDR image. Having now read the article the author actually ends up with an image that doesn't look as horrifically processed as some. BTW, nice image Daffy - i like that one a lot.
grizOct 12, 2006
@neebickYou can use JPG files to do this. You don't need RAW. If you are shooting with lets say, a Canon 350D in high quality JPG and produces 3 or more exposures in a bracket, they would work fine to produce an HRD image. Raw of course will be better, but if you just want to get your feet wet, then JPG is fine to start with. The nice part of combining images like this is that not only are you extending the dynamic range, but you are also averaging out any noise that is inherent in the exposure due to the JPG compression. I do a similar type of thing when combining long exposure astrophotography. Taking many 5 minute exposures of a nebula and combining then improves signal to noise. Since the signal is constant and the noise is random, many shots are combined to produce a much smoother image. Where the HDR part comes in is when a bright area gets washed out you can add in a bracket of shorter exposures to help reveal detail in those areas. While JPG compression is based on a constant algorithm rather than randon, there will be enough variance in the JPG compression artifact due to the change in the exposures to make it work similar to averaging frames with randon noise.
chesterfieldOct 13, 2006
This is THE web site for HDR explanation and samples!<a class="user" href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm</a>
chesterfieldOct 13, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.debevec.org/">http://www.debevec.org/</a>The guy who made HDR famous has some merge software called HDRShop.
petemcOct 29, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://petemc.net/hdr-guide/">http://petemc.net/hdr-guide/</a>A guide about how to use Photomatix to generate images similar to CS2 or if you want you can make stunning pieces of art. The guide also explains how to do HDR from moving objects such as cars and people.