DON'T TRY THIS WITH FILM !

Behind me was a featureless field. Hardly a test for the HDR
processing.
While the posted pic won't win any awards for composition or artistic
excellence, I thought it was a good subject for the HDR test.

The point is we can't always shoot in perfect light, nor would we want
to.


Awesome owl shot! But as far as the original HDR example... to be honest
I sure wish I could even see it. Could post at least an XGA sized one?

--
})))* Giant_Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

Dear ol' uncle Ansel is laughing his ass off over your silly soliloquy!

ShibbyShane wrote:
Rob Novak wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 17:58:39 -0700, "Annika1980"
wrote:

That's what I did with this shot although it was made from just one RAW
capture.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/43534813

Wow, you really emphasized the sensor noise nicely. Wouldn't have
thought of that. You're so right - that's so much better than film
grain, being digital and all.

And, as a bonus, the whole world's got a 5-degree list to port.

(Cue Helen: "Oh, Bret, that's the BESTEST picture EVER! You're such a
genius!")
--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! I'm glad someone besides me finds that annoying.

HAHAHAHAAA!!
My evil plan is working then! I do it just to **** you off Shane!

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
news:ZKTWg.27572$b23.10282@dukeread07...
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an exposure that you'd have a tough time capturing with
film.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/68230410

This is a "HDR" type of image although I didn't use the HDR
function of
CS2 for this one because it produced an inferior result to what I
got
by just using layers and masking techniques. Adobe admits that the
HDR
feature is very much still a work in progress.

Yes, but there is more in a real HDR image of this scene than you are
showing. It has to do with the tonemapping function used to bring the
dynamic range back to what can be squeezed into a 255:1 range.
Photoshop CS2 only has the bare essentials somewhat in place, as you
found out (maybe CS3 is better). There are more advanced (tonemapping)
tools available, but they must be used with restraint.

If I could work on a few larger sized versions of the original
sequence, I bet it'd look a bit more like a sunlit scene.

Boring and somewhat useless choice.

Not really, just not executed to exploit it fully. Nature shots are as
challenging as rooms with a view.

--
Bart

What Al Denelsbeck wrote:

Annika1980 wrote

If "Face the other way" means to shoot with the sun behind you then
you've just narrowed your photo ops by 50%. Otherwise, I still don't
get it.



Or increased them ;-)

The sky darkens, the foliage brightens, the shadows get thinner,
colors pop, chances of lens flare disappear, and wildlife has less of a
chance of seeing you. In one turn, you reduce the dynamic range you need
to capture the image while simultaneously improving the overall
appearance of the large majority of subjects, as well as increasing the
chance that wildlife will stay put (and have the best display of fur or
plumage).

And when you think in those terms, you start thinking about what
kind of light you *want* to see, and whether you'll get that earlier or
later in the day, or with a storm rolling in, blah blah. You start
setting up the shot rather than simply capturing it while there. You cut
around your subject in a semi-circle to see what the shadows look like,
and realize that dead-on is the shot you use for the richness of color,
and sidelit is what you use for contrast and textures. You come back when
it's hazy to lessen the deep shadows, or use a warming filter so you can
shoot in the flat even light of overcast and not look gloomy. You watch
the sky to know when the sunset is going to be a rich orange, and where
this is going to work best. Whatever.

*All* photography is a compromise. It's up to you to decide how
little any one factor honestly limits your options. Darkroom or digital
editing work is fine, but a time-consuming way to try and salvage a shot.
If you know how to get what you're after in-camera, you're ahead of the
game - and you still have the option of editing.

Got a compass in your camera bag?


- Al.

What Brette hears:
http://members.cox.net/geonerd/teach.mp3

What Brette thinks:
Yeabut, "How many megapixels??!"

=

wrote:
ShibbyShane wrote:
Rob Novak wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 17:58:39 -0700, "Annika1980"
wrote:

That's what I did with this shot although it was made from just one RAW
capture.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/43534813

Wow, you really emphasized the sensor noise nicely. Wouldn't have
thought of that. You're so right - that's so much better than film
grain, being digital and all.

And, as a bonus, the whole world's got a 5-degree list to port.

(Cue Helen: "Oh, Bret, that's the BESTEST picture EVER! You're such a
genius!")
--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! I'm glad someone besides me finds that annoying.

HAHAHAHAAA!!
My evil plan is working then! I do it just to **** you off Shane!

I'm good to know you care so much Helen.

ShibbyShane wrote:
wrote:
ShibbyShane wrote:
Rob Novak wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 17:58:39 -0700, "Annika1980"
wrote:

That's what I did with this shot although it was made from just one RAW
capture.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/43534813

Wow, you really emphasized the sensor noise nicely. Wouldn't have
thought of that. You're so right - that's so much better than film
grain, being digital and all.

And, as a bonus, the whole world's got a 5-degree list to port.

(Cue Helen: "Oh, Bret, that's the BESTEST picture EVER! You're such a
genius!")
--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! I'm glad someone besides me finds that annoying.

HAHAHAHAAA!!
My evil plan is working then! I do it just to **** you off Shane!

I'm good to know you care so much Helen.

Seriously, I hate to say anything negative about somebody, but when I'm
pushed too far.....
We all need encouragement and an honest complimentary remark with a job
well done. I have done the same with others, not just Bret. It seems
like I compliment all his work all the time but the simple reason is he
is the only one who posts on a regular basis.
Regards,
Helen

wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:

While studying photography as an art for a couple of years, the first
thing we were taught is color takes away from the pic. But I can
honestly say you make a very good point Bret. I've seen color shots
that are absolutely stunning, and if they were done in B&W, it just
wouldn't do a thing for me. And I'm sure many "artists" would have to
agree.
Yet at the same time, B&W can do amazing things to shots that
traditionally would be colour's domain. Lately I've been experimenting
with B&W for things like sunsets & flowers. In 6 months time when Autumn
comes again, I'll try it for autumn leaves. I'm by no means an expert,
but some of these shots in B&W just have a certain sparkle that a colour
shot doesn't have. B&W sunsets, with a bit of wispy cloud look just
stunning. Likewise seeing flowers in B&W takes out the distracting
bright colours, and you start seeing details that you didn't before,
such as the textures of the petals, the shapes in the stamens etc.
Perhaps it's just a phase I'm going through, but I'm very glad I
discovered that these things aren't exclusively the domain of colour.
And of course not having to worry about colour balance and saturation is
another advantage.

Seriously, I hate to say anything negative about somebody, but when I'm
pushed too far.....
We all need encouragement and an honest complimentary remark with a job
well done. I have done the same with others, not just Bret. It seems
like I compliment all his work all the time but the simple reason is he
is the only one who posts on a regular basis.
Regards,
Helen

Touche.