HDR photos
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
If you happen to have a Canon camera, http://www2.cs.uh.edu/~somalley/hdri_images.html is pretty nice for easy HDR photographing.
Jabbah said:
Multiple exposures can be combined with some dark room trickery, though unfortunately you'd be missing CTRL-Z.
And FYI the sensor design someone was talking about that has two pixels, one small and one large, is in the Fuji S3 Pro DSLR. It's not as high range as two shots would be, but damn if it isn't neat... wedding photogs love it, except for the speed.
And.. who needs HDR anyway?
Have you *seen* Velvia slide film? Wonderfully saturated reds and greens; low dynamic range.
One last thing:
HDR does not necessarily a good picture make.
First of all - to get a pleasing effect with digital postprocessed HDR, you need to maintain good contrast in the midtones, and let the extra information in the shadows and highlights stay a subtle substitute for otherwise blown out whites or blocked up shadows. To do this well, you are better served by blending the images yourself than using a tonemapping algorithm like that in newer photoshop versions, which can never avoid making halos.
Second - BW negative film is where it's all at I've not used too much color negative film, but I'd say slidefilm compares roughly to modern dSLR output for dynamic range. This, however is an untweaked image from a Konica Minolta Dynax 5D which shows it can manage a range from sunlit snow behind the slightly fogged window and well into the open shaded areas (there was another window on the opposite side of the room). Negative BW beats both by a handy margin (enough for me to get away with using a meterless camera and my intuition for judging exposure in most conditions).
In addition to this, graduated neutral (or hued) density filters (let through little light in one end and more and more in a gradient fashion as you go further along a thought line through the center of the filter to the opposite side) can be used, placing the densest part of the filter up (covering the sky) and the most transparent part down letting in more light from the foreground.
Hope we will see sensors with adjustable sensitivity pr. pixel (or group of pixels) or sensors with vastly higher dynamic range and S/N ratio as digital photography matures further.
Kind regards
Kjetil
Second - BW negative film is where it's all at
I've not used too much color negative film, but I'd say slidefilm compares roughly to modern dSLR output for dynamic range. This, however is an untweaked image from a Konica Minolta Dynax 5D which shows it can manage a range from sunlit snow behind the slightly fogged window and well into the open shaded areas (there was another window on the opposite side of the room). Negative BW beats both by a handy margin (enough for me to get away with using a meterless camera and my intuition for judging exposure in most conditions).In addition to this, graduated neutral (or hued) density filters (let through little light in one end and more and more in a gradient fashion as you go further along a thought line through the center of the filter to the opposite side) can be used, placing the densest part of the filter up (covering the sky) and the most transparent part down letting in more light from the foreground.
Hope we will see sensors with adjustable sensitivity pr. pixel (or group of pixels) or sensors with vastly higher dynamic range and S/N ratio as digital photography matures further.
Kind regards
Kjetil
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, just as with HDR in games, HDR in photos is meant to attempt to capture the huge dynamic range we can see with our eyes, but on a format that is only capable of displaying in low dynamic range. So yes, it's fake. But it can come closer to looking like reality than basic low dynamic range images, if done well.suryad said:
EasyRaider
Regular
Now we just need affordable HDR displays. I'm hoping OLED will make it possible.
