Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
justin_tx_16

OT: HDR Photography Help

Recommended Posts

I'm really hoping that there are some serious photographers here cause I'm just lost!

I recently bought a Nikon D80 DSLR. For those who do not know about this camera, a quick spec list.

10.2 megapixel
Bulb - 4000 - Hi3+ iso
Lens used does 2.8-22 f-stops from 15mm to 135mm with macro
Shoots JPEG and Raw plus combination

Now, what is HDR? High Dynamic Range images. They look like this when done properly

344618004_415cf18e2d_o.jpg
(credits to this photographer who uses the same camera)

When done properly the photographs look almost impossible. Do a search for it, or better yet click that link above and see what this guy can do. It is amazing. I have the same equipment so I should be able to do it too right?

WRONG! I tried it today with a simple skyscape. Here is the result.

344605969_e2df8e9463_o.jpg

You need 3D glass to appreciate it haha.

The problem? Look more closely

344605967_241023cd4d_o.jpg

For some reason, the pictures don't line up. HDR works like this, you take several pictures at different levels such as these...

344618014_de5d3800fc_m.jpg344618013_e833e61251_m.jpg344618009_a54b59bf25_m.jpg344618006_1e6697a36e_m.jpg

You tell Photoshop CS2 or 3 to merge the three pictures together, it keeps all the RAW data and makes a beautiful image with tons of depth and something that SEEMS impossible in nature. Really, I cannot stress enough how incredible this HDR stuff is. A monitor to show HDR is $50,000! They have a contrast ratio of 40,000:1!!!! So, to show it on a regular monitor, we have to go from 32bit to 16 and then 8 bit for web.

Does anyone have an idea of what I'm doing wrong here? The pics were all shot at 4000iso f stops from 22, 11, 8, 2.8 on a tripod and no more than 2 seconds between shots. How on Earth did that tree move? Those clouds shift so much? I have tried this several times with the same results. Anyone have an idea for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First there are but I am old school film. Colterphoto may be the guy though. The problem I think you are having is the fact that clouds to move. How quickly are you taking the pictures, remember clouds move around 15 mph or so so if you are slow you will have the clouds move. Opps just read the last sentence. 2 seconds the clouds can move alot so try it on a stationary thing first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really nothing more than a fancy term for bracketing, and you NEED a tripod in order to do it right. A remote would also be a good idea, as the slightest movement change of the camera will give you that "3-D" effect.

This way, you get a good exposure for shadow detail, midtone detail, and highlight detail. You then combine them in Photoshop to make a single picture only using the best exposed area out of each shot to make a complete, equally overall exposed image.

All of this because for the longest time, digital had even less exposure latitude than even slide film. but digital has come a long way and their latitude is getting greater and greater with every new version that comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping that there are some serious photographers here cause I'm just lost!

I recently bought a Nikon D80 DSLR. For those who do not know about this camera, a quick spec list....

Now, what is HDR? High Dynamic Range images. They look like this when done properly

344618004_415cf18e2d_o.jpg

(credits to this photographer who uses the same camera)

When done properly the photographs look almost impossible. Do a search for it, or better yet click that link above and see what this guy can do. It is amazing. I have the same equipment so I should be able to do it too right?

WRONG! I tried it today with a simple skyscape. Here is the result.

344605969_e2df8e9463_o.jpg

You need 3D glass to appreciate it haha.

The problem? Look more closely

344605967_241023cd4d_o.jpg

For some reason, the pictures don't line up...

Does anyone have an idea of what I'm doing wrong here? The pics were all shot at 4000iso f stops from 22, 11, 8, 2.8 on a tripod and no more than 2 seconds between shots. How on Earth did that tree move? Those clouds shift so much? I have tried this several times with the same results. Anyone have an idea for me?

I'm not completely sure, but it seems to me that those cloud types occur in high winds aloft, and it's likely that the clouds moved that rapidly between shots. It looks slow to you, but could be well over a hundred MPH up there. Note that the clouds closest to you seem to be double images while those far away are nicely unified, which would fit with that theory. The completely still church interior would be ideal for the technique.

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check that detail pic though, remember, even the TREE moved. This happened with ever picture. I'm going to try it with the control software so i take the pic with my laptop so i never even touch the camera and post the results in a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be one step closer. Here is what I got this time around. I took 157 shots, I just chose these 6 really quickly, I am going to try it again with different pics, these weren't really in focus, a result of me forgetting how bad my eyes are without my glasses, i was wearing contacts.

This

344708176_cb81f084f3_o.jpg

became this

344708179_05100401e3_o.jpg

Thanks for all of your ideas and help. And if anyone has some Nikon lenses they wanna unload... haha, lemme know! I really want a super zoom (>200mm) and a fisheye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin: Michael Colter owns a Nikon D200, but he may have some answers for your questions about the D80. After all, the guy's a pro!

YO, MICHAEL: WHERE ARE YOU???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

start with basic photography. Do you have a firm grasp on the fundamentals?

I think Chops' analysis is correct. You have subject movement or camera shake. For the photos to align- everything must be ROCK STEADY.


For higher quality photos, regardless of Megapixels- you need to use lower ISO ratings (think film grain), and small aperatures for max depth of field. The cloud pix might not be possible under those parameters- they're moving too quickly. Remember that the photo that you're comparing to is a completely still life shot. Try that for starters, then get fancy.

Personally if I have an image with two very different zone values, I layer them in PS and create a layer mask to vignette. I'm not big on the fancy stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just traded my 16mm fish for the 10mm for digital. The old 80-200 2.8 does NOT work well for digital, you must get the 'digital' engineered lens.

My fave is still my 85 1.4, although it's a bit long for some portraits with the 1.4 conversion of the D200.

I highly recommend getting a basic prime lens 50 1.4- shallow depth of field is IN! 50 x 1.5 ~ 75mm, a great portrait fc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have the basics down. Every blood relative on my fathers family from his brothers and sisters to my grandmother and extending to a few cousins are professional photographers. I definitely have the basics, www.ajimandtonic.com has a selection of the photography I have done with my Nikon 4300, a simple 4mp point and shooter.

I started doing photography with a Nikon F3 and moved up to the F5 and won a silly 4-H photography award at the Austin County Fair with a Nikon 8008AF.

The reason I shot at an iso of 4000 is because even with the lens set to 22, the picture still had a lot of light going through it, too much for what I needed to do.

The second shots were shot much lower, set at 2" and the lens set at 22, 11, 8, 5.6, 3.?, 2.8

The second time around, there was little to no shift in the pictures' positioning, but out of focus, I forgot that I was using contacts, not glasses. So what was in focus for my eyes, was not in focus for my camera. I never use my contacts, this is the first time in months, and thusly won't be have be a problem next time, stupid contacts! haha

I read of a program called Photomatrix that does this stuff easy-peasy, I am going to try that out later. I am thinking of something I can photograph in macro, indoors, at night, that will allow me to do this.

I think I'm getting closer to the hoped for end result. Being in Columbia Missouri, there aren't many beautiful things to take pictures of for this... In the spring my school, the University of Missouri Columbia (Mizzou) will be absolutely stunning. Our entire campus is a botanical garden.

Tomorrow I am also going to try and get approval to get into the greenhouses and take pics there. No wind to fight, beautiful plants inside, I have been told.

Hmmmph, round three! :) If I master this... I'm going to jump up and down with joy!

Thanks for the thoughts and idea and help and such!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ ...And if anyone has some Nikon lenses they wanna unload... haha, lemme know! I really want a super zoom (>200mm) and a fisheye. .]

I would stay away from lenses actually labelled as "super zooms" such as 18-200mm or 18-300mm; they are usually soft or distorted at one end of the range or the other. A short zoom, such as 18-55, or 18-70, plus a longer zoom usually satisfies most amateur photographers. Nikon, as well as almost every lens manufacturer (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc), has a 70-300mm zoom, nearly always an f4.5-5.6, some as low as $125 new (of course, you get what you pay for). On a digital camera, that zoom is equivalent to about 105-450mm. Nikon has just released a new lens at that range, a 70-300mm f4-5.6 AF-S (silent, fast autofocusing) with the "VR" vibration reduction mechanism, which allows you to hand hold the lens at relatively slow shutter speeds and still get a sharp image; it's around $500. When that one is widely available, Nikon's older 70-300 "regular" autofocus models w/o VR will show likely up on ebay very cheap, probably in the $150-$200 range. For years I have used an older 75-300mm AF Nikon lens, which is very sharp and has the invaluable feature of a tripod collar. This allows you to mount the lens on a tripod (very necessary for sharp photos, by the way, if you don't already have one), and to rotate the camera from horizontal to vertical orientation. It can be had on ebay for around $200. If you want to buy new, the places to consider are B&H Photo and Adorama, both NYC mail order outfits with good prices and reliability. Don't be sucked in by the cheaper prices at most of the other NYC places with ads in the photo mags; many will rip you off with gray market merchandise and/or ridiculous shipping charges.

[edit: you made your last post while I was composing mine; sorry if this info is too basic]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess that high dynamic range is accomplished by the camera taking two exposures at different effective film speeds. That way the bit depth would be increased. Then maybe the range is compressed in the final result.

The two exposures would require an overall longer exposure. Hence camera shake or subject movement would blur things.

= = =

There are two principles I learned with film cameras.

First, is that high contrast images with low resolution will look as good as low contrast with high resolution. Kodak showed this in technical paper. Take a model with a blonde hair out of place against a dark background. It shows up very with fast grainy film. But with a light background, it can hardly be seen.

I think I'm seeing that in NTSC and ATSC video.

Second, and more importantly. A tripod is the key to sharp images in most situations, save perhaps flash. I thought that a 1/250 sec exposure eliminated the need for a tripod, but I think there was an improvement. You can use the time delay (take of picture of yourself) function instead of a cable tripping device.

Also, the tripod will allow a higher F stop number (smaller opening) which increases depth of field. Even though people say there will eventually be diffraction fuzzyness, that is mostly theoretical.

- - - - -

By way of example: I wanted to take pictures of a ski lift cabin which was stationary in the lift barn at the top of the hill. This was off-season. There was one high window in the place for light. Very dark. (This is mostly to discuss it with Michael C.) One of the requirements was an angle which presented close up details of a latch and also the rest of the structure.

I used an F3 Nikon with the 55 mm Macro-Nikor stopped down to F22, about 100 ASA film, and about a 60 second exposure.

I was very worried. This was a bit beyond my experience otherwise.

I brought the film to a Walmart type for one-hour service because I could, maybe get a second chance at the picture taking if I had messed up. Fortunately the operation was run by a very competent young guy. They had facilities for 8 x 10s.

The results were spectacular. But when I showed them off to another camera buff he said, "Wow, what kind of film were you using?" It was not the film at all. Mosty lack of movement and perhaps, good if dim light.

My story for the evening.

Use a tripod. It is the secret weapon. The alternative is the little C-clamp gadget which is easy to carry around.

Gil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with the lens I had been using, when you change the aperture, the focus changes, significantly. In 22 it is perfectly focused. In 11, not at all, and it continues to get worse as you go. I kept shooting from 22-3 or so based on the focus of 22.

So now, to my digital af lens, going to see how it works, though it doesn't do macro, boo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lower the aperature (higher f stop) the more everything is going to be in focus) while the higer the f stop (lower number) the less things are going to focus and you get the object you want in focus while everything else is not. But I found personally doing long time exposed pictures the highest f stop (it was 2.8 on my 80 mm carl zeiss lense on my hasselblad 500 c/m) that it doesn't matter. This was time lapse photo that was from 5 minutes, 10 minutes, even one that was 60 minutes at night during a snowstorm. Key is no shakes!!! careful walking and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I went at it again... Exhale...

The result? Well, let's start with the originals.

344968463_b3b509ba9e_o.jpg344968461_1b4f984df9_o.jpg344968459_667c62dba1_o.jpg

344981525_b06ff55e14_o.jpg

Pretty decent improvement from

344708179_05100401e3_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhh the second picture that is the final, the middle of the picture is way to red...... Its as red as the sunrise ??? try reducing some of the redness to get a more natural color? The redness just screams at me this was a long term exposed picture as I have described before. That is a problem with long term pictures that the colors go freaky but its probably from the amber light in the right side but if you reduce it a few shades I think it would be an overall move balanced photo. I love the light where you can see the spotlight of the bulb but the redness in my opinion takes away from the awesome sunrise that you have in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good but now the grass seems overly green and lush but thats alright if the white on the net and boarder of the volleyball court were not so green [:P] sorry I am being picky! I sorta like the yellower cast on the basketball court of the first pic instead of the whiter but less realistic light of the second pic. also the sunrise is not as dramatic in the second..... damn I am sorry....... I am a deutsch sometimes.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this was a crappy and quick job of how I would go about the job. Of course the picture is not mine and you can use my idea or not, I would not be offend either or.

I tended to keep the middle darker and brighten the amazing sunrise. Also I lowered the contrast of the basketball court since I thought it was a bit overexposed where the light is shining which detracts your eyes away from the background

post-13377-13819318431924_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, over doing color is kinda what makes the HDR so cool, if you go look at people who really know what they are doing, the reds are totally red, the greens green and the blues blue, don't even get me started on the blacks and whites. Basically you get the extremes of RGB/BW from most intense to least intense and make them all evident in the picture, which is why I had the grass so green.

My eyes hurt! haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...