I'll have to review the HDR doc but I think it recommends a minimum of 3 images
but I do think that's probably all that would be required. Right now I'm on my
krappy laptop and not in a position to judge the kolor of anything for the next
6 weeks or so.
You were absolutely right about the mosquitoes. There's no way anyone could
actually sit in those chairs at the time the photos were taken. I donated 5
pints of blood during my short shooting session.
Chuck Norcutt
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: What are you using for HDR images?
> Sent: Sep 06 '08 22:56
>
> chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I thought you would reply that HDR might not have been required and I have
> to admit that I didn't try manipulating one of the middle exposures. I'll
> have to try that when I get back.
> >
> I thought about that. I do think a very good image could come from one
> low ISO image that just avoids clipping the sky. However, even in an 8
> bit JPEG, the depth of noise free shadow detail in the HDR version makes
> tonal adjustment a joy. I do think 8 exposures is overkill in the
> interest of experimentation. I suspect two about three stops apart would
> do the job.
>
> I have on a few occasions taken bracketed shots thinking to combine them
> and found that only one was needed.
> > I do like the rework on the HDR images. They are prettier. But I'm not
> sure they look like the original scene which was fairly dark.
> That's one of the problems with extending the dynamic range. Useful as
> it sounds, it either has to be limited to subtle effects or it makes the
> tonality look unnatural. I think it is partly due to the very different
> way that photography and human vision work. Only the central portion of
> our visual field is sharp and sees color. Only the outer portion sees
> into shadows. So when we are looking at a scene like this, our eyes move
> around and create a virtual composite. Then when we view a photographic
> image of the same subject, we carefully put all, or at least most, of it
> in the central field.
>
> It just isn't the same thing, so we are trying to find a compromise that
> looks good, and conveys the sense of the subject, but is never going to
> be the same. On the other hand, no mosquitoes! :-)
> > I've come down in definite favor of the rework on #2 but I'm still mulling
> #1 although it's slowly sinking in.
> I moved these images.
>
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/CNorcutt/Barnstable/hdr_7052-57_std.htm>
>
> Much the way I felt. It was easy to work on #2. It didn't look right to
> me and took little coaxing to come into balance.
>
> With #1, the image as presented is quite appealing. It has very much the
> feel of sitting on the water at the end of a perfect day, watching the
> sun set. Warm, soft and comfy.
>
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/CNorcutt/Barnstable/hdr-58-65_std.htm>
>
> Still, as it was an HDR image, I thought it would be interesting so see
> what making more dynamic range visible might contribute. Bringing out
> the highlight detail and balancing the central brightness/contrast to
> the rest of the image was easy. Bringing up deep shadow detail so it was
> there, but not too much so, was tricky. I ended up using mask painting
> with low flow to work in those areas.
>
> The result is, I think, quite a pleasing image, but with a very
> different feeling tone. I'm not sure I can say one or the other is
> "better". Using a mask to blend some of the center soft feel with some
> of the outer shadow detail might be better than either - or not. :-)
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|