In Flight HDR

[Canuck[_10_]]

This is a second attempt at producing an HDR image of an aircraft in flight.

As the saying goes....there's more than one way to...

I've "discovered" two techniques whereby it is possible to create an HDR
image of an aircraft in flight. The second of the two is much easier and
produces similar results to the first method.....

1> Take a photo of the aircraft in flight in RAW format. Make sure your
exposure is SPOT on.
2> Process it out as a JPG.
3> Process it out as a JPG with +1 exposure.
4> Process it out with -1 exposure.
5> OPTIONAL: you could create many different layers depending on your wish
to experiment simply by altering the exposure adjustment each time you
render it out as a JPG.
6> Use Photomatix to combine the layers. Since the software thinks that each
layer is identical, specify the exposure spacing between the layers.
7> Adjust the various options to create what suits you in an HDR and render
it out.

DONE!

[Indrek[_2_]]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> This is a second attempt at producing an HDR image of an aircraft in
> flight.
>
> As the saying goes....there's more than one way to...
>
> I've "discovered" two techniques whereby it is possible to create an HDR
> image of an aircraft in flight. The second of the two is much easier and
> produces similar results to the first method.....
>
> 1> Take a photo of the aircraft in flight in RAW format. Make sure your
> exposure is SPOT on.
> 2> Process it out as a JPG.
> 3> Process it out as a JPG with +1 exposure.
> 4> Process it out with -1 exposure.
> 5> OPTIONAL: you could create many different layers depending on your wish
> to experiment simply by altering the exposure adjustment each time you
> render it out as a JPG.
> 6> Use Photomatix to combine the layers. Since the software thinks that
> each
> layer is identical, specify the exposure spacing between the layers.
> 7> Adjust the various options to create what suits you in an HDR and
> render
> it out.
>
> DONE!
>
>

Interesting.

I wonder if one could achieve the same effect by boosting the highlights and
shadows separately in post processing.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult W.S. Churchill

[Chris Richardson]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:30:49 -0500, Canuck wrote:

> 3 Process it out as a JPG with +1 exposure.
> 4 Process it out with -1 exposure.

This does nothing to increase the dynamic range. Oversaturated
highlights and underexposed shadows will remain exactly the same.

At the very best, this method could be called pseudo-hdr. In actuality,
it is pure malarkey.

[the Legend of LAX[_2_]]

On 6/10/2011 7:44 PM, Indrek wrote:

>
> Interesting.
>
> I wonder if one could achieve the same effect by boosting the highlights
> and shadows separately in post processing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Indrek Aavisto
>
>
That's exactly what I do using Capture One. In fact, they have sliders
just for highlights & shadows.

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2011-06-10 18:33:51 -0700, Chris Richardson
> said:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:30:49 -0500, Canuck wrote:
>
>> 3 Process it out as a JPG with +1 exposure.
>> 4 Process it out with -1 exposure.
>
> This does nothing to increase the dynamic range. Oversaturated
> highlights and underexposed shadows will remain exactly the same.
>
> At the very best, this method could be called pseudo-hdr. In actuality,
> it is pure malarkey.

For a single exposure pseudo-HDR, single exposure tone-mapping using a
piece of software such as NIK HDR Efex Pro to tone-map the single
exposure, rather than making the RAW ACR adjustments, would result in a
far more satisfying result.

My suggestion would be to download the demo copy of NIK HDR Efex Pro
and see for yourself.
< https://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Canuck[_10_]]

"Indrek" wrote in message
...



"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> This is a second attempt at producing an HDR image of an aircraft in
> flight.
>
> As the saying goes....there's more than one way to...
>
> I've "discovered" two techniques whereby it is possible to create an HDR
> image of an aircraft in flight. The second of the two is much easier and
> produces similar results to the first method.....
>
> 1> Take a photo of the aircraft in flight in RAW format. Make sure your
> exposure is SPOT on.
> 2> Process it out as a JPG.
> 3> Process it out as a JPG with +1 exposure.
> 4> Process it out with -1 exposure.
> 5> OPTIONAL: you could create many different layers depending on your wish
> to experiment simply by altering the exposure adjustment each time you
> render it out as a JPG.
> 6> Use Photomatix to combine the layers. Since the software thinks that
> each
> layer is identical, specify the exposure spacing between the layers.
> 7> Adjust the various options to create what suits you in an HDR and
> render
> it out.
>
> DONE!
>
>

Interesting.

I wonder if one could achieve the same effect by boosting the highlights and
shadows separately in post processing.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult W.S. Churchill

No. The HDR software does something differently.....and depending on the
other settings you use, it can produce an image that is quite different than
just adjusting the shadows and highlights.

Nick

[Canuck[_10_]]

"Chris Richardson" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:30:49 -0500, Canuck wrote:

> 3 Process it out as a JPG with +1 exposure.
> 4 Process it out with -1 exposure.

This does nothing to increase the dynamic range. Oversaturated
highlights and underexposed shadows will remain exactly the same.

At the very best, this method could be called pseudo-hdr. In actuality,
it is pure malarkey.

Nope. If you have a look at the original image and compare it to the HDR
image, there is quite a difference. Yeah, it is pseudo - hdr......but doing
it the real way is a total pain in the arse because more often than not the
aircraft is not travelling in a very stable path and having to shoot with a
shutter speed of 2000 and above limits you to very bright days. Still....it
can be done the real way or this way. The results are not that dissimilar.

N.