MicrostockGroup

I thought about this the other day too. I planing on creating some images similar to this one http://flickr.com/photos/o-boy/2495186768/ and will just give it a try.

I cannot see why it should not work for web use. HDR's have their appeal to the view because of the different color range.

Ghosting images often show a way of movement, and movement photo do get accepted and sell.
Picture like this do get excepted http://www.mostphotos.com/view.php?imgid=153560&referenceid=3532
http://www.mostphotos.com/view.php?imgid=160372&referenceid=3532
Those are not hdr but they show movement.

I use Picturenau, FDRTools, Photomatix, easyHDR, Dynamic Photo HDRi

I wrote something on my blog about HDR and microstock some time ago:

http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/2007/09/hdr-and-microstock.html

Since then I used it much less but still sometimes  on landscape and architectural shots. They can even pass IS if the HDR looks natural

L

Hi oboy,

I guess, your car in motion picture will be impossible to do with hdr. But i get your point...  But in my experience, the less fuzzy (movement) the better the sales....

>and movement photo do get accepted and sell.
Can you pass a link? I can't find a sale on the 2 you mentioned...


>I cannot see why it should not work for web use.
since pc screens only have 256 colour shades per R,G and B.
for printing ok i can understand, but for web/pc???

Well IS is very picky for noise and artefact, HDR had some for sure....
I got a better camera so I probably need less HDR than before to the result I want, I know that might sounds a bit strange...

With my new camera I can do HDR from a single raw with good results so I can avoid ghosting effect (ex moving trees)\

this is one example:

Hi ldambies/cshack ,

Yes i can see IS reject Idam's sample image on "Over Filtered"
the sky looks too blue on my screen. sort of over saturated...
Ironic, since those images used to sell very well on IS, customers seem to like them...
but it may turn out well when printed.

I agree Idam, its what I think too so far, the better the camera, the less hdr need...

I also have some HDR on sale, and they have some good sales, evan some EL. But you must have attention  to artifacts and not make the HDR too much unnatural. This one sells very good and have 2 EL.

I presume that one way to minimize noise and artifacts in HDRs would be using a camera with a wide EV range in autobracketing. The EOS 1D III and 1DS III  have 18EV, most other Canons have only 4 EV.  Nikon and Pentax prosumer models have 8EV.

Wide EV range would be very helpful in night photography where 4EV is usually not enough to expose correctly all parts of the image.

If you use Photomatix, switching the mode from Detail Enhancer to Tone Compressor will also reduce greatly noise and artifacts, but you may not always be happy with the result.

Hi Tom,

Nice shot!
i like the 155737 better, i guess on that shot the windows of the building come out better (compare the pink building at the back) Also the sky has more detail.

But did you need HDR there? if its not too much work, can you show the histogram of the middle image (assuming you made 3 shots)? In your opinion, would playing around with curves on 1 image, not have given the same result?

thanks/vielen dank,
Bjorn

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the histogram. Like you said, with playing with shadows/highlights you could have got far with only this image. But i understand your motivation
And lucky enough for this scene, only the water can move by wind so I guess architecture in combination with evening/night shots is a candidate for HDR.

The contrast in 7307136 is extreme, i understand you can't do that with 1 shot.
Nice shot, and done at a great time of the day.
Did you only sharpen it for this smaller version? (or perhaps photo.net did it) (the stones & tree give a sharpened feel).
The only comment (if you want to hear) i have is the light spot on the bottom left. My eye moves over the photo and goes to the castle and its nice towers, but instead of staying there, it then moves to that spot on the bottom left and wonders 'what is that?' I guess its water, but how come its lighter then the rest.  Which is a pitty since that is not where you want the 'looker' to focus.
Anyway, back to HDR, didn't you want to make the bushes/green a bit lighter?

You may find Charlie Waite's photo's interesting, (so i guess a dramatic sky would be nice see:
http://www.charliewaite.com/image-details.asp?LibraryID=2331
http://www.charliewaite.com/

regards,
bjorn