pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 3 HDR questions...  (Read 8907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 24, 2008, 08:26 »
0
Hi,

3 questions about HDR (high dynamic range, combining exposures of multiple photo's):
1) Do you use it for (micro) stock photography? (and why? since 90% is used for web)
2) What is your acceptance/submitting experience related to ghosting (moving objects), artifacs & sharpness.
3) What HDR software are you using (if any)?

Thanks,
Bjorn


« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2008, 09:22 »
0
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

« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2008, 09:25 »
0
Answers

1)  Yes, occasionally. Mostly for landscape shots where there is too much contrast between the land and sky. However, I've also started using a graduated ND filter now, and that gives better results. Trouble is, you have to lug a variety of filters and a holder around.

2)  No rejections due to ghosting (my shots with this technique are almost all static landscapes)

3)  Fred Miranda's DRI Pro

« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2008, 09:37 »
0
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

« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2008, 09:37 »
0
Hi Bateleur,

-About ghosting: don't you have trouble with eg. wind? moving clouds or grass? & sharpness

-about contrast, do you shoot in RAW? eg. my canon 5d uses 12bits, if you convert that to tiff i hardly have trouble with contrast, only on extreme sunny days... So i don't really see the point yet in HD (for microstock)... but perhaps i change my mind after this...


Ohoy,
looking forward to see how the HDR software will handle the moving water!!  And if the palm trees move by the wind...
if you did it, please submit some 100% details.


« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2008, 09:40 »
0
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???
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 09:55 by bjorn »

« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2008, 09:51 »
0
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 Idambies,

>"They can even pass IS"
doesn't sound very promising  :-\...

in your blog you write:
>"HDR pictures represent 60 and 65 % of my portfolio on SS and IS respectively."
now you say:
>"Since then I used it much less"

Can i conclude you move away from HDR?
What is your motivation? the noice? ???




« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2008, 10:06 »
0
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:


« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2008, 10:08 »
0
I've read several threads talking about getting rejections at IS for "Over Filtered". 

I love HDR and the depth and color it creates.  However I'm not sure the micro sites are real keen on this method.  I wish one of the sites like SS or IS would have a separate category for HDR only.  HDR images are great for greeting cards, prints, calendars and book covers.  I think MostPhotos is the closest thing I've seen that will accept HDR without a problem.  But I'm not too sure about sales success at MP.

« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2008, 10:14 »
0
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...


« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2008, 10:40 »
0
They sold on BNPS so I can't link to it anymore, but if they have sold there why not somewhere else too.

Here is one with ghosting http://photo.hlehnerer.com/Gallery/Others/slides/Evening-Commute.html that I did quite a wile ago. I think the size is to small to submit it anywhere, I have to dig it up and and see.

You right with the water. I was trying out the software "Dynamic Photo HDRi" and was cheating with one image and one exposure braking the exposure within the software.

I looked at someone else hdr's photos in the last view weeks and thought that I have to give hdr a try again (just for fun). Here is a link to his portfolio on filckr http://flickr.com/photos/johnmueller/

« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2008, 04:27 »
0
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.



« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2008, 04:29 »
0
They sold on BNPS so I can't link to it anymore, but if they have sold there why not somewhere else too.

I miss BNPS!!!!  :'(


« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2008, 13:52 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2008, 13:54 by Tom »

« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2008, 14:04 »
0
Here are some of mine:
http://www.mostphotos.com/189376
(this version was accepted by SS, but rejected by IS for being "overfiltered")

http://www.mostphotos.com/155737
This version was accepted by IS, it sells all right there and on higher-priced sites.
MP seem not to convert from Adobe RGB, so it looks rather dull there, but you may have a 100% zoom to check it for noise.

« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2008, 12:36 »
0
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


« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2008, 13:15 »
0
Thanks Bjorn,

this is the middle raw image with its histogram:
http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hdrsampledr5.jpg

Yeah, playing with the shadows/highlights tool could give a similar result (however with even more noise in the shadows), but I started post-processing with HDR-software and kinda liked the direction in which the image was going.


Here is another one of mine, 3 exposures blended (+/- 2EV), dodging and burning, no noise, no artifacts (but extreme highlights were lost despite that, -2EV was not enough):

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7307136

But I won't upload that one to a micro site, a higher-priced agency received it.

Kind regards,
Tom

« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 13:26 by Tom »


« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2008, 00:44 »
0
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

« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2008, 18:13 »
0
Hello Bjorn,

Did you only sharpen it for this smaller version? (or perhaps photo.net did it) (the stones & tree give a sharpened feel).


Yes, I did sharpen this photo, this is the only version that I uploaded there, since it is a sharing site, and I wanted it to look as good as possible.

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. 


Bjorn, this is indeed water. The reason that this part is brighter is that it is lit by the lamps illuminating the castle, and the surrounding areas are in the shadow of that tree. I was actually more bothered by not being able to rescue the detail in the extreme highlights than about that spot.


Quote
Anyway, back to HDR, didn't you want to make the bushes/green a bit lighter?


Most of all, I wanted this one to look at least sort of natural and avoid noise, since I wanted to submit it to midstocks. Overdodging might have increased noise.

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/


Yeah, that's a pretty cool shot. However my guess is that the sky was achieved with a graduated ND filter, rather than HDR software. Not in every scene a grad can be used, but when it can, it surely will deliver a better image quality than HDR.

Kind regards,
Tom
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 18:17 by Tom »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3740 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 04:57
by massman
7 Replies
4545 Views
Last post January 20, 2011, 01:22
by qwerty
9 Replies
3424 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 00:06
by RacePhoto
2 Replies
3705 Views
Last post January 02, 2014, 00:14
by Uncle Pete
12 Replies
8976 Views
Last post January 06, 2014, 16:27
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle