[jkdas]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

To the pot of gold
Attachment 192037

Good one; nice timing

[chevelle]

Originally Posted by clevermax

The the lowlights seems to be clipped. HDR should have some more details there. How did you take it and process it?

what does the term 'lowlights seem to be clipped' means? pardon my ignorance by i am still learning.

well i took 3 photos at different EV. it was 0, 2, -2. but i had to reject the third photo as it wasn't aligned properly. so used 0, 2 photos to make hdr.

then i went into detail enhancer and applied following settings

strength - around 65
color saturation - 69
light smoothing - 5
luminosity - 5
micro soothing -25
white clip - 0.13%
black clip - 0.17%
gamma - 1.79

using the above settings i got the pic shown here

thanks for your opinion

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by 14000rpm

nice pic. sharpen up the colours and PP it and it'll be awesome.

Originally Posted by jkdas

Good one; nice timing

Thanks. The pic has been sharpened(USM) and level correction applied.
The original is even draber

[Torqueguru]

@tsk
Superb shot. I liked it!
Regards,
TG.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by chevelle

what does the term 'lowlights seem to be clipped' means? pardon my ignorance by i am still learning.

The darker areas are completely dark - RGB=0,0,0 In a high dynamic range image, the details in the shadows also should be brought up to show what's in there, unless it is pitch dark in those places.

Similarly, the highlights also shouldn't get clipped. For example, RGB channel values per each pixel should not touch the peak values in any particular area so that the area just appear plain white.

So you may think that when you take the individual shots, the most underexposed shot should have some visible details in the highlights areas (instead of pure white) and the most over exposed shot should have something visible in the lowlight areas - No, it is not needed. If you are shooting RAW, the image will have more dynamic range than the LCD screens in cameras or the PC monitors can display. (32 bits per channel per pixel) So there is no need to have a big difference visually in terms of exposure in the individual RAW images.

Originally Posted by chevelle

well i took 3 photos at different EV. it was 0, 2, -2. but i had to reject the third photo as it wasn't aligned properly. so used 0, 2 photos to make hdr.

Hmm..with only two shots you won't get a nice looking HDR if there is a huge difference in the amount of light falling in various parts of the frame. In outdoors I think you should take at least 4 shots spaced at 2 EVs to get a decent HDR. I don't use the bracketing in my camera since it is only +or- 0.7 EV. I just click 4 or 5 pictures by rotating the exposure dial by two steps.

Originally Posted by chevelle

then i went into detail enhancer and applied following settings
strength - around 65
color saturation - 69
light smoothing - 5
luminosity - 5
micro soothing -25
white clip - 0.13%
black clip - 0.17%
gamma - 1.79

Can't comment on these settings because it can vary from picture to picture to produce a neat looking HDR. Don't go by the values, but go by the visual feedback you are getting when you change these values and finalize on it according to your liking. HTH

I trying to turn my attention away from HDR. As per the gurus here, exposure blending is what you need learn and I think it produces more realistic images having good dynamic range.

[chevelle]

Originally Posted by clevermax

The darker areas are completely dark - RGB=0,0,0 In a high dynamic range image, the details in the shadows also should be brought up to show what's in there, unless it is pitch dark in those places.

Similarly, the highlights also shouldn't get clipped. For example, RGB channel values per each pixel should not touch the peak values in any particular area so that the area just appear plain white.

So you may think that when you take the individual shots, the most underexposed shot should have some visible details in the highlights areas (instead of pure white) and the most over exposed shot should have something visible in the lowlight areas - No, it is not needed. If you are shooting RAW, the image will have more dynamic range than the LCD screens in cameras or the PC monitors can display. (32 bits per channel per pixel) So there is no need to have a big difference visually in terms of exposure in the individual RAW images.



Hmm..with only two shots you won't get a nice looking HDR if there is a huge difference in the amount of light falling in various parts of the frame. In outdoors I think you should take at least 4 shots spaced at 2 EVs to get a decent HDR. I don't use the bracketing in my camera since it is only +or- 0.7 EV. I just click 4 or 5 pictures by rotating the exposure dial by two steps.



Can't comment on these settings because it can vary from picture to picture to produce a neat looking HDR. Don't go by the values, but go by the visual feedback you are getting when you change these values and finalize on it according to your liking. HTH

Thanks a lot for info about darker areas in my photo. it was very informative. shall keep in mind the next time i do HDR.

i also don't use bracketing, i do it manually, that's why may be the third image didn't align properly.

i just gave you the settings that i did and felt i did recover some detail. like the original photo doesn't show 35 mph limit clearly, while after recovering detail it can be seen clearly among other things.

do you think dark clip and white clip settings would have helped from getting low highlights clipped?

also its too bad, h50 doesn't have RAW. have to make do with jpeg which also increases loss of quality

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by chevelle

Thanks a lot for info about darker areas in my photo. it was very informative. shall keep in mind the next time i do HDR.

i also don't use bracketing, i do it manually, that's why may be the third image didn't align properly.

The software you use (Photomatix or PS?) will have option to align source images right? They can be aligned by matching horizontal and vertical shifts and by matching features.

[chevelle]

Originally Posted by clevermax

The software you use (Photomatix or PS?) will have option to align source images right? They can be aligned by matching horizontal and vertical shifts and by matching features.

i used Photomatix. and yes there is an option to align, but after it aligned, it was looking horrible and could easily make out the misalignment.

[Dry Ice]

Have been glued to this thread for the past hour or so.. Some true masterpieces, I must say.

Heres a pic from my side,

[Rudra Sen]

Not really a car photography in true sense. Last Sunday outing and four black cars from the group.

[rjstyles69]

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Not really a car photography in true sense. Last Sunday outing and four black cars from the group.

Attachment 193018

Actually the skies turned awesome post the shoot. Am sure you wouldn't have missed catching a glimpse. Nice one , I love the way it has turned out to be.
Here's one which I PP'ed .

[kpzen]

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Not really a car photography in true sense. Last Sunday outing and four black cars from the group.

Attachment 193018

Sir,

New set of wheels for the Optra ?

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by kpzen

Sir,

New set of wheels for the Optra ?

Yes. you've spotted right. I haven't got time to shoot Optra with new wheels and tyres. Will do it soon but.

[tsk1979]

Another shot I like

[clevermax]

@tsk: Beautiful picture again..