[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Here's what I got while using HDR,and that too from a single shot. I just used the canon's RAW converter to get 3 different photos at different exposures,

Kaushik, they're very good shots but NOT HDR IN TRUE SENSE. For HDR, shots have to be with different exposure (essentially shutter speed). Minimum three and maximum seven to eight shots. It'll depend greatly on location's tonal range. Choice in number of shots is of course up to individual. What you've done is simple but effective. You've taken three different processed image and merged. Probably you've used masking/opacity here and there. Tonal difference in mountain slope behind those horses indicate that.

If you ask me it's way better than Typical HDR process. HDR process gives an artificial/abnormal look which is only acceptable for computer screen. It's impossible to reproduce the same while printing. That's why the second step (Tone mapping) comes.

[rjstyles69]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Riju, was there a shot which was exposed properly for the Clouds? If so then you should be able to get the details out. Here's what I got while using HDR,and that too from a single shot. I just used the canon's RAW converter to get 3 different photos at different exposures,[you can still find that there is one small speck which got blown out in both the shots but was luckily able to retrieve others]
Regards,

Kaushik in all of the pics the clouds look burnt and I guess I cant do much. So I leave it at that and maybe the next time I will give it a try.
BTW where is the travelogue buddy ? I saw the pics on flickr and they are fantabulous.

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

If you ask me it's way better than Typical HDR process. HDR process gives an artificial/abnormal look which is only acceptable for computer screen. It's impossible to reproduce the same while printing. That's why the second step (Tone mapping) comes.

Why not give it a try Rudra ? Am actually toying the idea to get something in matt finish over the weekend. Ooh yes and before I forget I have found a place on KG Road which does digital printing and yes some amazing quality in their work.

Was at an exhibition in Mysore and thats when I met the brothers who run this place. They did have a HDR image printed and put up on display at the exhibition.
Once again you have better experience on the printing part so maybe I will keep me mouth zipped still I experience it 1st hand .

[kaushik_s]

Thanks a lot, Gkrishn,Torqy and mjothi for liking the pics.
Hi Rudra, thanks a lot.
Well, actually what you are talking about is very high dynamic range in that sense[where even AEB doesn't help and you need to manually shoot different exposures keeping the frame same]. These are actually different exposures but only difference is that I've used the software(canon RAW in this case) to get different exposures as the light levels are different from the sky then to the earth. And it was nowhere possible to get everything in right mode of exposure with one shot but the difference was not that high also (so yeah it's not truely HDR, but I would like to call the extreme cases as VDHR ;-) ). So I thought why not use the HDR process to TRY to get the best out of it.
So to do this I used HDR process of photomatics (which is quite easy and effective) as I'm not very much comfortable with masking, erasing and blending. I did tried masking techniques before but never got any satisfactory results. But with photomatics it was different. I got the 32bit HDR which as you said can't be properly displayed in our current crop of monitors as monitors doesn't themselves have that range. Then comes the process of Tone-mapping and after playing with few settings I got the desired result. Then using Photoshop levels/curves contrast was corrected and the image was sharpened and borders and copyright used. This was the whole workflow that I use and I hope it'll be help to others.
And about the abnormal looking photographs which one gets from HDR is actually possible to get in this case also., I tried it acctually he he. It won't be like the extreme cases but using light smoothing and strength sliders even in these case I could see those output. And to be frank I never liked those artificial looking shots much. May be for first 2-3 outputs one'll feel like wow but after that "naah, natural looking photos are better". And as you said probably it'll be easier to print also then those unnatural HDR's.
Regards,

PS :

Originally Posted by rjstyles69

Kaushik in all of the pics the clouds look burnt and I guess I cant do much. So I leave it at that and maybe the next time I will give it a try.
BTW where is the travelogue buddy ? I saw the pics on flickr and they are fantabulous.

Oh in that case you can't help it,better to leave it, there is always a next time.
Travelogues will be there soon, but I thought I'll process the photos first and then start the travelogue. And still many more pics left for processing and I'm actually scared at the thought itself he he..

Originally Posted by rjstyles69

Why not give it a try Rudra ? Am actually toying the idea to get something in matt finish over the weekend. Ooh yes and before I forget I have found a place on KG Road which does digital printing and yes some amazing quality in their work.

Hey, let me know also if you get the prints done well, I'm also looking for some place good to get some prints.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by rjstyles69

Why not give it a try Rudra?

Try what my friend? HDR or print from HDR?

Am actually toying the idea to get something in matt finish over the weekend. Ooh yes and before I forget I have found a place on KG Road which does digital printing and yes some amazing quality in their work.

Do it. I would surely like to see the result. I prefer inkjet print on archival quality paper. I don’t know the current quality of a digital printer. I’m sure it has improved and I want to see.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Well, actually what you are talking about is very high dynamic range in that sense[where even AEB doesn't help and you need to manually shoot different exposures keeping the frame same] .

Auto exposure bracketing will provide one up and one down. And that’s not enough for HDR, often.

These are actually different exposures but only difference is that I've used the software(canon RAW in this case) to get different exposures as the light levels are different from the sky then to the earth.

I understand this process as I use the same in tandem with Apple’s APERTURE. Second one is a recent addition and I’m still exploring it.

So I thought why not use the HDR process to TRY to get the best out of it.

No harm trying out various process, But..

So to do this I used HDR process of photomatics (which is quite easy and effective) as I'm not very much comfortable with masking, erasing and blending.

I do have Photomatix too and I believe it’s the most used one across the world. Frankly, I don’t like HDR for unnatural look. Very few situations compliment HDR process.

I did tried masking techniques before but never got any satisfactory results.

You’ll get much better results if you start exploring masking and blending on Photoshop.

But with photomatics it was different.

What is the difference and how do you see that difference?

I got the 32bit HDR which as you said can't be properly displayed in our current crop of monitors as monitors doesn't themselves have that range.

A proper colour calibrated monitor will be good enough to show that range. I do see them on my monitor.

Then comes the process of Tone-mapping and after playing with few settings I got the desired result.

Again, Tone mapping is to make your HDR file print ready.

Then using Photoshop levels/curves contrast was corrected and the image was sharpened and borders and copyright used. This was the whole workflow that I use and I hope it'll be help to others.

kaushik, your pictures are really good. For me your work process is not very important as long as I like what I see. Here what I see from your stable IS GOOD.

[rjstyles69]

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Try what my friend?

Printing HDR's and to see the outcome.

[Rudra Sen]

I have to shoot for HDR processing first, Riju.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Auto exposure bracketing will provide one up and one down. And that’s not enough for HDR, often.

In E3 I have a choice of 3 or 5 shots in AE bracketing, I can choose the steps from 1/3F to 1F. I have never got good HDR until now.

[kaushik_s]

Thanks Rudra, I'll try with Photoshop masking, I did tried it before but I was very bad at it. Problem is that I'm also bit impatient and these thing needs lotsa time. And I found photomatix a much easier way in that sense. Also while using masking and blending I found that I used to get very bad looking Halloos and as you said it was un-natural. May be something was wrong with the process but I got fade up soon on HDR processing using Photoshop. And another problem is that I use PS 7.0, don't have CS2 yet.
Yes, this process of using RAW is not something which will help in most situations but in this case it helped as the tonal difference was not that high. I've few more failed attempts where there is excessive noise which would've been avoided if I had shot with different exposures as the range was vast and was unrecoverable. I had to trash those photos anyway.

But about 32 bit HDR, I don't think it's possible as the tonal range is normally out of range for most of the monitors as far as I know. Probably you are talking about 16 bit HDR's(or something like that) ?

BTW, off topic, can you please put some pointers about monitors ? I need to get one soon and not having a very high budget(max 15k). I've almost zeroed in on Dell monitors but seems to be out of my range as of now(20-22 inch).
Regards,

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by guyonblackybx

I do have a pic with similar composition that you have mentioned.

Too dark.
You should have taken a longer exposure for the second picture.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by Samurai

In E3 I have a choice of 3 or 5 shots in AE bracketing, I can choose the steps from 1/3F to 1F. I have never got good HDR until now.

Samurai, Mark II has the same but for proper HDR it is essential to go for manual exposure (Tv) bracketing.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Yes, this process of using RAW is not something which will help in most situations but in this case it helped as the tonal difference was not that high.

Kaushik, I didn't understand this bit. Please elaborate.

Probably you are talking about 16 bit HDR's(or something like that) ?

No I'm talking about a good monitor with good graphics card.

BTW, off topic, can you please put some pointers about monitors ? I need to get one soon and not having a very high budget(max 15k). I've almost zeroed in on Dell monitors but seems to be out of my range as of now(20-22 inch).

I've no clue on this. May be should put up this question in gadget thread.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Kaushik, I didn't understand this bit. Please elaborate.

What I meant to say is if the difference in lighting for different subjects in a particular scene vary by more then 4 stops then you won't be able to use the Canon RAW converter's exposure control as it allows to bump up/down the exposure by only -2 to +2 stop .

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

No I'm talking about a good monitor with good graphics card.

May be, I'm not very much aware of the monitor technologies. But what I understood from some readings is that monitors can't cope up with the 32 bit HDR's dynamic range as the information is stored as floating point and that's bit too much to handle by a monitor. Anyway that's theoretical knowledge only so I'm not sure.

[MonkSansFerrari]

Here's every Indian driver's (& photographer's) dream destination:

Ladakh: Pangong Tso

(Minimal adjustment of light & contrast post-shooting).

More of my madness at my Flickr Stream !

[Rudra Sen]

Rough, hostile and beautiful Ladakh. EOS 1Ds Mark II with 70-200 mm.

[MonkSansFerrari]

@Rudra !

That's a wonderful image. And you rightly said that Ladakh is rought, hostile and yet so beautiful.

[guyonblackybx]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Too dark.
You should have taken a longer exposure for the second picture.

Yeha ishould have but I was not carrying my remote shutter release :( this was a 30 sec exposure,thats max I get without remote shutter release :(