Shooting multiple images for HDR (Page 2): In this one the shadows are badly underexposed. You haven't provided an example yet of capturing a wide tonal range.

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Shooting multiple images for HDR

Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>

Jun 26, 2017 17:18:22 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

Similarly, I wanted to capture the details of this set of lights, as the texture of the light itself was quite interesting.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-462142-1.html

--Bob

In this one the shadows are badly underexposed. You haven't provided an example yet of capturing a wide tonal range.

Jun 26, 2017 17:20:06 #

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Because it is an excellent example of exposing for the entire range of light. The highlights are not blown out.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

Then why are you using it as some sort of example of capturing the entire tonal range of a scene? Blowing out the highlights is not capturing a wide tonal range.

Jun 26, 2017 17:21:38 #

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The shadows are not underexposed at all. Perhaps you need to have your vision assessed. In fact, that might be why you feel the need to rely on HDR all the time, vision impairment.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

In this one the shadows are badly underexposed. You haven't provided an example yet of capturing a wide tonal range.

Jun 26, 2017 17:22:01 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

Because it is an excellent example of exposing for the entire range of light. The highlights are not blown out.
--Bob

Yes they are, you just intended them to be. What you've provided us is the same as this. The windows are just smaller in yours.

Jun 26, 2017 17:25:20 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

The shadows are not underexposed at all. Perhaps you need to have your vision assessed. In fact, that might be why you feel the need to rely on HDR all the time, vision impairment.
--Bob

Oh really? Then what's that big black area at the end of the hall, and why does it register rgb 0,0,0 values?

Jun 26, 2017 17:27:10 #

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

jradose wrote:

i understand that you can take a series of photos ... (show quote)

A sensor is only capable of recording a certain amount of contrast latitude, it does not matter what format you choose to shoot in, the sensor is the limit, not the file format!

Jun 26, 2017 17:30:17 #

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Now those windows are blown out. I'll bet they measure 255,255,255. Whereas, I'll bet the light you are mentioning is below that level. Therefore not blown out, as you seem to think.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

Yes they are, you just intended them to be. What you've provided us is the same as this. The windows are just smaller in yours.

Jun 26, 2017 17:31:10 #

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That black area was black, as in devoid of illumination.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

Oh really? Then what's that big black area at the end of the hall, and why does it register rgb 0,0,0 values?

Jun 26, 2017 17:35:54 #

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Similarly, to your photo here, I shot this one by exposing correctly to capture the full range of light from outside, with details, and inside.
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2014/6/6/1402033254602-_rsm_2011031901_001.jpg
--Bob

rmalarz wrote:

Now those windows are blown out. I'll bet they measure 255,255,255. Whereas, I'll bet the light you are mentioning is below that level. Therefore not blown out, as you seem to think.
--Bob

Jun 26, 2017 17:48:39 #

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Harold Davis talks about using that same technique with a Raw capture in his book on HDR... It is just another technique which will give a little different result. Experiment and notice the differences in dynamic range etc... this is not a cookbook where an extra pinch of salt is going to ruin dinner... Play around, even try different settings on each of the bracketed captures. We are not just connecting dots here but making our own dots.

Jun 26, 2017 18:07:09 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

Now those windows are blown out. I'll bet they measure 255,255,255. Whereas, I'll bet the light you are mentioning is below that level. Therefore not blown out, as you seem to think.
--Bob

Let's see. Simple eyedropper test in Photoshop... 255,255,255. Sorry.

(Download)

Jun 26, 2017 18:08:24 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

That black area was black, as in devoid of illumination.
--Bob

A second photo in that same thread proves that it was not devoid of illumination. There's a bush there.

Jun 26, 2017 18:08:58 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

What's outside that window is overexposed. I'm starting to think you don't know what overexposed and underexposed means.

Jun 26, 2017 18:24:12 #

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I've no qualms with that. It's a bright light. So, we can agree that the image contains all of the values from 0 to 255. A single exposure done correctly, and values placed appropriatly.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

Let's see. Simple eyedropper test in Photoshop... 255,255,255. Sorry.

Jun 26, 2017 19:36:27 #

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

I've no qualms with that. It's a bright light. So, we can agree that the image contains all of the values from 0 to 255. A single exposure done correctly, and values placed appropriatly.
--Bob

Any image can have 0-255 simply by setting black and white points. That has no bearing on whether or not it's done correctly. That's a matter of opinion. But that's not even what this thread is about. What if you were to take all of those 255,255,255 pixels and properly expose them? That's what we're referring to here.

Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>

If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.

Main Photography Discussion

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum