Posts for: andrew.haysom
Dec 4, 2014 04:26:03 #
Very nice Willy, the inside of churches are a wonderful HDR subject
Dec 3, 2014 06:55:15 #
Billyspad wrote:
I was never really convinced this image was a candidate for HDR so should have followed my first thoughts.
I am stubborn by nature and will no doubt not rest until I find a way to eradicate them Using luminance layers and the channels pallet may work I think. Its been a long time since I did any so if Im not around for a few weeks you know what Im doing lol
I am stubborn by nature and will no doubt not rest until I find a way to eradicate them Using luminance layers and the channels pallet may work I think. Its been a long time since I did any so if Im not around for a few weeks you know what Im doing lol
Sounds like you know your way round Photoshop better than me I'm still learning, in fact just ordered a book that will have some of that stuff in it, so I might be busy too.
Dec 3, 2014 05:46:32 #
It seems the High Pass Filter is just doing exactly what the tone mapping presets in Photomatix do which is to exacerbate the areas where you have light to dark transitions, which creates the halos. The only way to avoid the halos that I know of is to completely avoid the tone mapping and to be really careful how you process such images. Once the halos are produced it is extremely difficult to get rid of them.
Dec 3, 2014 03:35:29 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I have the lens and the dock. I have not had to use the dock to tune the focus on any of the 3 bodies I have used it on, but I have set some of the custom functions to my liking. Its priceless to be able to tune the lens to your liking right at home.
MT, Thoughts about the lens? I ma considering it too for Canon mount. I have the Sigma 120-400 and have been more than happy with it. Do you think this is a better option than the Tamron ?
Dec 3, 2014 02:42:40 #
Billyspad wrote:
The part of the sky you refer to was not tone mapped at all it was brushed through with layer mask from one of the original shots! So its on the initial shot. It has to be the most stubborn halo I have ever tried to deal with. Tried shifting it using the channels pallet but its still here.
So whats your idea now Micheal G?
Billyspad
So whats your idea now Micheal G?
Billyspad
Interesting, because the halo does not show up at all in the original image you posted, so it must have been introduced through some of the processing applied. As Armadillo said usually through overdoing the tone mapping.
Dec 2, 2014 05:46:51 #
OK, I am a 6D owner, so first here's the lenses I own and use on it.
Canon 16-35 F4 L IS
Canon 24-105 F4 L IS
Canon 50 L 1.4
Canon 100 Macro L F2.8
Sigma 120-400
If I had to choose 3 (which I wouldn't like to), I'd have to say the 24-105 (which is a great lens), the Sigma 120-400 (because I like wildlife and birding) and the 100 Macro. Wouldn't like to lose the other two though.
Canon 16-35 F4 L IS
Canon 24-105 F4 L IS
Canon 50 L 1.4
Canon 100 Macro L F2.8
Sigma 120-400
If I had to choose 3 (which I wouldn't like to), I'd have to say the 24-105 (which is a great lens), the Sigma 120-400 (because I like wildlife and birding) and the 100 Macro. Wouldn't like to lose the other two though.
Nov 29, 2014 07:29:30 #
Here's my attempt for what it's worth :-)
Nov 29, 2014 06:56:05 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
There used to be some "HDR masters" in the UHH HDR section. They were able to successfully create HDRs without the halos and without pixelation. It is not inevitable; it just takes work.
The two I recall were "Andrew Haysom" & "Conkerwood". They both included their work flows and produced quality images. Neither seems to post in that forum as regularly as they used to.
The best advice? Look them up.
The two I recall were "Andrew Haysom" & "Conkerwood". They both included their work flows and produced quality images. Neither seems to post in that forum as regularly as they used to.
The best advice? Look them up.
Firstly, thanks for the compliment LRF, I appreciate it.
Secondly for a proper critique I'd like to see a full version of the image, otherwise to a degree I'm just guessing.
What I'm seeing in your pictures is I think a combination of multiple things. Firstly movement in the leaves and branches, secondly chromatic aberration and thirdly noise.
My general advice would be as follows;
- Always use a quality software product to remove CA and noise from all the images being input to the HDR process before processing them through the HDR software.
- Avoid using any of the heavy tone mapping presets, these will exacerbate any noise or CA in your images so much the images look terrible.
- If you have movement between images, especially lots of movement like leaves and branches, the automatic ghosting features will struggle and you'll always get messy edges. Consider doing a pseudo-HDR of your middle exposure (create a -2, +2 exposure in ACR and then process these), and then blend this with your HDR for the problematic movement areas.
Hope this helps.
Andrew
Nov 25, 2014 02:27:45 #
pete-m wrote:
I've dona a little experimenting with HDR and Photomatix. I also use in camera HDR with my 6D with good results. Did you use in camera or external software?
This is out-of-camera using Photomatix.
Nov 24, 2014 04:34:43 #
Billyspad wrote:
It will not affect the look of the process. It still retains that nice natural look but with a little more depth. I downloaded it to try so pretty sure it works for this image.
Feel free to upload your altered image :-)
Nov 24, 2014 03:36:34 #
Billyspad wrote:
Its very nice and its been a few years since I was in Chester. It is very natural looking but the image is a tad flat and could maybe do with a contrast boost to give it some pop.
I'm in the "try and keep it natural looking" school of HDR, I'd rather keep it a bit under than over-process.
Nov 24, 2014 02:11:46 #
One from my recent UK trip.
Nov 10, 2014 14:51:07 #
Great job! An awful lot of work in that one!
Oct 26, 2014 17:03:53 #
skingfong wrote:
I went from a Canon 40D to a Canon 6D. As I suspected the 6D doesn't do well for moving things and sports. I kind of knew this before I bought the 6D. I also knew the 40D with the crop sensor has the 1.6 multiplier which is great for using long lenses. My 400mm becomes an equivalent to 560mm.
These are reasons why I'm glad I have both the FF and APS-c bodies. Do you have both for the same reasons or any other reasons?
These are reasons why I'm glad I have both the FF and APS-c bodies. Do you have both for the same reasons or any other reasons?
I started with an EOS 60D and also purchased the 6D. Now I continue to use my 60D for my birding/wildlife (with a Sigma 120-400) and the 6D for just about everything else.
I too am glad to have both.
Oct 11, 2014 14:34:45 #