HDR with subject in rapid motion (Page 2): What the OP was talking about goes way beyond ghosting!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

rwilson1942 wrote:

The motion problem in HDR is usually called 'ghosting' and most HDR software has the ability to deal with it.

What the OP was talking about goes way beyond ghosting!

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

The OP specifically mentioned "...sometimes the range of light is just too great to get both shadow and highlight detail."

I'm not sure what is unclear about that sentence.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

rjaywallace wrote:

That is correct and it's true about On1 Raw as well. /Ralph

...and Photoshop, and...,and........, and the list goes on!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

There is nothing unclear about that sentence. What is unclear is to why the OP is approaching the exposure situation in the manner he is. The actual solution is quite simple. Exposing with a -1EV setting is not it.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

I'm not sure what is unclear about that sentence.

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

There is nothing unclear about that sentence. What is unclear is to why the OP is approaching the exposure situation in the manner he is. The actual solution is quite simple. Exposing with a -1EV setting is not it.
--Bob

No exposure approach can capture more than the sensor is capable of with a single shot. That should be self explanatory. An 8 ounce glass cannot hold 12 ounces of water no matter how carefully you pour it in.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I never said any approach could. However, there are simple approaches, that require knowledge of one's camera's capabilities, that will facilitate capturing large dynamic range scenes with one exposure and commensurate post processing. I seem to do that quite often. It's not magic, it's simply an acquired skill. A skill that some are just not willing to devote time to learning.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

No exposure approach can capture more than the sensor is capable of with a single shot. That should be self explanatory. An 8 ounce glass cannot hold 12 ounces of water no matter how carefully you pour it in.

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

I never said any approach could. However, there are simple approaches, that require knowledge of one's camera's capabilities, that will facilitate capturing large dynamic range scenes with one exposure and commensurate post processing. I seem to do that quite often. It's not magic, it's simply an acquired skill. A skill that some are just not willing to devote time to learning.
--Bob

Once again, the OP specifically stated situations that are too great for the sensor to capture. You've stated before that you avoid such situations. Other people do not.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I've done this in Topaz Adjust with just 1 image correctly exposed for water "feathering."

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

Thanks for the help.
Some of these methods might work, for example with wildlife. I don't understand how any would really improve on my described workflow with waves, moving leaves in trees, multiple running athletes, or other situations where large and multi-centered motion is the problem. Ghosting in circumscribed areas, and minor amounts of motion are easy. It's substantial and rapid motion that is the problem.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Most probably doesn't even know what his sensor's capabilities are. That is not intended as a slam on the OP, but a general comment to most using digital cameras. I don't avoid those situations. However, I don't need multiple exposures to deal with them either, http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-438348-1.html.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

Once again, the OP specifically stated situations that are too great for the sensor to capture. You've stated before that you avoid such situations. Other people do not.

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

I don't avoid those situations. However, I don't need multiple exposures to deal with them either.
--Bob

So let's get this straight: you don't avoid shooting situations where's the dynamic range exceeds your sensor's capability, but you don't need multiple exposures to capture that dynamic range. You just told us that you can pour 12 ounces of water into an 8 ounce glass.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I try to limit my responses to you for just this reason. Unfortunately, I was more absorbed in the subject of discussion than who was responding. As I mentioned, it's a very good idea to scientifically test one's equipment, determine it's capabilities, and then use that equipment to it's capabilities. In most cases, those capabilities extend beyond most people's thorough appreciation of the equipment's performance envelope. So, if one is very careful and works the situation just right, one can put 12 oz of water in an 8 oz glass, figuratively speaking of course. I seem to have little issue with doing so.
--Bob

TheDman wrote:

So let's get this straight: you don't avoid shooting situations where's the dynamic range exceeds your sensor's capability, but you don't need multiple exposures to capture that dynamic range. You just told us that you can pour 12 ounces of water into an 8 ounce glass.

TheDman Loc: USA

rmalarz wrote:

So, if one is very careful and works the situation just right, one can put 12 oz of water in an 8 oz glass

No, one cannot.

rmalarz wrote:

I seem to have little issue with doing so.
--Bob

You've never provided an example of such. The previous snapshot was not an example.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

rook2c4 wrote:

To treat the moving object(s) separately within the image, use layers and selection brush tool. For example, you can apply single image tone-mapping to the moving objects (flowing water, wildlife, etc.) and normal HDR to everything else. This will be far less of a compromise than your approach of completely forgoing HDR. It does not need to be one or the other, it can be both.

This answer is interesting; it appears it will be time consuming, but I can see where it will work for shots where the motion itself is not subject to wide disparities of light.