# Untitled #13



## Battou (Jul 20, 2009)

Taken with Canon FD 50mm 1.4 on Canon EF, ASA 400






Bigger Here

Five exposure processing


----------



## Restomage (Jul 20, 2009)

I think it's still a little too dark, try using only the first four and see how it comes out.


----------



## Battou (Jul 20, 2009)

Restomage said:


> I think it's still a little too dark, try using only the first four and see how it comes out.



I reduced the brightness three points intentionally in Photomatix, I wanted it that way.


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Jul 20, 2009)

is this suppose to be a hdr?


----------



## Battou (Jul 20, 2009)

HeY iTs ScOTtY said:


> is this suppose to be a hdr?




No, it's actually an EDR, never the less the processing is the same and I perfer not to over process to the cartoony haloed look commonly associated with HDR. That cartoony look is not a required element of HDR. I thought this looked like utter horseshit, so I compressed it, perhaps a little too much but still. I use the tone compression differently than most people. The one fact remains, the dynamic range of the photo is higher than my film scaners censor can pick up in a single pass. Normally I don't go and make any special connotation of this processing drawing attention to it as a special processing as the film used can easily cover the range of the scene. Therein lies the biggest problem I have with your question...You expect HDR to look like the other photos in this section of the forum where the dynamic range is blown way out of proportion and exceeding that found in reality. Truth is, HDR is a processing tequnique that when properly done should only be noticable only by people who know limits of photographing technology. Scenes where the dynamic range exceeds that the cameras censor can capture, it's ment to encumpas the whole range of a scene, not surpass it. Scenes like a dark room with a window where the window would be blown out and the room underexposed and things like that. I use HDR processing to push beyond the limits of my tools and photoshop ability, not reality. This is my preference, and I can assure you I am not alone in this.

Thank you, This early morning photo may not be the most visually appealing but it has more dynamic range than one shot is capable, processed in a manor that is barely beyond notice, leaving the shadows intact, Reduced in intensity but intact. My entire reason for posting this in this section was specifically for that responce right there as a bit of a political statement. The end photo is strongly influenced by the shooting photographers prefferences, that said, it's innappropriate for one to slam a persons image because it does not match their own concepts of what HDR should be. HDR processing is a very broad tool making a lot of things possible, almost as many as Photoshop. It's important to keep an open mind when viewing HDR imagery.

If anyone would like I would be happy to provide 800x527 copies of the original five scans for more direct comparison.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jul 29, 2009)

looks like a nice spot to shoot!
challenging though i imagine.

i see some halo'ing over the trees, and i agree that it does seema bit dark (but if that was your intention, you have achieved it)

just out of curiosity, why did you want it so dark?


----------



## John Godwin (Jul 30, 2009)

Kind of seems the same as the fourth picture, to be honest. I'd have just used the third picture and used a mask to darken other areas, I can't see the benefit of the extra effort of 5 exposures, really..

I like to think I have a pretty good knowledge of camera technology and it's limitations, but I absolutely cannot see the extra detail in this image, it looks like it's pretty much straight out of the camera. There doesn't seem to be any detail in the shadows or the highlights.

I think you went a little bit _too_ understated.


----------



## Wyjid (Jul 30, 2009)

i like the look of the properly exposed image best. i'd almost not bother trying anything fancy with this one. selective dodge burn can accomplish the same sort of result but much more flexibly.


----------



## Mendoza (Jul 31, 2009)

Would you post the original scans please?

Re: HDR~
Once a person gets the concept, High Dynamic Range is easy to use.  Far more difficult is knowing if, when, and _exactly_ how to use it.  First one needs to decide whether or not the technique is even suitable for the desired shot, which requires practice and some ability to pre-visualize.  After that, one must determine and select the proper range of exposures. Then one can begin processing the image.
Since HDR is becoming more popular and recognizable, it does tend in its extreme implementation to look like a very specific effect.  The effect is cool, but the software has potentially over a dozen parameters for processing the image so fortunately not every single picture has to scream "HDR"; it can be used subtly within the software or processed and blended/mixed with one of the exposures to tone things down.
Fundamentally, it's simply another tool or technique available in photography.  Quite an advanced tool to be sure--rendering it prone to misuse or overuse, but a valuable one nonetheless.


----------



## Battou (Aug 1, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> looks like a nice spot to shoot!
> challenging though i imagine.
> 
> i see some halo'ing over the trees, and i agree that it does seema bit dark (but if that was your intention, you have achieved it)
> ...



Actually that halo is not a processing halo...it's visable in the latter two original scans as well. Halo none the less but it was there before hand, I dunno what's up with it.

This was shot at about quarter after seven in the morning, I wanted to capture the hard early morning light cutting throught the forest wile maintaining the the dark wooded feel



Fly My Pretties said:


> Kind of seems the same as the fourth picture, to be honest. I'd have just used the third picture and used a mask to darken other areas, I can't see the benefit of the extra effort of 5 exposures, really..
> 
> I like to think I have a pretty good knowledge of camera technology and it's limitations, but I absolutely cannot see the extra detail in this image, it looks like it's pretty much straight out of the camera. There doesn't seem to be any detail in the shadows or the highlights.
> 
> I think you went a little bit _too_ understated.



Maintaining straight out of the camera feel is a big objective as well as what I mentioned earlier. The film I was shooting at the time was fully capable of capturing the the hard early morning light cutting throught the forest with the the dark wooded feel intact, however my film scanner is not capable of getting everything the film can, Like I said earlier "I use HDR processing to push beyond the limits of my tools and photoshop ability, not reality."

For me, the benefit of the extra effort is crystal clear, but generally I perfer the viewer be clueless to it. I'm sure if you where using the same scanning equipment I am on the same time constraint I am, you would see it too but....



Mendoza said:


> Would you post the original scans please?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Hey Battou!

I honestly think you could have gotten (and looks like almost did get) VERY close to the your final shot without any HDR/EDR.  I would play with it myself but its too late to be installing photomatix right now.


----------



## Sachphotography (Aug 2, 2009)

That scene would have benefited from a graduated neutral density filter very nicely. Forget trying to do an hr of the scene. That is not a good choice. Rather, get a graded neutral density filter and extend the exposure a little. You will be surprised at the results. They would be nice.


----------



## Battou (Aug 2, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> That scene would have benefited from a graduated neutral density filter very nicely. Forget trying to do an hr of the scene. That is not a good choice. Rather, get a graded neutral density filter and extend the exposure a little. You will be surprised at the results. They would be nice.



Can't use what you don't have and I don't have the money for the filters, I'll use what I have at my disposal.

It's funny, I've been doing this for quite some time now with nearly every photo I have posted and yet it has never really been a problem. It only becomes a problem when I point it out because of everyones preconcieved notions of HDR and EDR imaging.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

I wasn't considering it an "issue", just pointing out I didn't see a big diff. between what you have and what you could have gotten from a single exposure.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

I wouldn't call this perfect, but I think it's a closer representation of what I expect "the eye would really see" than your original pass.






BTW, I am also not one who likes "weird" HDR/tonemaps.

Just linking yours in here again so it's easier to compare...






In the end, I guess it's just a matter of it being a bit brighter in the shadows... but then that's usually what HDRs are about... being able to still see detail in the shadows while retaining the detail of the highlights.


----------



## liltimmy1313 (Aug 3, 2009)

Hey Battou,

I understand what you're saying about the whole, using HDR to correct the range (the darkroom/over exposed window example) but I think there is a time for that and a time for the "weird tonemaps." HDR is versatile in the fact that it can be a picture enhancer, picture fixer, or even an art unto itself. Granted, just because a tonemap is obscenely high range doesn't make it right or wrong. It really does depend on the image and the intent of photographer, just like all other photography style (aka using expired film, lomography, cross-processing)...

It is a very nice shot by itself without EDR, you have a nice composition going. I feel you lose a lot when you EDR/HDR this one. I would leave it as is.


----------



## John Godwin (Aug 3, 2009)

Battou said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > That scene would have benefited from a graduated neutral density filter very nicely. Forget trying to do an hr of the scene. That is not a good choice. Rather, get a graded neutral density filter and extend the exposure a little. You will be surprised at the results. They would be nice.
> ...



Jesus man, just take the criticism, it's not a personal attack on your character...

Christ..


----------



## Battou (Aug 3, 2009)

I know full well is was not a personal attack, How is the person supposed to know I don't have particular peices of equipment if they are not told. 

As for the latter part of the comment is was not directed at Sachphotography but a general statement geared toward my original reason for posting it in this section to say that HDR and EDR does not need to be taken to extreams.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 3, 2009)

^^^ what did you think of my rendition of it?  (just curious)


----------

