# Photomatrix test



## Syco (Jan 3, 2011)

Post deleted; Syco has left the building.


----------



## ann (Jan 3, 2011)

I think just a bit of tweaking with curves to bring up the contrast.  Merged images tend to be flat, it is just part of the  process


----------



## Edsport (Jan 3, 2011)

Yup, a bit of curves contrast would make it better in my opinon. Very good job...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 3, 2011)

PhotoMATIX perhaps?

where are my Scandisk megapixel cards?


----------



## ann (Jan 3, 2011)

this is just one shot then, tonempped?


----------



## KongKurs (Jan 9, 2011)

ann said:


> this is just one shot then, tonempped?


 
?

I guess this shot consists of numerous shots/exposures or else you couldn't get the details in the fireplace as well as the outside buildings...

If not, then I'm confused about how you achieved this  

How many exposures?


----------



## ann (Jan 9, 2011)

ah, that clears up the question.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 9, 2011)

WTF, for almost 2 years now I thought it was Photomatrix too - and I've owned it that long.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 9, 2011)

Syco said:


> Three shots -2, 0, +2 EV.  And I've got to tell you, it was bright out that window.  The minute I saw this image, I was a convert to HDR.  Now, I almost never shoot anything any other way.



I think that a step that is important is the need to evaluate what the range needs to be, and that might have been overlooked using the fireplace as a dark marker for example.

HDR covers a specific exposure range of bright to the dark. I think you might be partially there, but not entirely with this effort. Read up a bit more and I think you will be even more pleased with your work as you learn to interpret the exposure range required for stunning results.


----------



## KongKurs (Jan 10, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> WTF, for almost 2 years now I thought it was Photomatrix too - and I've owned it that long.


 
I second that..
Maybe one could create a thread on the HDR board stating only the breaking news that Photomatrix is spelled without the R 



GeorgieGirl said:


> Syco said:
> 
> 
> > Three shots -2, 0, +2 EV. And I've got to tell you, it was bright out that window. The minute I saw this image, I was a convert to HDR. Now, I almost never shoot anything any other way.
> ...


 
Question from me being very new to HDR: Does the "middlerange" of the total luminance range get "distorted" or in any way of lesser quality by adding more exposures?

I'm thinking the less repetitions, the better.. But on the other hand, the bigger gaps between exposures, the less information to process.. I guess there's a balace to be found in this..?


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

It is my experience that the more exposures the better. However, if you mean a dupe , then no.  

THe number of expoures will be determined by the dynamic range.  THe rule of thumb may be 3, but that is a guide line. 

My images are made with 1/3 stops, going both ways until the entire range is covered.  Others may work differently, but that is what i had determined gives me what i want.  That usually means at least 7 expsoures but mostly 9-13


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 10, 2011)

Syco said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Syco said:
> ...


 
Without wanting to appear obnoxious, I passed on that book, didn;t think it was quite enough. What I do think was a good book on the topic is "Practical HDR - A Guide to Creating High Dynamic Range images with your SLR" by David Nightengale. Step by Step and then gets into how to process in Photomatix (FDR Tools and Photoshop too) and Lightroom step by step. 

HDR image work does not end in Photomatix.


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

I would second the McCollough book, it is very good. The Nightingale book is also valuable. It is very helpful to see how he constructive images and compares various software.

There are several good books available and of course some that are ok , but a little "light" in indepth information. Viewing more than one method and thought process can only imho be a good thing.

One major issue I find, too many people want to just push a button and have the software do all the work. The software is just a tool and needs to be controled just as the camera and just as our vision needs to be educated and refined to produce work of value.  That all takes practice and lots of footwork, not just a piece of software.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 10, 2011)

ann said:


> I would second the McCollough book, it is very good. The Nightingale book is also valuable. It is very helpful to see how he constructive images and compares various software.
> 
> There are several good books available and of course some that are ok , but a little "light" in indepth information. Viewing more than one method and thought process can only imho be a good thing.
> 
> One major issue I find, too many people want to just push a button and have the software do all the work. The software is just a tool and needs to be controled just as the camera and just as our vision needs to be educated and refined to produce work of value.  That all takes practice and lots of footwork, not just a piece of software.



That's why I just bought a spot meter so I can be much more acccurate in my range evaluation. Three brackets are not going to pass muster for a stunning HDR. IMHO of course.


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

Nothing wrong with a spot meter, i use one from time to time with HDR, but mainly for LF work.  However, you can also use the histogram and be sure your exposures are going from shoulder to shoulder.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 10, 2011)

ann said:


> Nothing wrong with a spot meter, i use one from time to time with HDR, but mainly for LF work.  However, you can also use the histogram and be sure your exposures are going from shoulder to shoulder.



Agree, but with a wide angle shot, like my 10-20...use the camera left right/up down and then fasten it to a tripod? Its going ont he tripod for the compostion framing, then I am metering and recording and setting. Call me lazy. :blushing:


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

sorry, i got lost there. unless you mean you don't want to check the histogram as it creates more work. what ever helps you is the most important factor. For instance
 I always use a tripod, mirror lock up and remote shutter release for the sharpest images, and either use AEB or manual change . My camera body will allow up to 9 images with AEB, which is a big help.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 10, 2011)

Mine only three, yet I have sensibilities and now a spot meter to be able to set a range of expoure. I come with all the other tricks in the bag too. So I'd say its pretty even. :mrgreen:


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 11, 2011)

Syco said:


> My camera (Nikon 5000) will easily autobracket 3 exposures, so that's what I normally do. Even with a conservative estimate of a 6EV range for the main exposure, -2 and +2 bracketing gives me a 10EV range, which covers most scenes. The exceptions are those that actually contain the image of a light source (eg. street lights in night scenes). In those cases I monitor the histogram and shoot an extra exposure just to get the whole range. I'm using a tripod for those shots, anyway, so adding an additional exposure isn't a big deal. I learned pretty quickly to use a remote release with a 2 second delay on all tripod exposures. I haven't yet directly compared the effect of doing 5 exposures over the same range (-2,-1,0,+1,+2), though I see it done a lot. My main goal is to just capture the entire dynamic range of the scene. Once captured, I can shift it around pretty much any way I want in PP.


 
But How do you know what the correct range is if you are not using your cameras meter to tell you what the range needs to be?

Ann...did not respond to your exact question: Yes to Histogram, but that will not give me my correct exposure range at the outset, perhaps just that I found it through a trial and error. To me the histogram should be used to confirm that what I have taken is what I need to cover inside of a range, but I don't think its a shortcut for obtaining the range values.


----------



## myshkin (Jan 11, 2011)

People don't rely on their eye enough. I see too many HDRs that look bad because people paid too much attention to meters and histograms. 
Train your eye don't rely on meters


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 11, 2011)

myshkin said:


> People don't rely on their eye enough. I see too many HDRs that look bad because people paid too much attention to meters and histograms.
> Train your eye don't rely on meters



Interesting.


----------



## myshkin (Jan 12, 2011)

Syco you should read more about the human eye I think. It kills any camera sensor out there. 
My goal with HDR is to match what I see with my eye, not to make the photo flat colored like the shot you put in this thread. Your shot is a good example of what happens when people pay too much attention to histograms etc. Its flat and looks fake. Sure it might be even but it looks nothing like it would to the human eye.


----------



## Syco (Jan 12, 2011)

Post removed


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 12, 2011)

Syco said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > myshkin said:
> ...



I am certainly not poking you and you clearly are not someone that I can learn from to create better photos. Let's just leave it at that.


----------

