# Space Shuttle Discovery at the Udvar Haze Center - HDR



## Trblmkr (Jan 11, 2014)

Udvar Hazy Center - Air and Space Museum - Displays hundreds of aviation and space artifacts that are too large to exhibit in the museum on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., along with thousands of small flight-related artifacts.&#65279;

The group I went with today had been given special permission to come in with tripods. This is never allowed during the normal hours because it cause to much trouble for people trying to get around the exhibits.  When I took this picture it presented me with some unusual issues.  Because we were there so early, the lights were in the process of coming on. So they were not up to their full brightness or their color. I had a mixture of really funky orange that couldn't be adjusted by selecting I white balance.  I actually had to go into my camera and find the right Kelvin through trial and error to make it look right. 

This was a combined shot of 3 exposures -2, 0, +2 
1/6 @f/8
0.6 @f/8
2.5sec @f/8

ISO 100
AP mode




20140111 Udvar-Hazy Center 028 by Dan_Girard, on Flickr


----------



## CaboWabo (Jan 11, 2014)

Nice and sharp !! Lucky you getting in with a tripod


----------



## EOV (Jan 11, 2014)

Wow!


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

Here's another shot from the back engine section.




20140111 Udvar-Hazy Center 031 by Dan_Girard, on Flickr


----------



## snowbear (Jan 12, 2014)

Nicely done.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Jan 12, 2014)

Cooked it just a bit.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

In the first photo,  I the nose is too distracting.  It is supposed to be black right?

I don't know if its the processing or just a color cast, but its a little off imo.

If you want,  post the original 3 photos and maybe you can see what some other members come up with. 

Personally,  I like number 2 a lot better.  To me, that is very nice.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

412 Burgh said:


> Cooked it just a bit.



Why do you say that ?? I've seen cooked, and I don't think I cooked it at all.  So if you could be more specific I would appreciate.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> In the first photo,  I the nose is too distracting.  It is supposed to be black right?
> 
> I don't know if its the processing or just a color cast, but its a little off imo.
> 
> ...



Parker.
Actually if you've ever seen it up close, everything that you see is 'black' is shades of grey. Especially if it's part of the plane that absorbs the heat.  I took some up close pictures of the tiles themselves and they are various shades of grey/black.

I don't have a problem posting the originals... not sure how to post them since I shot in RAW (14Meg files) and the JPEG's are well over 2 Meg each.. still to large to be uploaded here.  So if you have a suggestion, I'd be more then happy to upload them for the forum to play with.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

Upload the jpegs to flick and then post them or resize the jpegs.

What we can do will not have the same detail as you, but at least we can try some different styles of processing.  Thats not saying yours is bad, its saying the content is so cool that it might be cool to see as many versions as possible. 

Did you take any photos further back? Or any other angles?  Definitely post some more if you want.


----------



## bc_steve (Jan 12, 2014)

the first one is nice, but I prefer the symmetry in the second one you posted


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

here's my link to most if not all of what I took of the shuttle.  There are a few more of the back half and of the wing section.

Have fun... Please just mention me as the Photographer for your edits.. 

Shuttle HDR - a set on Flickr

Thanks


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

Are you going to do a version of the straight on shot that you did? Post it if you do. =-)


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 12, 2014)

Trblmkr said:


> 412 Burgh said:
> 
> 
> > Cooked it just a bit.
> ...


No offense, but it looks more like a colored pencil drawing than a photograph.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

No offense, but it looks more like a colored pencil drawing than a photograph.[/QUOTE]

Well the originals are loaded for you to play with.. have at it.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

We cant download ( right click and save as ) the originals on flickr, since you have it set so no one can download them. Maybe turn that setting off until this thread dies down?  I will try a version, maybe some others will. Plus I want to see what your straight on version looks like. =-)


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 12, 2014)

Well, you DID ask for it.


Trblmkr said:


> So if you could be more specific I would appreciate.




It just doesn't seem to be a good candidate for HRD to me...


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> We cant download ( right click and save as ) the originals on flickr, since you have it set so no one can download them. Maybe turn that setting off until this thread dies down?  I will try a version, maybe some others will. Plus I want to see what your straight on version looks like. =-)



Okay settings have been changed.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Well, you DID ask for it.
> 
> 
> Trblmkr said:
> ...



Well Josh, I appreciate your feedback, but I disagree. The dark of the shuttle and the hanger with the bright lights on the underside and in the area of the where the landing gear retracts, are "perfect" examples of HDR. IMO.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

I think its a great candidate for HDR.


I could spend a little more time on this to make it perfect, but this is just to give you an idea of what I would do...lets compare it to what you come up with. 





Front-View-Shuttle-HDR-Trblmkr by linktheworld219, on Flickr


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

OK Do you see how in my version the shuttle is actually WHITE where it should be and BLACK where it should be? Plus it is tonned down a little for a more realistic look.

Your Edit- 


Trblmkrs-edit by linktheworld219, on Flickr


My Edit- 


Side-Dark_light_normal_fused-16-Final-Trblmkr by linktheworld219, on Flickr


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 12, 2014)

Very nice.. I do like the edit on reducing some of the blue in the background. I'll have to play around with my edit to see what I can do for it.  However, I like my landing bay better as you can see more detail in there then yours.  Thanks for taking the time to show me what you mean .  Great way to learn.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

Yep, when I was finished I noticed the landing bay on yours was better. Now just take a combination of what we both did. 

Thanks for sharing these, they are really cool.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 12, 2014)

This is my attempt to make this version kinda dark, moody, and badass.




Shuttle-Final-trblmrk by linktheworld219, on Flickr


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 13, 2014)

Here is how I would process it.




shuttle by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 13, 2014)

^Definitely softer, not saying that's bad. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and like photos like this soft, sometimes not. I still think the blue and the purple could be taken out of the black of the shuttle though.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 13, 2014)

I really don't like when everything is overly sharp especially in HDR. I think that the blue and purple hue is what you would see if you were there, maybe not. I see the light coming in from windows and I feel that the black panels would reflect that color.

Its hard sometimes to process others HDR files especially if you were not there yourself to remember the colors.


----------



## AndyjO (Jan 13, 2014)

Cool photos!

Re the special permission - it probably has something to do with rights too. Some tourist sites don't let you work with tripods because they don't want you to use the images for commerical purposes. You can create HDR photos from video footage too. If you've got lightroom try HDRinstant.

I prefer the second photo personally!  Great job.

Andy


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> Yep, when I was finished I noticed the landing bay on yours was better. Now just take a combination of what we both did.
> 
> Thanks for sharing these, they are really cool.



Yeah, I agree combo of both would be the perfect one haha


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> This is my attempt to make this version kinda dark, moody, and badass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually like this one, gives the shuttle a bit more texture from it's re-entry to show you that it's been through hell and back.  Very Nice.. I might just have to try and copy it


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

Vip... exactly, that's why mine has so much blue in it. That's how I remember seeing it when all of the lights were coming on. The blues and purples all around the room.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

I'm loving all of the pictures.. some really great ways of looking at the same thing.  I LOVE THIS!!!


----------



## AndyjO (Jan 13, 2014)

This one is really cool


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

Parker... he's my head on shot to compare with yours.  I did crop mine to take out some of the exhibits on the sides.




20140111 Udvar-Hazy Center 007 by Dan_Girard, on Flickr


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 13, 2014)

^ Nice. Whoever said these images were not for HDR is crazy. 

We need to have more HDR shootout type things like we used to have around here.


----------



## MisterTibbs (Jan 13, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> ^ Nice. Whoever said these images were not for HDR is crazy.



Agreed. Really like these images and the different processing.


----------



## willard3 (Jan 13, 2014)

I don't know why you tone mapped any of these. It's distracting.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 13, 2014)

^ I don't know why you called these tone mapped,  they are not tone mapped. These are taken from 3 images all at different exposures, thus it is HDR.


----------



## willard3 (Jan 13, 2014)

Your software tone-mapped them after you made the hdr.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 13, 2014)

I cant tell if you are trolling or not, so I am going to go outside and take some photos.


----------



## willard3 (Jan 13, 2014)

Look at the first two photos you posted....they look very tone mapped at least that what I think is causing the cartoonish/overcooked
 colors.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

willard3 said:


> Look at the first two photos you posted....they look very tone mapped at least that what I think is causing the cartoonish/overcooked
> colors.



The first two I posted (OP) or the first 2 Parker posted?? I don't know who you're referring to.


----------



## willard3 (Jan 13, 2014)

The first two posted in this thread on page 1.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

willard3 said:


> The first two posted in this thread on page 1.



Those would be mine, and they are not tone mapped I can assure you.
I've posted all of the bracket sets for all of the pictures here, so if you want you're more then welcome to go out, download them and post for others to see.

Thanks


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 13, 2014)

OP-

Most HDR software tone maps the images. IF you are using photomatix look at the options on the top left it says tone mapping or exposure fusion, then in the drop down menu it shows, detail enhancer/Contrast Optimizer/Tone Compressor. These are all tomemapp options.

If you use Exposure fusion within Photomatix than its not tone mapped. 

Most people use Tone Mapping, detail enhancer.

There is no way that your photos are not tone mapped.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 13, 2014)

^ That's all well and good, but in general, around this forum and most people I talk to agree that tone mapping is the process of taking 1 photo and running through the software to "fake HDR" it. While a true HDR is composed of 3 or more images, combined to make 1 image.

No need to over think it.


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 13, 2014)

Thanks for pointing that out.  When someone says Tone Mapping, I assume it's 1 picture that's been copied and the exposure has been adjusted to meet the photographers needs. To me that's not HDR, since you're asking your software to try to alter 1 image and create the hights and lows (never works IMO).  That is not what I do, nor have I ever done that.  

Now pointing to your reference with Photomatix, then yes, I am doing Tone Mapping since that is what I'm doing with Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I don't use any of the other options available.  Should I be ??


----------



## AndyjO (Jan 14, 2014)

I don't know it if it is a question of should I be/shouldn't I be using other options. Photography is personal afterall. I think your images are excellent.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 14, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> ^ That's all well and good, but in general, around this forum and most people I talk to agree that tone mapping is the process of taking 1 photo and running through the software to "fake HDR" it. While a true HDR is composed of 3 or more images, combined to make 1 image.
> 
> No need to over think it.



You can spin it however you want its still tone mapping if you use Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I have been around here for a bit as well and I never heard anyone say that only tone mapping was with one single image and the HDR is not tone mapping because its multiple exposures.





Trblmkr said:


> Thanks for pointing that out.  When someone says Tone Mapping, I assume it's 1 picture that's been copied and the exposure has been adjusted to meet the photographers needs. To me that's not HDR, since you're asking your software to try to alter 1 image and create the hights and lows (never works IMO).  That is not what I do, nor have I ever done that.
> 
> Now pointing to your reference with Photomatix, then yes, I am doing Tone Mapping since that is what I'm doing with Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I don't use any of the other options available.  Should I be ??



If you don't want to tonemapp then yes you would use one of those other options. Example you want a more realistic photo..Try it and you will see what I am talking about. Whether you should use them is up to you. Manu Professionals who shoot interiors will use that method so the photo still has the Dynamic range but looks like a realistic photo and not a "TYPICAL HDR" photo


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 14, 2014)

Trblmkr said:


> Thanks for pointing that out.  When someone says Tone Mapping, I assume it's 1 picture that's been copied and the exposure has been adjusted to meet the photographers needs. To me that's not HDR, since you're asking your software to try to alter 1 image and create the hights and lows (never works IMO).  That is not what I do, nor have I ever done that.
> 
> Now pointing to your reference with Photomatix, then yes, I am doing Tone Mapping since that is what I'm doing with Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I don't use any of the other options available.  Should I be ??



If you don't want to tonemapp then yes you would use one of those other options. Example you want a more realistic photo..Try it and you will see what I am talking about. Whether you should use them is up to you. Manu Professionals who shoot interiors will use that method so the photo still has the Dynamic range but looks like a realistic photo and not a "TYPICAL HDR" photo[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info Vip.. I did go back and try it with my first shot of the Shuttle. And after making my adjustment in Exposure Fusion/Fusion Natural, well I wound up with about the same results with my work flow (Raw files into Photomechanic/Lightroom/PS if needed). I still had the same color tones, same range and the same amount of detail. So I guess it really comes down to what I see and what I want the pictures to look like and which method works best for me. 

Still would like to see how you would process this picture, let me see how "you" would achieve a more "realistic HDR" vs the "typical Hdr".


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 14, 2014)

Here is the shuttle using Photomatix. I chose the fusion option 2 picture. Notice how its not over saturated, its more dull but still has the dynamic range in shadows and highlights. 

Not saying one is better than the other, I myself Like vibrant, processed, cooked, cartoony, HDR. I process many different ways. I was just pointing out so you do understand what photomatix does. I would want to know if I was lead to believe something different.

Photomatix/Fusion



space shuttle fussion 2 image by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


Now look at this version I did and notice it has more texture detail. This is because in the processing of photomatix it tonemapps and brings out detail thus called detail enhancer. THis is the BIG difference between this and fusion. If you were a REAL ESTATE photographer you would want to give your clients a more realistic looking photograph rather than a cooked photograph. So depending on your job or what you want to accomplish you can process that way. 



Photomatix Detail Ehancer




shuttle by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## Trblmkr (Jan 14, 2014)

VipGraphx... Nicely done and explained.  Now I see what you where talking about.  It really is better to see what you're talking about, then trying to imagine what you're talking about.  Thanks for taking the time to post and process the pictures I really do appreciate it.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jan 14, 2014)

I like the comps, glad some people learned some stuff about HDR along the way as well.


----------

