# HDR Shootout #30



## 480sparky

We haven't had a shootout for a while, so I drug these 5 shots out.

Here's the EV 0 sample frame:









Download the 5 shots here:

EV-4
EV-2
EV 0
EV+2
EV+4


----------



## Bynx

Interesting shot with good reason for HDR. Thanks sparky/


----------



## D-B-J

A scene deserving of HDR.  Nice choice.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

What is the white thing on the tree there?


----------



## Bynx

Just a small cloud.


----------



## Compaq

Here's mine. I messed up the end of the tunnel!


----------



## jmurphy

Here is my attempt.


----------



## Bynx

Its a far cry from one entry to another. Yours isnt bad jmurphy.


----------



## jmurphy

There is a similar bridge near me that I've been practicing on.    So what is everyone else using for software to make there versions?  I used Photomatix 4.


----------



## 480sparky

Luminance HDR.
Profile 2
Pre-Gamma : 1.000
Mantuik 06
Contrast Factor : 0.500
Saturation Factor : 1.200
Detail Factor : 1.000


----------



## Bynx

I used Photomatix Pro 4.1 (Beta 3).


----------



## halestorm

How can I get this effect in photoshop? Please help!


----------



## Bynx

Simply take your shots both over and underexposed by 1 EV. Then put each shot in a layer in photoshop and erase the parts you dont want in each layer. Flatten and thats it. A bit of unsharp mask and its even better.


----------



## D-B-J

Bynx said:


> I used Photomatix Pro 4.1 (Beta 3).



I love photomatix.  Although photo bucket gave mine a weird greenish hue.


----------



## Bynx

Ya I dont know why photo sites limit filesize or at the least file dimensions. Going through places like Photobucket and Tinypic always seems to degrade the image in one way or another. Color shift or soft focus seems to be common.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Photomatix 4.0.2 - Tone Compressor


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Photomatix 4.0.2 - Exposure Fusion


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Photomatix 4.0.2 - Detail Enhancer


----------



## D-B-J

EchoingWhisper said:


> Photomatix 4.0.2 - Exposure Fusion



The best of the three.


----------



## Bynx

To me I think Detail Enhancer has been doing the better job with all the posts Echoing has done. In this case the sky is better, more detail inside the bridge. Unfortunately the vegetation has lost a bit of the punch and is more fuzzy looking.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

I don't edit them in Photoshop so I can compare the best performance of these three settings. I think the fuzzy look is caused by me bringing the luminance down too low.


----------



## Bynx

No the fuzziness is from the ghosting of the leaves and branches in the wind.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Bynx said:


> No the fuzziness is from the ghosting of the leaves and branches in the wind.



I see. I unticked the de-ghosting part of the software. My bad my bad.


----------



## pathoulihan1

Here's my go at it, using exposure fusion in Photomatix (I also tweaked the color settings post Photomatix to get a little more blue out of the sky, subsequently I also got blue on the railing and bridge but I'm willing to deal with it if everyone else is). I used the semi auto method of deghosting but I'm thinking that either I have to be more meticulous or I should just let auto mode take over.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

pathoulihan1 said:


> Here's my go at it, using exposure fusion in Photomatix (I also tweaked the color settings post Photomatix to get a little more blue out of the sky, subsequently I also got blue on the railing and bridge but I'm willing to deal with it if everyone else is). I used the semi auto method of deghosting but I'm thinking that either I have to be more meticulous or I should just let auto mode take over.



I wouldn't do that. There is too much blue, use Photoshop to make the sky blue.


----------



## mistermonday

I tried to keep this as realistic as possible.






Regards, Murray


----------



## Bynx

Im not seeing as much of the realistic image as I should. In fact, I dont see anything at all.


----------



## cgipson1

My effort.. Photomatix 4 with some burning and dodging in PS


----------



## mistermonday

Bynx said:


> Im not seeing as much of the realistic image as I should. In fact, I dont see anything at all.


Hi Bynx, we had the same problem with a previous image. I am not sure why you are not seeing the image which I uploaded to the members gallery and used the mid sized direct link. Here is the url. Are you by any chance using a mobile device because I can see it on my PC but not on my iPhone?
BTW, I have just contacted Admin to find out why I do not have permissions to attach images yet.
Thanks & regards, Murray
http://www.thephotoforum.com/photos/data/500/medium/Shootout30_MM_LoRes.jpg


----------



## Bynx

Only use a computer (Mac Mini with Firefox). This is what I see. This has happened before but it doesnt happen often.






Looking at your link Id say the only problem I see is the ghosting around the sky.


----------



## mistermonday

Yes, I see the sky is a bit ghosted around the edges. It was not as noticeable in the high res image. I will take care to try different zoom views next time.
Thanks & reagrds, Murray


----------



## McNugget801

perfect example of an image that does not need HDR treatment


----------



## pathoulihan1

Perhaps not, but it's certainly interesting to see how so many people can achieve different results using the same or similar means. Certainly a perfect example of how everybody has their own eye and their own taste. Wouldn't you agree? The image may have been fine as one exposure, but it serves well as this shootout exercise.


----------



## 480sparky

McNugget801 said:


> perfect example of an image that does not need HDR treatment



So your result from the EV0 frame would be............?


----------



## McNugget801

480sparky said:


> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> 
> perfect example of an image that does not need HDR treatment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your result from the EV0 frame would be............?
Click to expand...



Not anything worth posting.. just like all the others in this thread.

I tend to lead towards this formula "****ty photo + HDR = ****ty HDR photo".  HDR cant turn **** into the gold, do you agree? No point in expanding the dynamic range on something that does not have it to begin with.... right? 

I feel this is the reason HDR is frowned upon by most photogs. No offence intended... just being honest.
 If you really want some examples of my HDR work I can provide some for you.


----------



## 480sparky

McNugget801 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> 
> perfect example of an image that does not need HDR treatment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your result from the EV0 frame would be............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not anything worth posting.. just like all the others in this thread.
> 
> I tend to lead towards this formula "****ty photo + HDR = ****ty HDR photo".  HDR cant turn **** into the gold, do you agree? No point in expanding the dynamic range on something that does not have it to begin with.... right?
> 
> I feel this is the reason HDR is frowned upon by most photogs. No offence intended... just being honest.
> If you really want some examples of my HDR work I can provide some for you.
Click to expand...


What kind of set-up do you have that magically corrects pure white and the near-black in the EV0 frame?

I see both 10:6:3 and 255:255:255 in it.  If that's not a candidate for HDR, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us peons who shoot **** what would be.


----------



## McNugget801

480sparky said:


> What kind of set-up do you have that magically corrects pure white and the near-black in the EV0 frame?
> I see both 10:6:3 and 255:255:255 in it.  If that's not a candidate for HDR, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us peons who shoot **** what would be.



No need to get all huffy, your shot just not my cup of tea and just like you I'm entitled to my own opinion. If I was to shoot this bridge first thing I would do is avoid shooting in midday in supper harsh light.


----------



## 480sparky

McNugget801 said:


> No need to get all huffy, your shot just not my cup of tea and just like you I'm entitled to my own opinion. If I was to shoot this bridge first thing I would do is avoid shooting in midday in supper harsh light.



I apologize for the conditions I had to shoot in. I was there at that moment, and I didn't have all the time in the world to dilly-dally around and wait for 'perfect' conditions. I'm exceedingly sorry for not living in a perfect world.


----------



## McNugget801

480sparky said:


> I apologize for the conditions I had to shoot in. I was there at that moment, and I didn't have all the time in the world to dilly-dally around and wait for 'perfect' conditions. I'm exceedingly sorry for not living in a perfect world.



No need to feel sorry for yourself. I have hit some location dozens of times over a few years and still have yet to capture the image I have in my head.  The point I was making is that HDR should not be a crutch and your last post states that this is manner in which you are using HDR in this image.


----------



## 480sparky

McNugget801 said:


> No need to feel sorry for yourself. I have hit some location dozens of times over a few years and still have yet to capture the image I have in my head.  The point I was making is that HDR should not be a crutch and your last post states that this is manner in which you are using HDR in this image.



I guess you're totally missing the idea of the Shootouts.  It's to improve HDR processing, to compare various and different techniques and allow those not familiar with the process to learn more about it........ not belittle others for their lack of skills.  Perhaps you could offer something more than "I would return at a different time of day and end up with an award-winning capture" instead of telling everyone who has participated that they do **** work.


----------



## mistermonday

McNugget801 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of set-up do you have that magically corrects pure white and the near-black in the EV0 frame?
> I see both 10:6:3 and 255:255:255 in it.  If that's not a candidate for HDR, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us peons who shoot **** what would be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to get all huffy, your shot just not my cup of tea and just like you I'm entitled to my own opinion. If I was to shoot this bridge first thing I would do is avoid shooting in midday in supper harsh light.
Click to expand...


In addition to having some blown highlights and plugged shadows, the ev0 shot has some "out-of-gamut" colors particularly in the grass. The other shots in the bracketed set compensate for what could not be captured in the single ev0. That makes it a very good candidate for HDR processing. Very often the light is what it is and mother nature gets to call the shots - not the photographer. From a technical perspective, HDR processing and tonemapping the above image will accomplish the intent of improving the dynamic range. As for S###y, you may not like the scene content or composition, but that is a totally different discussion. Many people process HDR images and unfortunately the image itself is uninteresting or has numerous flaws so that HDRifying them doesn't help or makes matters worse. But that is also another discussion. Perhaps you have missed the point of the Shootout, or perhaps I have? BTW, I used different HDR programs on this image and achieved very different results, further accentuating the differences in how the different software functions. From that perspective alone it was a valuable exercise.
Regards, Murray


----------



## McNugget801

480sparky said:


> I guess you're totally missing the idea of the Shootouts.  It's to improve HDR processing, to compare various and different techniques and allow those not familiar with the process to learn more about it........ not belittle others for their lack of skills.



Or maybe you're the one missing it....HDR should not be used as a crutch to make a sub par image better. 

If anything it should be used to make a great image even better!


----------



## Bynx

McNugget801 said:


> perfect example of an image that does not need HDR treatment



What an asinine statement, and exactly the opposite to what is true. Its a good example of why HDR treatment helps improve the visual impact of an image. I appreciate what you said is your opinion, and what Im saying is my opinion. Also those who contribute their images for the Shootouts arent likely to submit their best images, just ones that will have some impact with HDR treatment. If anything this shootout shows the difference between treatment of the same image, good difference and bad difference.


----------



## 480sparky

McNugget801 said:


> [Or maybe you're the one missing it....HDR should not be used as a crutch to make a sub par image better.
> 
> If anything it should be used to make a great image even better!



I will state it again for your benefit, so please pay attention as I won't repeat it again:

*The Shootouts are to improve member's HDR processing, to compare various and  different techniques and allow those not familiar with the process to  learn more about it.* *It is NOT about the artistic or compositional merits of the image itself*.  

Is this such a difficult concept to understand?


----------



## McNugget801

480sparky said:


> [*It is NOT about the artistic or compositional merits of the image itself*.



errrrr ... really?
Hence the problem

Fact: ****ty photo + HDR = ****ty HDR photo


----------



## 480sparky

McNugget801 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> [*It is NOT about the artistic or compositional merits of the image itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> errrrr ... really?
> Hence the problem
> 
> Fact: ****ty photo + HDR = ****ty HDR photo
Click to expand...


The only problem I see is your ****y attitude.

Do the rest of us a favor and go away.  If you don't like being here, DON'T COME HERE.  Or is that too complicated as well?

I'm done trying to converse with you..... _you just are not worth it_.


----------



## lyonsroar

Bynx said:


> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> 
> perfect example of an image that does not need HDR treatment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an asinine statement, and exactly the opposite to what is true. Its a good example of why HDR treatment helps improve the visual impact of an image. I appreciate what you said is your opinion, and what Im saying is my opinion. Also those who contribute their images for the Shootouts arent likely to submit their best images, just ones that will have some impact with HDR treatment. If anything this shootout shows the difference between treatment of the same image, good difference and bad difference.
Click to expand...


QFT.

This is a perfect candidate for HDR...McNuggett's just got his panties in a twist over nothing.


----------



## McNugget801

480sparky said:


> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> [*It is NOT about the artistic or compositional merits of the image itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> errrrr ... really?
> Hence the problem
> 
> Fact: ****ty photo + HDR = ****ty HDR photo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem I see is your ****y attitude.
> 
> Do the rest of us a favor and go away.  If you don't like being here, DON'T COME HERE.  Or is that too complicated as well?
> 
> I'm done trying to converse with you..... _you just are not worth it_.
Click to expand...


Just remember, your part of the problem not the solution.
I told you 3 times I was not trying to be rude... obviously you are.


----------



## pathoulihan1

No, to be perfectly honest this thread was perfectly civil and interesting before you started shoving your opinions into everybody else's face. Your little equation has a fatal flaw, the whole thing is based on your opinion, no fact involved. If you honestly believe that "your opinions"= "fact" then this equation is also true "you"="FOS"


----------



## cgipson1

McNugget801 said:


> Just remember, your part of the problem not the solution.
> I told you 3 times I was not trying to be rude... obviously you are.



So  your concept of not being rude, is coming in and injecting negative opinions no one asked for, and basically saying this is a waste of time? Interesting! I would suggest if you feel that way.. then don't open the thread, you won't need to stress about it, right?


----------



## Bynx

MacNugget, your first statement that this image was not a candidate for HDR is either true or false. You believe it to be true and the rest of the people here believe it to be false. If you can take the 0 EV image and improve it, lets see your results. You are also saying that none of the HDR images are an improvement on the 0 EV image. I will agree that some arent. But some are. Thats based on the skill level of the OP and not on the image itself. If you can make that original statement and believe it, then you obviously dont have a clue about HDR. Perhaps you should just watch a while until you have a better grasp of it before making any more foolish statements. Im not trying to be rude either.


----------



## McNugget801

Bynx said:


> MacNugget, your first statement that this image was not a candidate for HDR is either true or false. You believe it to be true and the rest of the people here believe it to be false. If you can take the 0 EV image and improve it, lets see your results. You are also saying that none of the HDR images are an improvement on the 0 EV image. I will agree that some arent. But some are. Thats based on the skill level of the OP and not on the image itself. If you can make that original statement and believe it, then you obviously dont have a clue about HDR. Perhaps you should just watch a while until you have a better grasp of it before making any more foolish statements. Im not trying to be rude either.



Hi Bynx... YAWN
I've seen you HDR work, not impressed.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

So you girls are still at it, eh?


----------



## Bynx

McNuggett, I dont think the forum will allow me to call you an a$$hole so Im left with just calling you a rectum orifice. As for impressing you with my work, Id be worried if I did. You got your head on backwards.


----------



## McNugget801

Bynx said:


> McNuggett, I dont think the forum will allow me to call you an a$$hole so Im left with just calling you a rectum orifice. As for impressing you with my work, Id be worried if I did. You got your head on backwards.



Whatever floats your boat. 
Keep up the great work.


----------



## mistermonday

McNugget801, I have a couple of observations I believe to be objective.
You have posted many of your images for critque here and have rec'd considerable feedback from forum members. You have also posted replies in a great many threads. However they tend to be mostly negative and generally not at all constructive feedback. For example one member posed a question about what was captivating about two images submitted for critique. Your reply was a single word - "nothing". You did not provide a single bit of reason or useful feedback. You seem to take a lot but return mostly negativity, which is worse than no reply at all. Some of your work is nice, some have tecnical issues, others have aesthetic ones. The photo of "The Wave" at Coyotte Buttes, is probably one of the worst I have seen, and I have seen many.  A number of your posts use expressions like " I would of" ( this or that) and "you should of" (this or that). The correct english is " I would have" or "you should have" etc. However you don't seem to have any grammatical problems with expletives. You are condescending and disrespectful of other forum members and you seem to think that your work is better than everyone else's. It's not really clear to me why you spend any time here at all.  One thought that occurs to me when I think of you trekking through the wilderness with your 7D is that you definitely have a chip on your shoulder but I  think it's more than a 24 x 36 mm silicon chip.


----------



## SlickSalmon

Let me see if I can sum up this valuable thread:

HDR is a valuable technique
No, it's stupid
Yes, it is a valuable technique
No, it's not
Yes, it is
No, it's not
Yes, it is
No, it's not
Yes, it is
No, it's not

(repeat and insert personal insults as necessary)

Is that about it?


----------



## 480sparky

SlickSalmon said:


> ..........Is that about it?



No.... you forgot "All your photos are **** and mine aren't!"


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Can I jump in for a second?....

Here is my two cents....HDR is a fairly controverisal topic to begin with. In this thread I enjoyed seeing the PP work and how everyone's eye saw that same series of photos with their PP work. I enjoy that sort of thing. What I think the issue with HDR is that some people use HDR as a tool to improve technically less than perfect shoots.

I don't think that is wrong any more than taking a photo be it raw or jpeg and working in layers or trying to enhance it for a dodge or a burn effect for example. 

I have taken photos that I'm happy to shop the crap out of because its a photo that needs it and I'm not kidding myself about that. That idea is a result of trying to salvage something that is just not pefect. Will that make it a great photo? Will that make it a bad photo? I am not of the mind set that rescued photos are bad photos, and some of those kinds of photos are still pretty good photos.

Is this series of photos bad photos? No. Are the perfect? No. Do they have to be? No.


----------



## McNugget801

mistermonday said:


> McNugget801, I have a couple of observations I believe to be objective.



I appreciate the personal attacks... way to keep things civil and on topic. 



SlickSalmon said:


> Let me see if I can sum up this valuable thread:
> 
> HDR is a valuable technique
> No, it's stupid
> Yes, it is a valuable technique
> No, it's not
> Yes, it is
> Is that about it?



haha, that's about right.



480sparky said:


> SlickSalmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........Is that about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.... you forgot "All your photos are **** and mine aren't!"
Click to expand...


Whoa wait a second.
I don't ever recall saying anything like that.
Feel free re-post my text if I did and I will apologize.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Photography is like drawing. HDR is just like another way of drawing, if you intend to draw the same thing the same way every time then it is not art.


----------



## Bynx

I dont know how others feel, but I shoot pics for me. To give me some satisfaction or to teach me something I dont know. I enjoy the process of HDR and what it can do to pics regardless of what anyone else says. If I try to improve an otherwise lousy shot so be it. Thats my business and I only have to please myself. If you think I try to pass it off as a good pic thats stupid because if its not a good pic then just looking at it will say so. So whats with this attitude about using HDR as a crutch to cover up lousy pics. What if it is, so what. You dont like it go away. But we are all here to please ourselves and not anyone else, especially dip$hit a$$holes like those already mentioned as well as our latest newcomer.


----------



## McNugget801

Bynx said:


> You dont like it go away. But we are all here to please ourselves and not anyone else, especially dip$hit a$$holes like those already mentioned as well as our latest newcomer.



You should try taking your own advise Bynx.
More name calling... shocking.


----------



## cgipson1

McNugget801 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont like it go away. But we are all here to please ourselves and not anyone else, especially dip$hit a$$holes like those already mentioned as well as our latest newcomer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try taking your own advise Bynx.
> More name calling... shocking.
Click to expand...


McNugget... the thread had no negativity issues until you showed up and started being yourself.  I noticed in a thread from 2009.. you pulled some negative crap also, posted two pics A&B... and asked the forum to pick which one they like best. You then gave them crap because they picked the photo you had HDR'd, and you thought they were stupid for doing so. So apparently you like to "troll". Anything to inflate that ego, right?

Apparently you don't like HDR.. even though you apparently use it... so why bother injecting your "debatable" opinion's where they are neither wanted, nor were they asked for? Yes, you have the right to post what you want, where you want.. but hey, get a clue!

You have basically hi-jacked and destroyed this thread with your negative, self aggrandizing statements...  so please, just go away! That way we can get back to enjoying our stupid, bad HDR processing, and continue trying to improve our skills with it.


----------



## 480sparky




----------



## McNugget801

Still looking for thread where I start calling people names....


----------



## cgipson1

McNugget801 said:


> Still looking for thread where I start calling people names....



a troll never calls names.. he just implies, and uses innuendo (translate that as BS).


----------



## cgipson1

Gentleman... as Sparky hinted, lets just ignore and not respond to any post from a certain individual... take away his ego strokes, and maybe he will go away!

EDIT: I just went and found the IGNORE list.. and guess who is on it now!  I would suggest that all sane individuals do the same (not implying that I am sane.. too late for that!)


----------



## GeorgieGirl

I purchased a book I really liked titled: Digital Landscape Photography by Michael Frye and I thought the book was one of the best I have had the change to read where landscape photography is concerned. It goes into details about using the Zone System to blend photos in PS very similar to the idea of HDR photography using multiple exposures, but the results were dramatically different in that the combination of the images created a realistic photo, which is unlike the results often found with HDR.

I looked today at the photo McNugget posted that was resurrected today entitled The Wave, and its my opinion that the methodolgy that was followed for that photo, from the composition to the exposure(s) and the PP was different than the bridge photo that is the subject in this thread.

I think there is a wide gap between two styles; 1)blending for deliberate exposure contrast, and 2) what some consider a scattershot method of EV shooting for HDR.

I don't doubt that some who work hard on landscape photography, with its critical lighting and exposure, find HDR and its often found cavalier approach to shooting for EV a cover up for a lack of core disciplines or understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally dramatic photo.

Hopefully everyone will be able to hear what is being said without continuing to take offense to it, (and name calling) because the underlying message is powerful and has merit for anyone who shoots landscapes.


----------



## 480sparky

cgipson1 said:


> Gentleman... as Sparky hinted, lets just ignore and not respond to any post from a certain individual... take away his ego strokes, and maybe he will go away!
> 
> EDIT: I just went and found the IGNORE list.. and guess who is on it now!  I would suggest that all sane individuals do the same (not implying that I am sane.. too late for that!)


----------



## cgipson1

I have seen many photos, with HDR used tastefully and gently... that were indeed enhanced by HDR. The lack of range on our digital sensors renders HDR useful in some situations, and allows some shots to show good detail at the extremes of exposure that would be nearly impossible any other way. It is in bad repute primarily because so many people use it with a very heavy hand... rather than being subtle with it.

I do agree that you still need get the best exposure possible on the 0 image, before you even consider taking the over and under shots needed for HDR.


----------



## 480sparky

I don't recall _anyone_ claiming HDR is the perfect end to all means.  

It is simply one more weapon in every shooter's arsenal.  Whether it be a utilizing a GND, choosing a certain focal length lens, use of a tripod, bouncing a flash, stitching a pano together, or creating an HDR........ the world is not a perfect place and we can bring to bear a variety of choices to create the image we're after.  Whether those choices are done in the field or at the 'digital darkroom',_ as long as the end result is what the artists wants, then that's all that matters_.


----------



## McNugget801

GeorgieGirl said:


> I purchased a book I really liked titled:  Digital Landscape Photography by Michael Frye and I thought the book was  one of the best I have had the change to read where landscape  photography is concerned. It goes into details about using the Zone System  to blend photos in PS very similar to the idea of HDR photography using  multiple exposures, but the results were dramatically different in that  the combination of the images created a realistic photo, which is  unlike the results often found with HDR.
> 
> I looked today at the photo McNugget posted that was resurrected today  entitled The Wave, and its my opinion that the methodolgy that was  followed for that photo, from the composition to the exposure(s) and the  PP was different than the bridge photo that is the subject in this  thread.
> 
> I think there is a wide gap between two styles; 1)blending for  deliberate exposure contrast, and 2) what some consider a scattershot  method of EV shooting for HDR.
> 
> I don't doubt that some who work hard on landscape photography, with its  critical lighting and exposure, find HDR and its often found cavalier  approach to shooting for EV a cover up for a lack of core disciplines or  understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally  dramatic photo.
> 
> Hopefully everyone will be able to hear what is being said without  continuing to take offense to it, (and name calling) because the  underlying message is powerful and has merit for anyone who shoots  landscapes.




Excellent post.
For the record I do shoot HDR and I'm proud of it. 



cgipson1 said:


> I do agree that you still need get the best exposure possible on the 0 image, before you even consider taking the over and under shots needed for HDR.



Exactly 




Still trying to find a trolling post that I have made. 
Maybe you should read it all again..... 



McNugget801 said:


> No offense intended... just being honest.





McNugget801 said:


> No need to get all huffy, your shot just not  my cup of tea and just like you I'm entitled to my own opinion.





McNugget801 said:


> I told you 3 times I was not trying to be rude... obviously you are.



Yet I was accused of "belittling", "trolling", and as Bynx so gracefully put being one of those "dip$hit a$$holes".  I think a few of you need to grow up and try a little harder to be civil and more adult like.


----------



## cgipson1

480sparky said:


> I don't recall _anyone_ claiming HDR is the perfect end to all means.
> 
> It is simply one more weapon in every shooter's arsenal.  Whether it be a utilizing a GND, choosing a certain focal length lens, use of a tripod, bouncing a flash, stitching a pano together, or creating an HDR........ the world is not a perfect place and we can bring to bear a variety of choices to create the image we're after.  Whether those choices are done in the field or at the 'digital darkroom',_ as long as the end result is what the artists wants, then that's all that matters_.



agreed x10!


----------



## Bynx

GeorgieGirl you have made a few statements that are really BS. Shooting for HDR does not cover up for a lack of core disciplines or understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally dramatic photo. Its like saying using a camera covers up for those poor souls who dont have any artistic abilities and cant draw beautiful portraits or landscapes with a pencil or a paintbrush. Absolutely no one can argue against HDR. That being said then lets talk tone mapping. Thats where the trouble lays. Heavy handed people who screw up a good image either on purpose or quite unintentionally because of some reason or another. To get a good coverage for HDR the best 0 EV must be used and the over and under shots go from there. In the example in this thread Sparky supplied the 0 EV and Im assuming that that is the best shot that could be taken at that particular time. Not exactly a keeper, but that in combination with other shots does produce a better image. In the example I submitted I went the regular route and upon seeing the fuzzy look to the trees I cut and pasted one of the exposures I liked best for a sharp clear image of the leaves and branches. Photomatix et all, are just tools to be used any way we choose to produce any kind of image we want. This thread is about HDR so thats why we see HDR images (actually more like tone mapped HDR images), and we dont apologize for any of it. Its not a crutch, or any other kind of excuse thats being used by fools who dont know how to use their cameras and I take exception to anyone who suggests it is.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Bynx said:


> GeorgieGirl you have made a few statements that are really BS. Shooting for HDR does not cover up for a lack of core disciplines or understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally dramatic photo. Its like saying using a camera covers up for those poor souls who dont have any artistic abilities and cant draw beautiful portraits or landscapes with a pencil or a paintbrush. Absolutely no one can argue against HDR. That being said then lets talk tone mapping. Thats where the trouble lays. Heavy handed people who screw up a good image either on purpose or quite unintentionally because of some reason or another. *To get a good coverage for HDR the best 0 EV must be used and the over and under shots go from there. In the example in this* *thread Sparky supplied the 0 EV and Im assuming that that is the best shot that could be taken at that particular time. Not exactly a keeper, but that in combination with other shots does produce a better image.* In the example I submitted I went the regular route and upon seeing the fuzzy look to the trees I cut and pasted one of the exposures I liked best for a sharp clear image of the leaves and branches. Photomatix et all, are just tools to be used any way we choose to produce any kind of image we want. This thread is about HDR so thats why we see HDR images (actually more like tone mapped HDR images), and we dont apologize for any of it. Its not a crutch, or any other kind of excuse thats being used by fools who dont know how to use their cameras and I take exception to anyone who suggests it is.



Bynx - For openers none of my comments were BS, but what I bolded here supports the camp that says HDR is a coverup. I agree Photomatrix is a fantastic processing tool. I have it. As for the best 0 EV, I think, and I have said for a long time that this is the single critical shot. If some feel that because HDR can render even mediocre into fanstastic, that lighting and exposure don't have to be dead on because it can be processed out, then so be it. I just think that all the rules of lighting exposure and compostion don't go out the window for HDR, and I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm just saying we all know that this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.

I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much, but I do look for opportunities to master it. I also at this point am more focused on doing better at landsacping photgraphy using the Zone System, as that to me would be, for me, a cleaner photo with greater technical integrity as a basis.


----------



## 480sparky

GeorgieGirl said:


> ........  this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.
> 
> I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much,...........



Interesting juxtaposition of statements.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

480sparky said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........  this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.
> 
> I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much,...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting juxtaposition of statements.
Click to expand...


Meaningless comment that describes nothing. Put into a stament what you actually mean to say and we can potentially discuss it.


----------



## 480sparky

GeorgieGirl said:


> Meaningless comment that describes nothing. Put into a stament what you actually mean to say and we can potentially discuss it.



You say it's easy to do, but you can't do it so you dismiss it.  

How's that?


----------



## GeorgieGirl

;-)





480sparky said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless comment that describes nothing. Put into a stament what you actually mean to say and we can potentially discuss it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's easy to do, but you can't do it so you dismiss it.
> 
> How's that?
Click to expand...


Sparky you are not going to like this, I'm sure...Here is what I said, word for word...



GeorgieGirl said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> GeorgieGirl you have made a few statements that are really BS. Shooting for HDR does not cover up for a lack of core disciplines or understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally dramatic photo. Its like saying using a camera covers up for those poor souls who dont have any artistic abilities and cant draw beautiful portraits or landscapes with a pencil or a paintbrush. Absolutely no one can argue against HDR. That being said then lets talk tone mapping. Thats where the trouble lays. Heavy handed people who screw up a good image either on purpose or quite unintentionally because of some reason or another. To get a good coverage for HDR the best 0 EV must be used and the over and under shots go from there. In the example in this thread Sparky supplied the 0 EV and Im assuming that that is the best shot that could be taken at that particular time. Not exactly a keeper, but that in combination with other shots does produce a better image. In the example I submitted I went the regular route and upon seeing the fuzzy look to the trees I cut and pasted one of the exposures I liked best for a sharp clear image of the leaves and branches. Photomatix et all, are just tools to be used any way we choose to produce any kind of image we want. This thread is about HDR so thats why we see HDR images (actually more like tone mapped HDR images), and we dont apologize for any of it. Its not a crutch, or any other kind of excuse thats being used by fools who dont know how to use their cameras and I take exception to anyone who suggests it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bynx - For openers none of my comments were BS, but what I bolded here supports the camp that says HDR is a coverup. I agree Photomatrix is a fantastic processing tool. I have it. As for the best 0 EV, I think, and I have said for a long time that this is the single critical shot. If some feel that because HDR can render even mediocre into fanstastic, that lighting and exposure don't have to be dead on because it can be processed out, then so be it.* I just think that all the rules of lighting exposure and compostion don't go out the window for HDR, and I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm just saying we all know that this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.
> *
> *I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much, but I do look for opportunities to master it. I also at this point am more focused on doing better at landsacping photgraphy using the Zone System, as that to me would be, for me, a cleaner photo with greater technical integrity as a basis.*
Click to expand...





For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR *is *easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.

I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait. 

Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.


----------



## cgipson1

GeorgieGirl said:


> For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR *is *easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.
> 
> I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.
> 
> Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.



GeorgieGirl... 

I have to say this.... yes.. HDR is easy, and anyone can do it. BUT not many can do it well.... most do it with a sledge hammer, instead of a scalpel. 

Your statement about having little personal interest in it, unless you can do it well is a paradox or oxymoron.... you can't do it well unless you learn how.... and that requires the interest to pursue.  That is like saying "I would love to be able to cook, but I cant.. so I have no interest in learning how".  I am confused! 

We are here for that very reason.. we are interested, and want to learn to use it well. That is why I find it so interesting that others (who profess a lack of interest) have the gall to come in and basically tell us we are wasting our time... lol! Are we going into your thread (assuming you have one) and telling you that "NO.. that is not the best way to do it! My way is better, or that way over there is better"? If you are going to bash it.. fine, but tell us why you don't like it... what your experiences have been, etc... so that we can hopefully learn from what you have to say.  

I am glad you have found an alternative... one that I am interested in also, but not on this thread!    I am not trying to be negative.. or "twist your words"... just saying....


----------



## 480sparky

It's also incredibly easy to throw on a 1000mm lens so you can shoot wildlife without disturbing it or ending your life.
It's also incredibly easy to cram a camera on a tripod, set the shutter to B and get star trails.
It's also incredibly easy to take 10 shots and stitch them into a pano.
It's also incredibly easy to slap a GND in front of your lens to keep the sky from getting blown out.  How is that any different than utilizing HDR to do the exact same thing?

What I find fascinating is so many HDR detractors feel compelled to tell the rest of us we're all on the wrong track.... that's we've somehow strayed from the 'correct' path.  Who decides what the 'correct' path is?  Shall we start posting in the PhotoShop forum about how PS users are failing miserably because they need expensive software?  Must we go the the Film forums and tell silver nitrate addicts they're time is past?  Those that prefer to shoot in a studio environment.... are they failures because they must control all the lighting instead of reacting to what Mother Nature provides?

I will state it again: _As long as the end result is what the artists wants, then that's all that matters_.                         


Perhaps you can take ONE of the images in the OP and show/tell us what you can do with it.  I don't care which one... any one will do.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

cgipson1 said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR *is *easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.
> 
> I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.
> 
> Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GeorgieGirl...
> 
> I have to say this.... yes.. HDR is easy, and anyone can do it. BUT not many can do it well.... most do it with a sledge hammer, instead of a scalpel.
> 
> *Your statement about having little personal interest in it, unless you can do it well is a paradox or oxymoron.... you can't do it well unless you learn how.... and that requires the interest to pursue.  That is like saying "I would love to be able to cook, but I cant.. so I have no interest in learning how".  I am confused!
> *
> We are here for that very reason.. we are interested, and want to learn to use it well. That is why I find it so interesting that others (who profess a lack of interest) have the gall to come in and basically tell us we are wasting our time... lol! Are we going into your thread (assuming you have one) and telling you that "NO.. that is not the best way to do it! My way is better, or that way over there is better"? If you are going to bash it.. fine, but tell us why you don't like it... what your experiences have been, etc... so that we can hopefully learn from what you have to say.
> 
> I am glad you have found an alternative... one that I am interested in also, but not on this thread!    I am not trying to be negative.. or "twist your words"... just saying....
Click to expand...


Going back to the book I referred to:  Digital Landscape Photography...

The Zone System as it applies to Landscape Photography and what should be, IMHO of course, used as the platform basis for any attempt to excel at HDR with that critical 0EV, I'd encourage anyone to obtain this book and read it. It goes through blending, processing, and HDR.

It essentially descrbes the need to start with the correct highlights for landscape photography. Landscape photogrpahy is based on correct lighlights. Expose for the highlights. It explains how to determine the critical highlight that must remain detailed and of the correct color, and for example if that is a waterfall, that it will need to be placed in Zone 7 for white or nearly white. Pastels go into Zone 6. It explains how with correct metering to get there and get the camera settings correct to achieve zone placement that can be checked back via the histogram.  

I often asked in the past on this HDR forum how do you know who many shots you need and where to start your exposure and the responses were: take 3 to 5 shots at least. Not once did anyone ever say this is how you start to be sure you have your correct exposure for 0EV. Not once did anyone say this is what you need to meter. I found my answers because I was detemined to find them. And IMHO it starts with a hand held meter and detail work to find the measured dynamic range for HDR. So I think its more than a taking a stab at it approach. 

I don't mean to sound confusing. Simply put, (I hope) I want to produce a technically solid landscape in one shot if possible, in two shots by blending. I do not want to produce a properly metered EV range for HDR until I have completed producing techncially solid landscapes. When I accomplish that, and I don't know when that will be, I might decide to produce high dynamic range photos. I do feel certain though that its a step by step approach and that as a result of what I am pursuing now, HDR efforts will be worthwhile rather than what just anyone can do as a result of software. 

I am putting my one foot before the other for me.


----------



## 480sparky

GeorgieGirl said:


> .............Not once did anyone ever say this is how you start to be sure you have your correct exposure for 0EV. Not once did anyone say this is what you need to meter. I found my answers because I was detemined to find them. ..........



And that's the same direction I am headed.  This is why I purchased a 1º/5º spot meter.... to determine the actual dynamic range of the scene.  If it's within the camera's range, then I just take a set of 3 bracketed shots and move one.  If it needs 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 25, whatever, then that's what gets taken.  This is why some of my posts have just 3 frames, some have 5, some have 9.  It just depended on the scene.

However, I'd like to know what you do if the scene's range falls well outside your camera's abilities.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Sparky - If the metered range let's say is 1/125 for the lightest area of a scene and 1/4 for the darkest area of the scene the range is a 6EV gap.

125, 60, 30, 15, 8, 1/4 

You need to shoot 7 exposures if you use a 1 EV gap to accomplish bridging the entire range. 

So a meter will ultimately be telling you what your number of exposures is going to need to be. 

You might enjoy Practical HDR by David Nightingale. Perils and Pitfalls of processing, how to work around them and details of Photoshops HDR Tools, FDR Tools and Photomatrix. I think its a fantastic book. 

Enjoy your meter, you will be very happy with this tool.


----------



## Bynx

This is going from bad to worse. I think Im starting to understand where you are coming from GeorgieGirl. You havent got a clue. When asking how many shots over and under are needed for a given scene its always assumed, (at least by me) that the over and under is from the ideal 0 EV shot. Its not just starting anywhere and hoping you can capture it all. That whole way of thinking is just out to lunch if thats what you believe. People who take the exposures are doing it from a starting point Im sure. There are over 30 shootouts posted so far. I havent done them all, but Id be surprised if the 0 EV of each shootout wasnt in the money being close to the ideal single best shot of the lot. All the over and under shots should be based around that 0 EV. No wonder you are not doing well in any HDR attempts you've tried. You think its all just dumb luck if any shot it right. What can I say to that !!!!!


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Bynx said:


> This is going from bad to worse. I think Im starting to understand where you are coming from GeorgieGirl. You havent got a clue. When asking how many shots over and under are needed for a given scene its always assumed, (at least by me) that the over and under is from the ideal 0 EV shot. Its not just starting anywhere and hoping you can capture it all. That whole way of thinking is just out to lunch if thats what you believe. People who take the exposures are doing it from a starting point Im sure. There are over 30 shootouts posted so far. I havent done them all, but Id be surprised if the 0 EV of each shootout wasnt in the money being close to the ideal single best shot of the lot. All the over and under shots should be based around that 0 EV. No wonder you are not doing well in any HDR attempts you've tried. You think its all just dumb luck if any shot it right. What can I say to that !!!!!



On the contrary Bynx. You are again saying why people think HDR is a stab at photogprahy. I have actually indicated in multiple posts in this particular threat that I fully well understand HDR and I have backed it up with accurate details. Its dumb luck for many people and that's why its easy and generally with poor results. 

My question to asking how many shots are needed is because the standard answer by those who profess to know HDR and know it well is always three. You though, take 9 mostly I think you said. Do you meter for that 9? Is nine the magic number for you? Maybe you have a trained eye. I don't. I meter and detmine the number of exposures. The sad part was asking an even when asking in a number of ways (my limit is three) no one could say why they did what they did and meters were a complete non-event. 

Stop now, you know you are not dealing with a dummy here and if you are just trying for argument those moments came and went quite a few posts ago. We've moved on to being productive so try and keep up.


----------



## Bynx

Please GeorgieGirl dont presume I know Im not dealing with a dummy. The jury is still out on that. I just wish this would all stop and you guys would take a hike so this thread could get back on track.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

To be brutally honest Bynx, your acceptance is negligible in the grand scheme of things for me. And like many threads on TPF...there is something worthwhile in all the brouhaha once you get past all the complainers complaints. 

Stay well.


----------



## Bynx

Nothing worthwhile in anything that has been said other than the comments made about the photos posted. Some stupid remarks were made followed by stupid comebacks. Didnt accomplish anything. You and the rest arent any wiser about HDR and it just makes enemies when confrontations like this occur. Nobody can stop you from coming into any forum and saying anything you want. But how about lets keeping it to the topic at hand -- and thats the pics that are posted. Now I wonder how long this BS is going to continue. Can anyone post an HDR image here ----- please, please, please.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Bynx said:
			
		

> Nothing worthwhile in anything that has been said other than the comments made about the photos posted. Some stupid remarks were made followed by stupid comebacks. Didnt accomplish anything. You and the rest arent any wiser about HDR and it just makes enemies when confrontations like this occur. Nobody can stop you from coming into any forum and saying anything you want. But how about lets keeping it to the topic at hand -- and thats the pics that are posted. Now I wonder how long this BS is going to continue. Can anyone post an HDR image here ----- please, please, please.



You clearly have a limited scope of view and are narrow minded. 

Discussions of meters, their usefulness, dynamic range EV's and two good published references for photography have been introduced. You just shoot images so you don't need insight.

Others may.


----------



## 480sparky

GeorgieGirl said:


> Sparky - If the metered range let's say is 1/125 for the lightest area of a scene and 1/4 for the darkest area of the scene the range is a 6EV gap.
> 
> 125, 60, 30, 15, 8, 1/4
> 
> You need to shoot 7 exposures if you use a 1 EV gap to accomplish bridging the entire range.
> 
> So a meter will ultimately be telling you what your number of exposures is going to need to be.
> 
> You might enjoy Practical HDR by David Nightingale. Perils and Pitfalls of processing, how to work around them and details of Photoshops HDR Tools, FDR Tools and Photomatrix. I think its a fantastic book.
> 
> Enjoy your meter, you will be very happy with this tool.



OK, that's exactly how I'm currently doing my HDRs.  I've left the 'defaults' of -2/0/+2 or -1/0/+1 or -4/-2/0/+2/+4 behind.   If the range of the image is 4 stops, I take 4 frames, 6 to CMA.  If it's 9, I take 9 or 11.  If it's required to take 13 frames, I'll take all 13 plus 2 more for luck.  If the subject is moving, I may not be able to get a dozen frames and will have to live with 2-4.

Now, it seems you're trying to say preventing blown-out highlights and digital black all in the same image can be accomplished with this Zone method _with just one frame_.  If so, which _one single frame_ of my OP are you going to use as an example?   Care to fill us in on this mystery?


----------



## GeorgieGirl

480sparky said:
			
		

> OK, that's exactly how I'm currently doing my HDRs.  I've left the 'defaults' of -2/0/+2 or -1/0/+1 or -4/-2/0/+2/+4 behind.   If the range of the image is 4 stops, I take 4 frames, 6 to CMA.  If it's 9, I take 9 or 11.  If it's required to take 13 frames, I'll take all 13 plus 2 more for luck.  If the subject is moving, I may not be able to get a dozen frames and will have to live with 2-4.
> 
> Now, it seems you're trying to say preventing blown-out highlights and digital black all in the same image can be accomplished with this Zone method with just one frame.  If so, which one single frame of my OP are you going to use as an example?   Care to fill us in on this mystery?



Sparky it may be independent or an overlap... Not sure which. 

I still have yet to be sure about blown out highlights but am sure from my most recent attempt at HDR that highlights were blown out without this in mind.

I will try to to find directions for the Zone. Which was introduced at least by Ansel  Adams in his photography.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

GeorgieGirl said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR *is *easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.
> 
> I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.
> 
> Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GeorgieGirl...
> 
> I have to say this.... yes.. HDR is easy, and anyone can do it. BUT not many can do it well.... most do it with a sledge hammer, instead of a scalpel.
> 
> *Your statement about having little personal interest in it, unless you can do it well is a paradox or oxymoron.... you can't do it well unless you learn how.... and that requires the interest to pursue.  That is like saying "I would love to be able to cook, but I cant.. so I have no interest in learning how".  I am confused!
> *
> We are here for that very reason.. we are interested, and want to learn to use it well. That is why I find it so interesting that others (who profess a lack of interest) have the gall to come in and basically tell us we are wasting our time... lol! Are we going into your thread (assuming you have one) and telling you that "NO.. that is not the best way to do it! My way is better, or that way over there is better"? If you are going to bash it.. fine, but tell us why you don't like it... what your experiences have been, etc... so that we can hopefully learn from what you have to say.
> 
> I am glad you have found an alternative... one that I am interested in also, but not on this thread!    I am not trying to be negative.. or "twist your words"... just saying....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going back to the book I referred to:  Digital Landscape Photography...
> 
> The Zone System as it applies to Landscape Photography and what should be, IMHO of course, used as the platform basis for any attempt to excel at HDR with that critical 0EV, I'd encourage anyone to obtain this book and read it. It goes through blending, processing, and HDR.
> 
> It essentially descrbes the need to start with the correct highlights for landscape photography. Landscape photogrpahy is based on correct lighlights. Expose for the highlights. It explains how to determine the critical highlight that must remain detailed and of the correct color, and for example if that is a waterfall, that it will need to be placed in Zone 7 for white or nearly white. Pastels go into Zone 6. It explains how with correct metering to get there and get the camera settings correct to achieve zone placement that can be checked back via the histogram.
> 
> I often asked in the past on this HDR forum how do you know who many shots you need and where to start your exposure and the responses were: take 3 to 5 shots at least. Not once did anyone ever say this is how you start to be sure you have your correct exposure for 0EV. Not once did anyone say this is what you need to meter. I found my answers because I was detemined to find them. And IMHO it starts with a hand held meter and detail work to find the measured dynamic range for HDR. So I think its more than a taking a stab at it approach.
> 
> I don't mean to sound confusing. Simply put, (I hope) I want to produce a technically solid landscape in one shot if possible, in two shots by blending. I do not want to produce a properly metered EV range for HDR until I have completed producing techncially solid landscapes. When I accomplish that, and I don't know when that will be, I might decide to produce high dynamic range photos. I do feel certain though that its a step by step approach and that as a result of what I am pursuing now, HDR efforts will be worthwhile rather than what just anyone can do as a result of software.
> 
> I am putting my one foot before the other for me.
Click to expand...


By the time you learn to do it, the cameras would be advanced enough to capture what human is capable of seeing.


----------



## Compaq

The last time I was in this thread, we were on page 2, I think... 


What I've found to be a good way to get the exposures, when purposefully shooting for HDR treatment, is to start at the shadow. I turn on live view, and see with my own eyes on the screen when the shadow tones are mid tones in the over exposure. That's my first shot. I then shoot frames somewhere between 1EV and 2EV apart until I've gotten my highlights as midtones. Whether that's 4, 7, 9 or 13 frames, I don't really care. I capture the frames and move on. I may not need them all.

As for the debate whether this image is suitable for HDR treatment, that's a waste of time. Everyone have different opinions. That said, those who participate in this are similarly minded and wish to learn to tone map better and all that stuff that's been mentioned in the last 5 pages.


----------



## Bynx

I use a camera to take my pictures, not a book. I have tons of photography books I use for reference. I skim through them as I get them and if a single thought gets saved thats ok. I can always reference the book. But if I were you Id pick up the camera and learn the hard way. What did those people do before they wrote their books -- do you suppose they just read books by others?


----------



## Compaq

Ah, Bynx, you're touching upon an important thing here. There are those to mainly stand on the shoulders of giants, and those who.. ehhr, build their own shoulders? and those who... hmm... let people stand on their shoulders? 

Ahh, I don't remember the kicker, but you get my point. I can relate to what I'm studying. We're reading textbooks, having lectures of all the great things other people have accomplished. But, darn it, I want to accomplish things of my own, and can't wait to start on my master's!


----------



## Bynx

Photography, especially digital photography is so great because you simply take the small box anywhere you want and take any kind of picture you want be it a good one or a bad one. And hopefully, from each picture you learn something. Now film photography is a whole different thing because by the time you took the picture and got it developed in a week and got the pictures back that you were lucky if 1 or 2 out of the lot were remotely acceptable and the lesson was lost unless you took careful notes. Having a digital camera is like having the photo lab right there so everything is instantaneous. I take pictures in manual mode only and I rely on my built-in meter. When I have determined my best 0 EV settings then I use that as my mid point for the bracketing shots of 1 EV for each shot, which is usually 4 under and 4 over. I have set my Nikon D7000 User modes to aid in that bracketing so it takes 9 shots in quick succession. Pulling out a spotmeter, and a book to read before I take a picture might save me a couple of exposures, but its not saving me any time. After Photography, reading is my pastime so I dont mean to be knocking the use of books. This thread is about comparing one person's style of tone mapping against another's. Perhaps, if there was a thread set up called "How To Take A Photo" it would be a better place for some of the comments made so far.


----------



## cgipson1

I will typically just spot meter the highs and lows.. and do a full bracket based on that.. maybe one over / under on each side of the meter also. To paraphrase Compaq.. if it is 3 shots, fine! If it is 12 shots, fine! 

We all do it our own way.. and we are capable of sharing information and critique amicably. 

BUT..... We don't need no stinkin Know-It-Alls telling us what we be doing wrong! lol!


----------



## Bynx

Amen and bless you my son.


----------



## cgipson1

Bynx said:


> Amen and bless you my son.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

Nobody likes ball busters either.


----------



## McNugget801

cgipson1 said:


> We don't need no stinkin Know-It-Alls telling us what we be doing wrong! lol!



 best part about this entire thread considering you fellas are the ones acting like the know-it-alls


----------



## Bynx

McNuggett why not submit your version of the Shootout instead of yap yap yap.


----------



## SlickSalmon

GeorgieGirl said:


> I purchased a book I really liked titled: Digital Landscape Photography by Michael Frye and I thought the book was one of the best I have had the change to read where landscape photography is concerned. It goes into details about using the Zone System to blend photos in PS very similar to the idea of HDR photography using multiple exposures, but the results were dramatically different in that the combination of the images created a realistic photo, which is unlike the results often found with HDR.



Thanks, GeorgieGirl, for alerting me to this book.  I love these kinds of analyses.


----------



## cgipson1

Did mcnugget say something? I can't hear him!


----------



## 480sparky

cgipson1 said:


> Did mcnugget say something? I can't hear him!




mcwho?................................


----------



## McNugget801

Bynx said:


> McNuggett why not submit your version of the Shootout instead of yap yap yap.



How about you post some HDR images to back up all your talk and name calling.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

McNugget801 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> McNuggett why not submit your version of the Shootout instead of yap yap yap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post some HDR images to back up all your talk and name calling.
Click to expand...


You are really funny. When you find that your statement is incorrect, you quickly change what you say, start yapping something else and make others forget what you said before.


----------



## 480sparky

That's the one problem with Ignore Lists..... someone has to quote someone who's on it and I still can see it.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Why don't we *all* _just not respond_ to McNugget and maybe he'll shaddup.


----------



## cgipson1

did you know that McNuggets are made from pink ground up chicken goop.. formed into nuggets? They are FAKE nuggets.... greasy, unhealthy and bad for you! Seems appropriate here too! lol!

Chicken Nuggets Are Made From This Pink Goop


----------



## pathoulihan1

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> did you know that McNuggets are made from pink ground up chicken goop.. formed into nuggets? They are FAKE nuggets.... greasy, unhealthy and bad for you! Seems appropriate here too! lol!
> 
> Chicken Nuggets Are Made From This Pink Goop



FTW!


----------



## McNugget801

EchoingWhisper said:


> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> McNuggett why not submit your version of the Shootout instead of yap yap yap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you post some HDR images to back up all your talk and name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really funny. When you find that your statement is incorrect, you quickly change what you say, start yapping something else and make others forget what you said before.
Click to expand...


Must be fun living in your little bubble.


----------



## ann

Just a tip for those of you who might be interested or did purchase "Digital Landscape Photography" by Michael Frye; there is an error on page 43 where a diagram of the histogram indicating the Zones is not correct.  He has a correction on his website that can be printed out and pasted over that page.

As an aside I found it interesting (strange ) that he uses the indication of a  zone in a non traditional manner. I.E. Zones are traditionally written as I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII.


----------



## Bynx

What happened to VI or is that an error?


----------



## ann

just skipped it, nothing has happened, it is still there along with VIII and IX and X.

just old fashion operator error.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

ann said:


> Just a tip for those of you who might be interested or did purchase "Digital Landscape Photography" by Michael Frye; there is an error on page 43 where a diagram of the histogram indicating the Zones is not correct. He has a correction on his website that can be printed out and pasted over that page.
> 
> As an aside I found it interesting (strange ) that he uses the indication of a zone in a non traditional manner. I.E. Zones are traditionally written as I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII.



Thanks, I'll print that page out and insert it.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Anymore shootouts?


----------



## 480sparky

EchoingWhisper said:


> Anymore shootouts?



I'll wait until:

1. GeorgieGirl answers my question and
2. MeNugget answers Binx's.


----------



## TinBird

Back to the shootout. My first photo to this forum.

HDR creation: Picturenaut
Tone mapping: Luminance HDR
Post processing: GIMP


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

Looks like in all the exposures the leaves were blowing around and weren't quite sharp.

Straightened the image using the opening of the bridge as reference point, photomatix detail enhancer, cs5, local and global misc. adjustments. 

No saturation enhancements and colors still came out vivd. Did notice a blue cast on the foreground rail that I took care of. 

Nice shot Sparky.


----------



## vipgraphx

Great picture for HDR! here is mine




bridge 30 shoot out by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------

