# Subtle, Soft, HDR



## Bynx (Nov 27, 2010)

An HDR made of 5 shots. I tried for the old painterly look.


----------



## mwcfarms (Nov 27, 2010)

This is lovely. Great mood with the HDR processing.:thumbup:


----------



## peacock (Nov 28, 2010)

Wow, so peaceful.. like a painting.. Gud Jub. :thumbup:


----------



## Provo (Nov 28, 2010)

Bynx nice job on this great image.


----------



## Steve01 (Nov 28, 2010)

Nice Bynx, this is what HDR/Tone mapping should be.
Excellent job.


----------



## myshkin (Nov 28, 2010)

Very nice tones in this pic. I like this one


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 30, 2010)

I think you meant fake HDR right.


----------



## pbelarge (Nov 30, 2010)

Bynx
The colors are so true to the weather conditions of this fall day you captured.
The flock of geese is icing on the cake.


----------



## Steve01 (Nov 30, 2010)

McNugget801 said:


> I think you meant fake HDR right.


 
What's fake HDR?


----------



## Bynx (Nov 30, 2010)

McNugget801 said:


> I think you meant fake HDR right.



Care to explain such a stupid remark?


----------



## PushingTin (Nov 30, 2010)

certainly like a painting... i am more a fan of the overprocessed HDR stuff but this has a very tranquil feeling to it. good job. The geese make the shot.


----------



## Bynx (Nov 30, 2010)

Aside from McNuggett, thanks for your kind words. I only captured what was there. Its close to a birding sanctuary so lots of flocks flying around.


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 30, 2010)

Bynx said:


> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you meant fake HDR right.
> ...




Sure, I made that assumption because the birds are not ghosted from the  backeting.  I should of asked if you tonemapped this from a single image (and we all know that Tonemapping does not make anything HDR) or if you made local adjustments to remove the ghosting.

I dont mean to offend.


----------



## eric-holmes (Nov 30, 2010)

I wish I could do HDR like this. My processing always sucks in HDR.


----------



## Bynx (Nov 30, 2010)

I do my HDR shots manually. This was 5 shots jpeg with my Nikon. I saw the birds coming so I set up for when they got in position and  took one shot. Then I waited for them to exit the viewfinder then built the other shots over and under the first shot. Since nothing was moving and the clouds seemed to be stuck in the sky it worked. I dont like others posting fake HDR, so you wont see me posting them. Im aware this is supposed to be HDR thread and NOT tonemapping thread.


----------



## myshkin (Nov 30, 2010)

When you get the geese in one frame and not the other 4, is it random how photomatix decides to put that in the final processed HDR or if its in the 0 exp it will be in the processed one everytime? 
I find with ghosting that if I process a few times I get slightly different results


----------



## pbelarge (Nov 30, 2010)

NIK has a new HDR software program. When there are moving objects such as cars, tree limbs, birds, etc... the software will take the best movement portion of the images and use that one for the final product image, making ghosting a relatively non-existant problem.  A pretty neat function.


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 30, 2010)

Bynx said:


> I do my HDR shots manually. This was 5 shots jpeg with my Nikon.



I am still skeptical but I do apologize. 
Not sure how you could of waited that long and not picked up any ghosting on tree branches or anything

NIK HDR - I have it and will take photomatix over it any day of the week.


----------



## Bynx (Nov 30, 2010)

McNugget801 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > I do my HDR shots manually. This was 5 shots jpeg with my Nikon.
> ...



If you paid attention I said there was no wind, the clouds were stationary or rather moving so slowly it didnt matter. If there were branches right over my head in the picture they would not have been any ghosting. As for what you can see in the picture ghosting isnt a problem anyway for the most part. The tree is too far and the grass is too low and busy. Since it was so calm out I shot it the way I already explained. Besides that I took a few more dup bracketed shots, just in case. But I didnt have to use them. So be as skeptical as you want, but next time ask the question first instead of making an erroneous accusation.


----------



## Bynx (Nov 30, 2010)

myshkin said:


> When you get the geese in one frame and not the other 4, is it random how photomatix decides to put that in the final processed HDR or if its in the 0 exp it will be in the processed one everytime?
> I find with ghosting that if I process a few times I get slightly different results



Thats a good question. I used Photomatix 3 until recently. I used ghosting at times and found it worked pretty good. But that was having the same object in different positions. In the case of the geese in my pic they were only in the one shot. Photomatix 4 included them in the shot and I didnt have ghosting selected because there weren't any ghosts. I do notice that the geese aren't as dark as they original shot so some of the sky has lightened them up a bit. But it softened them up to match the softness of the rest of the shot so I wasnt concerned.

Myshkin, I tried an experiment. I took two images that had birds in the sky and put them into Photomatix 4. There was 1 fstop between the two images. So A= -1 and B=0. B is the image with the single flock you see in my first post. A is the image with a few flocks in it. Now during HDR processing Photomatix 4 has a box with assorted presets. As I clicked through each preset image B (0) stayed constant. The birds did get a wee bit lighter but not that much. Interestingly, A changed with each preset. Different birds would disappear with each preset. So it seems ghosting can be fixed by selecting the right preset. I dont know how informational this is but its interesting and maybe worth pursuing.


----------



## myshkin (Nov 30, 2010)

Im going to play with this a little. Its good idea to wait for something to move out once you get it in one frame. I have noticed in the past when this has happened to me by accident that the moving object gets lighter. The empty space on the other frames lightens the look of the object on the one frame.
It would be cool if you could pick an area of a photo and choose one frame to have represented in that selected area.
For example if you could make a circle around the flock area and then select just one frame to be in that circle without blending. Maybe in the future


----------



## Bynx (Nov 30, 2010)

Ghosting isnt a problem for something like flying birds because you can always clone them out. Tree branches and bushes are nasty because they are very busy but the ghosting is still visible. Sometimes you can fix that situation with layers in photoshop. Everything can be fixed, but its nice when you can get it to pop out the first time.


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 30, 2010)

Bynx said:


> If you paid attention I said there was no wind, the clouds were stationary or rather moving so slowly it didnt matter. If there were branches right over my head in the picture they would not have been any ghosting. As for what you can see in the picture ghosting isnt a problem anyway for the most part. The tree is too far and the grass is too low and busy. Since it was so calm out I shot it the way I already explained. Besides that I took a few more dup bracketed shots, just in case. But I didnt have to use them. So be as skeptical as you want, but next time ask the question first instead of making an erroneous accusation.



ok well if you want to be a douche ..... 
I still think its one image.. TONEMAPPED (and not done very well)
I see not reason at all for this image to be HDR, its lacking one very important detail.. DYNAMIC RANGE!

also your WB is way off and you should clean your sensor or at least hide that sensor dust


----------



## Bynx (Dec 1, 2010)

Well first you call me a liar now you call me a douche. How about just staying out of my posts until you grow up a bit.


----------



## Provo (Dec 1, 2010)

McNugget801 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > McNugget801 said:
> ...



  Mcnugget surely you have heard of masking layers to remove ghosting in hdr correct?  You can witness this if you look at my pool side hdr post; I use a mask to remove the ghosting around the little girl. Assumption has led to making you be a jackass who chooses to talk smack about something that you have not bothered to look up please feel free to educating yourself on how to remove ghosting prior to bashing yet on another post.

Here read this Trey Ratcliff explains how to remove ghosting I strongly recommend this to you.
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial-part-3/


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 1, 2010)

I believe you Bynx, and honestly, I don't care how you arrived.  It looks nice.

Life may be about the journey, but post processing is about the destination!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 1, 2010)

I love it Bynx.  Here is my PP.. it may look too processed but I didnt have the high res.


----------



## McNugget801 (Dec 1, 2010)

Provo said:


> Mcnugget surely you have heard of masking layers to remove ghosting in hdr correct?  You can witness this if you look at my pool side hdr post; I use a mask to remove the ghosting around the little girl. Assumption has led to making you be a jackass who chooses to talk smack about something that you have not bothered to look up please feel free to educating yourself on how to remove ghosting prior to bashing yet on another post.
> 
> Here read this Trey Ratcliff explains how to remove ghosting I strongly recommend this to you.
> HDR Tutorial Part 3



Thanks but I do know how to remove ghosting.
I think you should re-read this thread and see who statring "bashing" first.
also notice I apologized twice... thanks


----------



## Bynx (Dec 1, 2010)

I like your take on it Schwettylens. If you email me Id be glad to give you the hi res files. The sky didnt have any of that yellow to it and the strong colors werent there but to anyone else it is a nice looking pp job.


----------



## ann (Dec 1, 2010)

I would agree with the edited one as well.  I always felt the first needed a bit more contrast; however, i tend to like things a bit more contrasty and frankly feel like a broken record these days with "tweak with curves


----------



## Bynx (Dec 1, 2010)

ann said:


> I would agree with the edited one as well.  I always felt the first needed a bit more contrast; however, i tend to like things a bit more contrasty and frankly feel like a broken record these days with "tweak with curves



You know when you get an idea in your head? Well when I saw this scene I thought of calendars my parents used to get from their Insurance Company every year. Always nice pastoral soft relaxing lazy laid back dreamy (enough adjectives?) kind of setting and I wanted to do the pic that way. Im like you and like it contrasty too, but in this case it was just trying to bring back some old memories. I sent the original hi res files to Schwettylens so we will see what he comes up with. Im not going to work on it any more.


----------



## ann (Dec 1, 2010)

Based on your vision then i think you produced that look, and that is the important element, what did you see, what did you want; not how the rest of us wanted you to see.

Your edition isn't awful, in fact many people reacted as you wanted them too, then "us loud mouths" came along and decided we knew better:er: we all bring our experiences to the work, doing and reviewing. It is very difficult to separate these from our reactions.

IMHO , there is a big difference in offering c&c about technical issues, then artistic vison.


----------



## Provo (Dec 1, 2010)

McNugget801 said:


> Provo said:
> 
> 
> > Mcnugget surely you have heard of masking layers to remove ghosting in hdr correct?  You can witness this if you look at my pool side hdr post; I use a mask to remove the ghosting around the little girl. Assumption has led to making you be a jackass who chooses to talk smack about something that you have not bothered to look up please feel free to educating yourself on how to remove ghosting prior to bashing yet on another post.
> ...



Oh you mean *"Starting"* well I did re-read 
you said to Bynx *"** I think you meant fake HDR right"*
That remark right there made by you is what started the problem.

So then Bynx explains and you persist
*"*[FONT=&quot]*Sure, I made that assumption because the birds are not ghosted from the backeting. I should of asked if you tonemapped this from a single image (and we all know that Tonemapping does not make anything HDR) or if you made local adjustments to remove the ghosting."*
 
Then you tell him _*"*_[/FONT]_*[FONT=&quot] I don't mean to offend."*_[/FONT]

Followed by the right back at it 
_*" I am still skeptical but I do apologize. 
*__* Not sure how you could of waited that long and not picked up any ghosting on tree branches or anything "*
_

[FONT=&quot] And then  you tell him the following
_*" *_[/FONT]_*Ok well if you want to be a douche ..... 
*__* I still think its one image.. TONEMAPPED (and not done very well)
I see not reason at all for this image to be HDR, its lacking one very important detail.. DYNAMIC RANGE!

also your WB is way off and you should clean your sensor or at least hide that sensor dust "*_ 


Did I leave anything else out? Come again who started?
I think you went about this in the wrong way 

The question should've been Bynx how many exposures did it take to create this shot, the reason I am asking because I do not see any ghosting? On the image considering you have moving objects such as the clouds and the birds flying. Sorry to speculate but was this a single tonemapped image? If not how did you manage to avoid ghosting please elaborate.

And I am noticing some sensor dust on your image not sure if you are aware of this and in my opinion it appears your white balance is also off.


----------



## McNugget801 (Dec 1, 2010)

Provo said:


> The question should've been Bynx how many exposures did it take to create this shot, the reason I am asking because I do not see any ghosting? On the image considering you have moving objects such as the clouds and the birds flying. Sorry to speculate but was this a single tonemapped image? If not how did you manage to avoid ghosting please elaborate.



Well your little post seems a bit one sided when you leave out the comments left by Bynx.  By using the same format you posted above Bynx could of replied with "why do you say that?" rather then calling my comment stupid, right?


----------



## Bynx (Dec 1, 2010)

The first thing I said when I started this thread was "_An HDR made of 5 shots. I tried for the old painterly look._" Now if I used 5 shots why would you say otherwise and call it a fake HDR? What was it about 5 that you didnt understand? McNugget, how about doing us both a favor and just stay outta my posts. Ive got nothing of interest to show you and you have nothing of interest to say to me.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 1, 2010)

Sorry if I messed up your beautiful photo Bynx LOL


----------



## Bynx (Dec 1, 2010)

The only thing I really dont like is that sickly yellow sky. Looks like after a mustard gas attack in WW1. You have brought out things I didnt notice in my original such as that round flair circle on the right.


----------



## AverageJoe (Dec 2, 2010)

Pretty intense, I don't mind the mustard gas attack.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 2, 2010)

Bynx, you want the high rez?  But the mustard sky has to stay ahhhhahaha


----------

