*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread
- Thread starter computerhakk
- Start date
G80FTW
Active Member
Going to completely re-do the other picture. I messed that one all up.
But in the first picture, any idea why the house looks crisp but the clouds seem noisy?
This is a picture I never processed, because I didnt like the shot. But decided to get crazy with it:
It looks like a filter, but I just did max noise reduction and it made it look like that
Looks like a hurricane!
Last edited:
How exactly are you editing these? There is a lot of contrast and dynamic range in them even though you said they weren't HDR.
I think the first one would still look better with cooler tones. Just my thoughts though.
What ISO was the photo taken at?
I think the first one would still look better with cooler tones. Just my thoughts though.
What ISO was the photo taken at?
G80FTW
Active Member
I used the HDR toning in Photoshop with all of them. They arnt true HDRs, as I still havent figured out how to do that properly.
f/4.5 1/2000s ISO 100 @ 30mm.
G80FTW
Active Member
I might try that. Iv tried doing it with the HDR processing in photoshop and it never made a difference.
Photomatix is probably the best software for HDR.
I export three TIFFs from my RAWs in Lightroom - one with the exposure I took the photo at, one with -2 and one with +2. Then I put them into Photomatix, adjust a few settings and voila, HDR created! I can then save as a TIFF, put the file back into Lightroom for further editing and then export from there as a JPEG when I've finished.
It's how I created all of my HDRs which you can see here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/sets/72157633078706994/
G80FTW
Active Member
I think you showed me before haha. I did that before, taking 3 pictures using the same steps but photoshop just didnt give me results. Ill try that sometime though.
Wait, you take one picture and make 3 seperate pictures out of it?
Last edited:
Yup Photoshop sucks for HDR!
Yes. The benefits are:
1. You can still save them as TIFF images (or even back to RAW if you use Lightroom), so there is no quality loss - or very, very little.
2. You can be sure that each picture is exactly the same, for example one isn't 'wonkier' than the others, and you also eliminate things like having different objects in your photos if they were taken at slightly different times (which they would be if you took the different exposures on the camera).
3. You can be sure that each exposure is an equal number of stops apart from one another. For example, I use -2, 0 and +2 - each 2 stops apart.
4. You save time shooting and fiddling around with camera settings whilst you are shooting!
Of course, once you have made your HDR and you are happy with it, you can delete those 'bracketed' photos because you won't be needing them anymore and if they are TIFF images they'll be taking up a lot of space on your hard drive!
Geoff
VIP Member
That defeats the purpose of HDR. HDR is meant to combine different photos of the same scene at different exposures. A camera can only capture so much dynamic range, when you take a photo with blown out highlights (i.e. a bright sky), or have dark shadows (i.e. a shady spot under a tree on a bright day), you can't recover that by adjusting that photo -2 and +2. An HDR photo is really meant to increase dynamic range that you can't get out of a single photo.
If you're worried about the 3 or more shots being slightly off, just shoot on high speed bracket mode, you take 3 shots at custom exposure intervals in a split second.
G80FTW
Active Member
My camera wont take multiple shots at different exposures though
at least im pretty sure it doesnt. Iv tried my braket mode and it just uses the same settings...unless theres a setting im missing.
Geoff
VIP Member
On Canon, you go to the exposure settings where you can set the exposure to be -1, -2, +1/3, etc, and use the top dial to adjust the bracket settings to be anywhere from -1/3, 0, +1/3 to -4, 0, +4, or anything in between (depending on camera model). Go into your camera settings, you might have to enable it first. Once you find that, which I'm sure can be done as it's a very basic setting even the entry level DSLR's have, you can then set it to high speed shooting and you just hold the shutter for half a second and it takes all 3 photos.My camera wont take multiple shots at different exposures though
G80FTW
Active Member
I looked through my manual and on google, the d3100 doesnt exposure braketing
ill see if my canon s110 does. I know it has an hdr mode but its not the same.
Geoff
VIP Member
Looks like you're right, this is from a post I saw about the D3100 lolI looked through my manual and on google, the d3100 doesnt exposure braketing
"you have one of Nikon's cheapest DSLR's. It's ALMOST a toy camera. Quit whining, or buy a better camera. And while you're at it, if you must bracket, bracket manually, like many do. It's easy."
Again though, do not try to make an HDR image out of a single image. Yes it "works" and can look good depending on the processing, but that is not what an HDR image is. You want at LEAST 3 different images at various exposure levels, say one at -1, -2, 0, then +1, +2, etc. You don't want one at 0, one at -4, and one at +4. Anything that is blown out or in shadows on that image can not be recovered.
Ideally you would use a tripod when taking bracketed shots, especially if you can't use auto bracketing. Also, shoot in either Av or manual modes, as you want the aperture and ISO to stay the same.
Last edited:
I hate people who say stuff like this. Just because the D3100 is a cheap D-SLR and isn't as fancy as some of the higher-end stuff doesn't mean it's crap. It's still a good camera and can produce great photos.
I guess whoever wrote that has ALWAYS bought top of the range stuff for their entire life? In every single situation?
Reminds me of a response I got about a question I recently asked in the Adobe Forum about 'how crap my PC is'.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1538393?start=0&tstart=0
Last edited:
Geoff
VIP Member
I hate people who say stuff like this. Just because the D3100 is a cheap D-SLR and isn't as fancy as some of the higher-end stuff doesn't mean it's crap. It's still a good camera and can produce great photos.
I guess whoever wrote that has ALWAYS bought top of the range stuff for their entire life? In every single situation?
Reminds me of a response I got about a question I recently asked in the Adobe Forum about 'how crap my PC is'.
At first I thought you were criticizing me
I agree though, it's way more capable than a P&S, it works great for what it is. Not everyone can buy the top of the line camera and lenses.
At first I thought you were criticizing me
I agree though, it's way more capable than a P&S, it works great for what it is. Not everyone can buy the top of the line camera and lenses.
Haha no not criticising you at all Geoff!
But yes I love my D3200 and I feel that I will be using for years to come yet.
The lens is more important than the body anyway, so if you did buy something like a D3100 but spent a lot on good DX glass for it then you're onto getting winning shots.
Obviously there are benefits to going full-frame, but very few people buy a full-frame D-SLR as their first D-SLR and not everybody needs full-frame!
G80FTW
Active Member
I still like the idea of the dx bodies over full frames, better for telephoto shots i think
if i did replace my d3100 i would stay in the dx bodies mostly due to price though.
Geoff
VIP Member
If you want the longest reach possible, like sports or birds, yes, but of course you are already cropping the photo in-camera, so you can't crop it as much in post, which is why FF lenses are great for landscapes where you want it wide angle.I still like the idea of the dx bodies over full frames, better for telephoto shots i think