Now I’m just waiting to a change to go somewhere where I’d have a need of HDR. Which makes sense, when I saw a tutorial with the HDR tool everyone in the closed source world loves, once the guy had the HDR image created, he spent some time picking good sliders (like you would in Luminance or w/e the open source tool is) and then even put it into LightRoom for a bit more tweaking.Īnyway, thanks again for the advice. Tone Mapping on its own isn’t going to do much. So, based on Morgan’s response, that was the right thing to do. (Although if I were truly trying to make the best image, I would have then used GIMP or some other program to do a little blending with one of the shots that had the perfect tones in one section OR perhaps could have gotten away with the C(H) tool in LAB) Once I started playing with the curves just like I would with a normal image, it turned out much better. I think there would be cases where 2 EV would be fine (given the dynamic range of most SLRs) and cases where 1 EV would at the very least be conservative.Īs I said in my OP, at first I was not impressed with the image just putting it into LR and turning on tone mapping. I did this the day before I watched a talk about realistic HDR in which someone explained how to use the histogram to figure out how many exposures you need and how many EVs apart. Then I went outside to the bedroom and shot, trying to get details in the bedroom without blowing out the bathroom. I made a test HDR image by turning on my master bathroom light - 8 lights with extremely high lumens (it glows when you look at it from the bedroom). I’ll have to study what that Retinex thing is. On the other hand, I was overly conservative back then and made Filmulator discard a pixel if any of its channels were clipped, so it effectively limited the peak SNR of the camera.įirst of all, thanks for the info from both of you. I imagine that any camera with 3 stops less midtone/highlight SNR would need 1 stop differences between exposures to match that quality, hypothetically. Once I did a 3-stop interval HDR on my Canon 60D, merged by the command-line version of Filmulator, which works similarly to HDRMerge, and there were noticeable noise differences between places where one of the brighter photos was almost but not clipped, and where it was actually clipped and no longer used. This would be important for small-sensor point-and-shoot cameras if you for some reason want to attain DSLR quality from one. The tighter the spacing, the cleaner it’ll be even outside of the shadows. However, the worse the midtone/highlight SNR of your camera, the tighter spaced you want the exposures to be so that they average out more. Spacing them 1EV or less is a waste of time* Adjust the image normally in RT knowing that you have more details in the highlights and shadows than you otherwise would - therefore less noise. import them into hdrmerge and get out the DNG with 32 bit channels. But when I played with all the normal sliders from RT as if I’d just taking a normal raw image, I was able to get something I liked. So, when I played with tone mapping an hdr image I didn’t necessarily get an awesome image. And I looked in the old forums in the tutorials topic and didn’t see an HDR tutorial. So I looked at the tone mapping page in RawPeedia (which is where I learned about hdrmerge) and it just talks about the tone mapping section o f RT. I just think it’s neat that they would leave that up to other programs. I’m not saying LuminanceHDR is bad for doing that - or any of the closed source software that everyone depends upon. I was impressed that someone would create some software that would create an HDR image without doing the tone mapping for you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |