Thread: Matt's HDRs.

Originally Posted by dullbird

ok so I had a go but I had to create 3 different exposures using virtual copies....and well to be honest it came out crap

I didn't seem to matter how much I played with it I couldn't get it looking like anything you guys have done and the original image was so much better

The original image really needs to be cranked right up and down if you are using copies.

Without doubt the best option is separate images with individual Exp. Comp. in steps of two each side of normal, preferably in .RAW format and a high contrast scene.

AKAIK!

Originally Posted by discomuzz

The original image really needs to be cranked right up and down if you are using copies.

Without doubt the best option is separate images with individual Exp. Comp. in steps of two each side of normal, preferably in .RAW format and a high contrast scene.

AKAIK!

yeh I managed to find some pics which were bracketed but I only had them in jpeg......and the pics didn't quite match up as they were done of a boat on water and the boat ad obvioulsy moved a fraction.....

I must say it was a bit better to work with...........
but what I dont understand is your saying raw! well I take all my pics in raw but in order for me to export from lightroom to photomatix it has to be changed to a tiff....So whats the big deal about raw anyway as i would assume some loss of detail would occur with the conversion from raw to tiff before it even got into the program

You're probably right! For us pleb types the difference is negligible.

This is what Wikipedia says.

.raw
"Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors".

My understanding is, .raw files provide greater depth of color for contrast/saturation/etc. manipulation.

Basically, a nicer base image!?

Originally Posted by discomuzz

You're probably right! For us pleb types the difference is negligible.

This is what Wikipedia says.

.raw
"Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors".

My understanding is, .raw files provide greater depth of color for contrast/saturation/etc. manipulation.

Basically, a nicer base image!?

oh yeh I understand that....but I cant put a raw file and work on that in photomatix I have to convert to tiff or do you think the loss of detail etc is negligible.....or was that what you were basically saying

Which photomatix are you using???

Mine can open lots of different versions of .raw files (ie. Canon, Nikon, etc.).

I am using the version 3 demo!

Originally Posted by discomuzz

Which photomatix are you using???

Mine can open lots of different versions of .raw files (ie. Canon, Nikon, etc.).

I am using the version 3 demo!

yes so am I put I have the plug in to export direct from lightroom

DB, you should be able to get reasonable results starting with a single JPEG image.

Your standards are probably a lot higher than mine, but I reckon this is reasonable for a shot taken under very much less than ideal lighting conditions. The sun was in almost the worst possible place and I couldn't do much about that.
I won't comment on the subject.

I know they are not a patch on Matt's, but then I am using just one pretty ordinary JPEG original.

Original

I'll comment on the subject I think it looks bloody fabulous actually