Tom K. wrote:
I could not disagree with you more. I have shot HDR and worked on processing techniques for years and the method I use requires at the very least 5 shots I frequently do 11 for incredible detail and quality. It makes a gigantic difference in the final image. Apparently you have not done much HDR shooting. I am not talking some theoretical idea here....I'm talking practical nuts and bolts been there done that tangible work. The method I link to works miracles.......but.........requires several frames per final image.
Agreed - I find that the Autobrackting of the D7000 (3 images max) is lacking. Indeed the 'at least 5 shots' that the D300 was blessed with provided more detail, scientifically possible or not.
I love HDR images and shoot and process allot myself, 3 shots is the minimum. It's all based on the light range.
When I shoot, I usually shoot anywhere from 5-7 and sometimes 9 shot's, depending on the range from absolute black to pure white light.
Personally, a computer is part of the equipment needed especially I you are a professional photographer in the digital age. It would be like stating that you want to shoot models but don't want to invest in lighting because you sent it all on the camera.
File size really isn't an issue when one TB drives are less then $70 and memory cards just keep getting cheaper. I'm in the 3D industry and I can fill a terabyte drive in a couple days when rendering so I'm used to dealing with that expense I guess.
Using more than three raw for a HDR composite is a total waste of effort. If you think feeding seven raw's into a HDR engine does something "better", then you're doing something very wrong.
Raw files are linear in nature. What you need is enough leeway to make a nice slide over from one opacity to another, and since you have at least 8 perfect Ev's of DR per raw, that's a +/-4Ev 3-image bracket.
A +/-4Ev 3-bracket gives about 16-18 workable Ev's of material, and then you hit the glass ceiling (in many more ways than one). Stray light limits even very good glass at about 13Ev's of usable material of "good photographical quality". If you want more than this you have to start doing stuff like partial image blocking (using scrims in front of the lens) to block of the brightest parts of the image so that they don't pollute the shadow areas with stray light when doing the longer exposures....Show more →
I think the difference is you're describing HDR as a technical exercise in order to cover a wider dynamic range whereas Tom uses HDR as an artistic method.
Tom K. wrote:
I could not disagree with you more. I have shot HDR and worked on processing techniques for years and the method I use requires at the very least 5 shots I frequently do 11 for incredible detail and quality. It makes a gigantic difference in the final image. Apparently you have not done much HDR shooting. I am not talking some theoretical idea here....I'm talking practical nuts and bolts been there done that tangible work. The method I link to works miracles.......but.........requires several frames per final image.
Tom (and Kirk) are correct and with the D800 you can only go up or down by 1 EV step at a time so need more shots than the D7000/D5100 without the risk of moving the camera. Without the additional exposures you get a ton of noise in the extreme shadow areas.
Kirk P. wrote:
I love HDR images and shoot and process allot myself, 3 shots is the minimum. It's all based on the light range.
When I shoot, I usually shoot anywhere from 5-7 and sometimes 9 shot's, depending on the range from absolute black to pure white light.
penpro wrote:
Personally, a computer is part of the equipment needed especially I you are a professional photographer in the digital age. It would be like stating that you want to shoot models but don't want to invest in lighting because you sent it all on the camera.
File size really isn't an issue when one TB drives are less then $70 and memory cards just keep getting cheaper. I'm in the 3D industry and I can fill a terabyte drive in a couple days when rendering so I'm used to dealing with that expense I guess.
Nice to know I'm not only 3d animator/modeler here. Earlier said, I think we're spoiled with workstations. Within my previous years working with Pixar, consuming a tb in 2 days just from DRAFT RENDERS were normal. Btw Tom, continue building custom rigs again because ava direct is NOT cheap and in return, you could save yourself 1k+. Just thought I'd let you know... and yes, I am a multi-tiered computer technician so I'm quite qualified to announce that.
Also, if your income doesn't allow you the flexibility to afford extra harddrives and meandering your frustrations by purchasing a D800... maybe its not the right financial move to commit to. Its like purchasing a highend graphics game and not having the video cards to support it, then complaining how its a stupid game because your video cards have a hard time running it. Its not the product's fault, its YOURS. Just sayin' . But yea, ya right... many can't afford to upgrade if a lot of them aren't successful professionals. I need to stop visiting cgsociety so much... everyone is rich there lol.
poisonpill wrote:
I think the difference is you're describing HDR as a technical exercise in order to cover a wider dynamic range whereas Tom uses HDR as an artistic method.
They are the same, no difference. The target for both exercises is to arrive at a linear response image file with as many object target Ev's as possible contained within the file, with as good SNR as you can possibly achieve.
The "artistic" HDR file just maps the same data into a presentable image file in a different way. You start from the same linear data.
I have never seen a difference between an HDR stack of JPEGs and an HDR stack of RAWs. Don't flame me -- I've done the tests and have not been able to see any difference. Try it yourself before you jump in. This might very well be a decent solution to those of you who want to stack 3, 5 or 7 images for HDR with this camera.
lukeb wrote:
D3x RAW files are about 140mb as I recall. That's why it has (among other reasons) dual cards. Bigger cards and bigger drives for superior captures .
Uncompressed, maybe. I'm not sure why the heck anyone would be using uncompressed RAW when Nikon has a lossless compression option.
Using more than three raw for a HDR composite is a total waste of effort. If you think feeding seven raw's into a HDR engine does something "better", then you're doing something very wrong.
Raw files are linear in nature. What you need is enough leeway to make a nice slide over from one opacity to another, and since you have at least 8 perfect Ev's of DR per raw, that's a +/-4Ev 3-image bracket.
A +/-4Ev 3-bracket gives about 16-18 workable Ev's of material, and then you hit the glass ceiling (in many more ways than one). Stray light limits even very good glass at about 13Ev's of usable material of "good photographical quality". If you want more than this you have to start doing stuff like partial image blocking (using scrims in front of the lens) to block of the brightest parts of the image so that they don't pollute the shadow areas with stray light when doing the longer exposures....Show more →
I'm guessing Trey Ratcliff would disagree with you about needing only 3, at least for some scenarios...
. But yea, ya right... many can't afford to upgrade if a lot of them aren't successful professionals. I need to stop visiting cgsociety so much... everyone is rich there lol.