[dcstep]

Did your versions just not line up or was there just limited dynamic range or what other problem? Given that they were the same image, they should line up perfectly. I assume that you're starting with a RAW file and doing the highlight and shadow recovery at the time of conversion.

I've always combined DNG files. In the RAW conversion I turn off DxO's highlight recovery function and just create three as-shot DNG files; open all three in CS4 and then combine them using the dropdown button. I'm wondering if tiff is a problem. How large are the files that you're combining? Mine are about 25MB each and get huge until I "Flatten" them in CS4.

Dave

[Russian325is]

"Watch Your Step"

[BK]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Did your versions just not line up or was there just limited dynamic range or what other problem? Given that they were the same image, they should line up perfectly. I assume that you're starting with a RAW file and doing the highlight and shadow recovery at the time of conversion.

I've always combined DNG files. In the RAW conversion I turn off DxO's highlight recovery function and just create three as-shot DNG files; open all three in CS4 and then combine them using the dropdown button. I'm wondering if tiff is a problem. How large are the files that you're combining? Mine are about 25MB each and get huge until I "Flatten" them in CS4.

Dave - thanks. I think I may have been doing something wrong, so I am a little wary to ask for help until I experiment more.

I was taking a single raw image and converting it 3 times about 2 stops apart (+2 for shadow detail, 0 for normal, and -2 for highlight detail conversions). These are relatively large files from a 5D2. Then I was using the CS4 function to "combine to HDR" or whatever it may be called, and selecting the 3 converted images. It makes it into a single 32-bit HDR image, supposedly.

I had trouble figuring out where to go from there, but the 32-bit image looked like crap -- as though PS took this wide range of 3 exposures and smashed it all into a big shadowy image. Adjusting levels or curves, or converting back to an 8-bit or 16-bit image didn't help.

Am I supposed to dodge and burn the 32-bit image? Or adjust levels selectively on that image? I couldn't figure out what worked, but I just figured the initial HDR combination would at least look "decent" but need some tweaking. Instead, it looked terrible with even less detail than the normal exposure conversion, and I couldn't get it to look good.

Like I said, I think I need to read some online tutorials.

[dcstep]

Twitchy, yeah, something's bad wrong. The initial combined image should have more detail in both the highlights and shadows and the average part of the image should be as nice as it was before.

I tried some online tutorials and never found one that really fit me. "The Missing Manual --Photoshop CS4" has been very helpful. Using three separate exposures is very simple using the auto Combine command, so you're doing some step wrong. (Too easy to do in PS. The most complex program I've ever used).

Dave

[TWiTCHY]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Twitchy, yeah, something's bad wrong.

You rang?

[Tondtar]

Hole in the Wall

[remmib]

Just wanted to post a pics of the world's first full-scale floating wind turbine. It sits 10km (6.25 miles) offshore. The rotor diameter is 82m or 270 feet, so this thing is huge.

Shot with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @200mm.

The last pics is a 100% crop of the first.

[Seminole]

Taken out of my window on the 33rd floor of the Marriott Marquis in Atlanta Friday:

[BK]

Originally Posted by remmib

Just wanted to post a pics of the world's first full-scale floating wind turbine. It sits 10km (6.25 miles) offshore. The rotor diameter is 82m or 270 feet, so this thing is huge.

Is this location close to you? Is the rotor moving? Set your camera up on a tripod and take a 30 second exposure. I'd love to see how a long exposure of this might look, especially with nicer light and composed tighter to lose that out of focus shoreline in the lower right.

Here's an old long exposure shoreline image of mine. Not a particularly great shot, but it shows how otherworldly the surf can look with long exposure. This is 15" on Velvia.

[remmib]

Originally Posted by BK

Is this location close to you? Is the rotor moving? Set your camera up on a tripod and take a 30 second exposure. I'd love to see how a long exposure of this might look, especially with nicer light and composed tighter to lose that out of focus shoreline in the lower right.

Here's an old long exposure shoreline image of mine. Not a particularly great shot, but it shows how otherworldly the surf can look with long exposure. This is 15" on Velvia.

Yes, it's close to where I live. But it's brand new, so the rotors wasn't moving.

[watrob]

Cannot help myself, keep playing & PS'ing photo's from my 700d with the 12-24mm 2.8 lens of my new X5!

[Cyruz]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

DAMN!

yea its my favorite lens so far. great color and IQ with this thing.

[watrob]

Originally Posted by Cyruz

yea its my favorite lens so far. great color and IQ with this thing.

Can I have one of those, please!

[Juanto]

I'm going to get the 70-200 when I get the money but I can only afford the f/4 not the 2.8.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Juanto

I'm going to get the 70-200 when I get the money but I can only afford the f/4 not the 2.8.

If you can swing a FF camera then you'll not miss the 2.8. I love my f4 with my 5D MkII.

Dave

[Juanto]

Originally Posted by dcstep

If you can swing a FF camera then you'll not miss the 2.8. I love my f4 with my 5D MkII.

Dave

I was thinking about getting the 70-200 first because their cheaper and I could use it with my current camera then later on, i'll get the 5D because the MKII is out of my budget.

[dcstep]

The 5D will get you most of the way there. It's high ISO performance doesn't match the MkII, BUT it's up from most crop-frame cameras by a good margin. I'd only go for the 2.8 if you do a lot of sports photography or indoor, low light events like dance and gymnastics.

Dave

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by rodi

i don't do HDR. i loathe it.
this is just a photo.

What causes that HDR look? I took a picture yesterday and got something similar, but I'm still learning to fiddle with camera settings (I've used the camera about 3 times, 2 this week). Here's the pic:



Is it just too much hand movement? I've yet to get a tripod...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by epbrown

...

Is it just too much hand movement? I've yet to get a tripod...

For some reason I can't see your image.

Dave

[Juanto]

Originally Posted by dcstep

The 5D will get you most of the way there. It's high ISO performance doesn't match the MkII, BUT it's up from most crop-frame cameras by a good margin. I'd only go for the 2.8 if you do a lot of sports photography or indoor, low light events like dance and gymnastics.

Dave

We'll see how it goes. I need to get my "new" car and then we'll see where I am. I might be able to sell some things I don't own and get some good money and be able to buy a new camera and some glass. Thanks for the suggestions.

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by dcstep

For some reason I can't see your image.

Dave

It's definitely there on the server. I think I might have it - I somehow turned off the "steadyshot" function.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by epbrown

It's definitely there on the server. I think I might have it - I somehow turned off the "steadyshot" function.

Thanks for checking. It turned up later in the night, so I think that we can all see it now.

Dave