Results 1 to 13 of 13
07-31-2012, 09:49 PM #1
quick, possibly/probably stupid HDR technique question
OK. I want to take an action shot of someone biking, but in HDR. If I put my camera on a tripod and take my standard HDR landscape shots with 3-7 bracketed exposures and no biker in the image, can I then leave the camera where it is, take one shot properly exposed with the bike rider in the frame, and somehow merge them in photomatix without some weird ghosting effect?
Or, should I just use the non-biker landscape shots in photomatix, tonemap it to my liking, export to photoshop and then merge with the single RAW image of the biker? Is that the best way? Is there a good tutorial for something like this anywhere? Not the HDR part, I have that under control, it's the merging of the images with the biker that is the problem. I dont even know what to call it so I cant really google it very easily.
Thanks for any help"Yes, what we do is dangerous, but I'm lucky - I know how to do it. It's changed the way we look at mountains. For me it would be crazy to live in a big city and work on Wall Street. That's insane. I would never do that. I'm living the dream. It's the greatest job ever."
07-31-2012, 09:55 PM #2You're not a poet, just a drunk with a pen.
07-31-2012, 10:00 PM #3
You want to shoot your HDR "plate.". Then, using masks you want to "put" just the biker into your plate using masks.I'm a dickhead, get over it.
07-31-2012, 10:12 PM #4
You can take just 1 shot, change the exposure in post and then run them through Photomatix. I've done it before with good results in crappy lighting but it's more limited...
08-01-2012, 08:41 PM #5
If you shoot RAW, you can take one picture and alter it in post-processing. Slide the exposure to -2 for one image, use the original for a second, and increase exposure to +2 for the third.
08-01-2012, 09:31 PM #6
I think 2 stops is a little much, but +/- 1 or maybe 1.5 should be doable, and certainly give you a better result than what the OP is suggesting.
Who ISN'T shooting RAW these days, other than Photojournalists burning up frames?
08-01-2012, 09:53 PM #7
08-01-2012, 10:02 PM #8
And the stop difference really depends on the location. I have seen some that could go 1 easily and others that could really use up to 3 +/-. Granted I'm not an HDR junkie (actually hate the more processed jobs) but I have looked at plenty of before afters.I'm a dickhead, get over it.
08-02-2012, 09:05 AM #9pura vida
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- The bottom of LCC
08-02-2012, 09:49 AM #10I'm a dickhead, get over it.
08-02-2012, 10:26 AM #11
The AP also has some pretty strict rules about manipulation of photos shot by photojournalists, to the point where even minor color correction can be frowned on. So shooting in JPEG would give you a better image if you couldn't touch it once it's in your camera.
But yeah, RAW always, unless there is a really good reason not to.You're not a poet, just a drunk with a pen.
08-02-2012, 10:49 AM #12
Reuters also got egg on their face a few years ago due to some stringer in Lebanon enhancing a photo (google it.) Now our shooters have to shoot .jpeg and are only allowed to crop and adjust curves in the field... that's it.
08-03-2012, 05:25 PM #13