Found a few of pics on 28DaysLater which were done with HDR imaging and I've investigated it a bit...

To cut a long story short, you take a selection of images of the same thing with different exposure compensation settings, blend 'em together and let the software make something of it.

I've downloaded the trial version of Photomatix Pro and had a play:

Original version, standard camera settings:
[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Personal-Album-2-Image-025/[/img]

Tone mapped version, made from original plus one at +2 exposure compensated and one at -2 exposure compensated:
[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Personal-Album-2-Image-026/[/img]

My initial thoughts are that although it loses resolution (in particular the trees has gone mushy and the rubbing strake of the boat is less clear) it 'magically' fills in some of the shadows.

I suspect that this is not the best subject to have practice on either - the best HDR images I've seen tend to have cloudy skies and bright colours, neither of which this image has. The treatment of the sky in this case makes the image look rather unreal, although I suspect Photoshop could be used to sort it out.

Now the, I wonder if this would work underground? 😉

---

I see what you mean. I take it you are wondering whether it will 'fill in' the shadow areas? I agree with your point about the foliage.

---

It will work underground and its better if you use a tripod. The main reason as you say the trees have gone mushy on you is due to the fact they were probably moving. The HDR process has to resolve the movement so where possible its best to have a still life aspect to what you take. Its OK to have certain objects moving, clouds for example for they have fuzzy edges anyway. Water likewise. So like you say the subject matter is important. Another way round this is available for those who have DSLRs where you can auto bracket shots.

Here's a couple of my better examples. Not mine related sadly ........ yet.
http://www.toadstone.com/liverpool/pano_1ed4500.jpg 

http://www.toadstone.com/liverpool/pano_2.jpg 

Here I've used a combination of HDR and blending layers. It was taken at about 0745 am just before the sun rose, all hand held.
http://www.toadstone.com/mcr/sunrise/iwmquayspano.jpg 

I've been trying HDR imaging for while and blending layers. It was in the thread about lighting here a while back. I suspect some of the more traditional exponents of the photographic image might frown on this approach. Personally I find it an absorbing extension to the photographic process and so long as an image is identified as being HDR or a pano or composite, then I see no reason why not.

I hope to be able to get UG soon to attempt some images.

For those who would like to explore the subject further Pete Carr's site has some astounding shots and an HDR Guide ... enjoy http://www.vanilladays.com/ 

Hi, I've just found this thread. What software do you use? Is it a stand alone package, like FDR, or a Photoshop plug-in?
As a very old school photographer I have no problems with HDR, sort of reminds me of internegatives and Cibachrome!
While on the image subject, is that a Nodal Ninja you've been using, Toadstone? Your comments on it would be much appreciated. Thanks. 🙂

Toadstones link above shows how to make HDR images with photomatix software but if you have Photoshop CS2 you can use the merge to HDR function in that, no plugins needed.

There's a how to guide here
http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html 

I think photoshop is better at doing them without the colours going wierd though you can easily overcook it with either method.

---

Thank you for that. It's starting to become a bit clearer.
I've also been looking at Cokin, graduated, neutral density filters for the same purpose.
Digital cameras do seem much less able to hold contrast and highlights than Koda/Fujichrome 35mm and roll film.
You spend your money, you make your choice! Thanks.

I use several different software programs, Photomatix and Photoshop CS3, PTgui also has an HDR facility but I haven't used it yet.

sparty_lea's link is a very good place to begin and I would agree that Photoshop gives a less surreal image against the likes of Photomatix. Having said that once you get the hang of the controls and know what they do, you can then establish a format to suit you. I'm still learning.

As I have said before I'm not a professional and really trying to compare film with digital is a pointless exercise beyond the basics. I prefer to use digital as a new format and to use the digital image as a datum from which to add or subtract image data and that involves the use of computer software. I tend not to use the special effects found in these programs on photos unless I'm creating graphic furniture or icons for say web sites.

Having been brought up with nothing other than film I find it speaks volumes that in the more sophisticated software programs they have plugins or filters that emulate the original types of film like Ektachrome for example.

I am now getting closer to being able to go underground once more to get some photography done so we'll see. UG photo trips are not to everyones liking and can be boring for those other than the photographer ;-))

Originally I used a home made pano head or a handheld technique where the subject matter is basically photographed at infinity. However if you are to take photos UG then because of the proximity of subject matter the use of a pano head becomes necessary. I have now got a Panosaurus Head which I'm evaluating.

Close to panos need accuracy especially when using extreme focal length lenses such as fisheye. You are asking the software to do a great deal of number crunching and extrapolating data. The images must be taken as close to the so called nodal point of the lens as is possible otherwise they just won't stitch.

Thank you, Toadstone. I'm now much more clued up. I've looked at both Photomatix and FDR.. and since Christmas is coming!! The grad. nd. filter route has been dropped. I've only PhotoShop Elements3 which has been excellent,(although I have my doubts about "the album" facility) mostly used to clean up scanned slides and prints. I've had an Olympus E500 for less than a year and I'd agree that comparisons with film are rather pointless. I still find something deeply reassuring about having a slide or neg in hand! I've only used the Oly in SHQ Jpeg so far. I've got Olympus Studio as RAW converter and that will be another learning curve!
I'm not an underground person but I can imagine the lack of reciprocity failure in digital photography is a real bonus. The few night pics I've taken with the Oly auger well. Taking photographs above ground can be just as tedious for those present, especially if they have to cary my kit and remain patiently silent! Cheers.

Slightly off-topic, but relevant... I've been looking at the prices to upgrade my Photoshop CS (which came as part of Creative Suite Premium) to Photoshop CS3 which includes HDR.

The cost of the upgrade - £165 - is a bit over the top, but I suppose for for leaping two generations it's not unreasonable for a bit of software that costs £569 new. The cost of Photomatix is $99, so about £50 thus the additional cost of upgrading Photoshop is a little over £100. Steep, but (just about) palatable if I can find an excuse to use the company credit card ;)

But... I can't upgrade from Creative Suite to just Photoshop CS3 - I've got to upgrade the whole package if I want, at an eyewatering £699. For an upgrade!

Given the choice of paying either £569 for Photoshop (when I already have a copy) or £699 for the package upgrade, I don't think I'll be sending any money Adobe's way!

So... FDR Tools or Photomatix?

---

I think its extremely relevant. If it were not for the access I have to use such programs then the cost of some of them alone would prohibit me from using them.

I can see the usefulness and need to have the ability to use a suite of graphics products but IMHO the basic elements need to be available as stand alone and with the extras. Adobe tend to use the extras feature to package products rather than feature them in the stand alone product in order to sell the package. Why you can't just buy the element you want. £700 is eyewatering, imagine the camera and equipment you could get for that or beer!

I think I would go for the additional cheaper HDR program and use the older version of Photoshop, which at the time of purchase you must have thought it worthwhile. What you have to keep reminding yourself in all of this is that there will always be an optimum value between the operating system and the programs you use on that system and very importantly its the dogs do-dahs at that moment in time only.

The point then comes of course when both the operating system and the programs take a huge leap forward and you either go with it or not.

I did this awhile back. The thought of Vista just made me feel sick. So I went back and looked at the only really credible alternative ... Intel Macs. Truly free programs, 98% less virus attacks, 100% cross platform compatibility with Windows programs I need to use at work. But more importantly by comparison when I turn it on its stable, I spend less time servicing and more time spent on using it and being creative and not fighting Windows issues. And some of the programs are awesome by comparison to Windows. Apple iWork being one, especially the Keynote package, worth every penny of £55 alone.

Sorry to totally OT and long winded but it might help someone. I promise I won't do it again :oops:

Gee whizzz, Vanoord! That's alot of coconuts! At that price I'd feel compelled to buy it its own computer!
Point fully taken about Macs. Nearly bought one but since it was "my first computer" bought this little monster with XP. I know, I know! By and large, it has all done as it said on the box! I now know it's not plug and play!
Photoshop Elements3 appeared well reviewed, it does all I need (and then 75%more!) and cost £50. Initially bought to clean up digitised Kodachrome. Did learn with it, that the image has to, once again, be in the can! I am in deep admiration of those who can really use the full power of CS3. I leave that to the editors and graphic artists of this world who indeed, very often, want the clean originals and no PS!
Olympus Studio 2 was for the dedicated RAW convertor and fine control such as white balance. So far, it's a fine bit of software!
The FDR software looks like the job at 49 euro!

I have been playing a bit with my new camera. As it has a bracketing feature and I am limited to very short walks at the moment I have been playing with HDR.
🔗Huntcliffe-Iron-Mine-User-Album-Image-001[linkphoto]Huntcliffe-Iron-Mine-User-Album-Image-001[/linkphoto][/link] Is a hdr.