Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Konica Hexanon AR 3.5/28 7-element EE version
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW, can anyone tell which shots from that series are HDR and which aren't?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has the stitching caused the stuttering clouds Ian ? In the pictures with clouds there seems to be areas where the pattern is repeated, but the ground is perfect. Which would be a shame as they are excellent, and where you have used HDR it's subtle enough to be unnoticed.

I've just looked at them magnified, and I think it's the HDR that's causing it, the low cloud is moving very fast and the three exposures are picking it up at slightly different points. The high cloud is unaffected.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely correct, the clouds were moving hence the stuttering effect, shame really, it spoils things a bit.

Because it was tricky light due to near sunset, HDR was the only way for most of the shots.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
BTW, can anyone tell which shots from that series are HDR and which aren't?

they are all hdr except #2#3


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:

I've just looked at them magnified, and I think it's the HDR that's causing it, the low cloud is moving very fast and the three exposures are picking it up at slightly different points. The high cloud is unaffected.


This is one of the reasons (aside from having local control) why I prefer to manually blend layers in photoshop instead of having a machine do the mixing for me.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps a bit of blur / smear tool might do the trick ? It would be a shame to have very good pictures wasted.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
BTW, can anyone tell which shots from that series are HDR and which aren't?

they are all hdr except #2#3


Almost, 4 isn't HDR either, the colours are due to the angle and colour of the sunlight, it was a minute or two before sun disappeared behind hills.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
Perhaps a bit of blur / smear tool might do the trick ? It would be a shame to have very good pictures wasted.


I tried blur, looked wrong, I think the clone stamp tool is the way to fix it, I will try when I have time, have a few hundred shot from todays Ravenglass-Gosforth-Wastwater-Wasdale-Eskdale adventure to work on tonight and only managed to process two thirds of what I shot yesterday at Seathwaite. I need an 8-core PC with 8 gigs of RAM for these big HDR panos.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possibly picking a single exposure for the sky and processing it separately for the highs and lows then blending or using auto bracketing and faster frames per second should limit cloud crawl.
nice shots anyways.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's very cleverly done Ian, but I can't say I'm a fan of HDR. The pictures look artificial to me, like scenes from an animated movie. Now you're gonna say that's the whole idea! Smile


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually that's not the idea, I'm trying to be realistic, more like the way the human eye sees a scene than a traditional photograph depicts it, not easy but I am slowly getting there, I have a new series shot yesterday to post, some of those look very realistic, I will post them as soon as I finish processing them, it takes a long time to assemble an image from 40 exposures - stitching 8 5-shot HDR images.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is yesterday's series with the Hexanon 3.5/28, think these are a bit more realistic looking.
















PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So many great pictures! Congrats! Some of them require more saturation in my opinion, but most of them just stunning!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, there is room for tweaking, for sure, but after 24hrs of work putting them together (nearly all are stitched from many exposures) I have had enough and need an early night! I will play with ACDSee and see what improvements I can make.

There is still a series shot with my Tokina 17mm of the same subjects to finish processing...

I need a faster PC!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holy cow, you've nailed the HDR technique alright!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers Graham, it took a lot of work to get it right and I think I've about worn my eyes and PC out doing so!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be easy, but wrong, to judge those pictures in the same way that we would judge a picture showing the same view but taken in one shot. It would be interesting to see some comparison 'single' shots Ian, I think it would make your efforts that much more appreciated. I'm not being critical, I think they're very very good, but the difference, without that comparison, is kinda hard to judge.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a good point David. Sadly I've deleted all the RAW files but when I shoot another series I will do as you suggest. To my eyes, the difference is massive. You have to remember this series was shot on a horrid, dull gray day with intermittent rain, there was no blue in the sky to the naked eye, single shots looked dull, flat, not good. If you look at the panorama facing out to sea with the fishing boats, that shot is not HDR, it's very flat and the sky is just flat gray, but I did this deliberately as I wanted a stark, minimalist look. As you probably know, Cumbria in November is dull, wet and windy, HDR would seem to allow better photography in such circumstances and for me, that is a great thing as 6 months of the year can be horrid up here.

I did keep this example from the Seathwaite series. First is a single 10 second exposure with an ND8 filter, second is a 6 shot HDR with same ND8 filter (cheap 3ukp Chinese plastic one).




PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, you can see the difference, the first shot on its own would be ok, maybe not worthy of hanging on the wall but it's ok. The second has detail and vibrance, the detail on the wet rocks in the shade is all there. It's a big difference. It's interesting to see that comparison.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're just getting better and better Ian!

Regarding the 7-element version: could we specify serial number range perhaps? Mine is 7182720. All metal.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
You're just getting better and better Ian!

Regarding the 7-element version: could we specify serial number range perhaps? Mine is 7182720. All metal.


+10 I never seen similar fast changing, congrats!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks guys, appreciate the kind words.

I will check my serial number for you.

Got car stuck in the mud which spoilt today's shoot, but I did manage these, first two not HDR, third one is HDR, just for comparison's sake.





PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The two woodland shots - I wouldn't know that 3 was HDR, which for me is a good thing. I looked at them for a long time, flicking up and down. Initially I preferred 2, the colours on the fallen leaves looked a bit more natural. But it's the sun streaming through that's the difference. In 3 it's way better ( top left ) and because that looks better, the fallen leaves look more natural in 3 for that light. If that makes sense ? Idea
You're on a winner Ian.
Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers David. I too, liked #2 first, but after looking at them preferred #3. I think those two show why I like HDR - it enables you to conquer tricky lighting situations and if done right, doesn't need to be unrealistic. Human vision I think, looks more like 3 than 2, and I like the idea of makng scenes that look as they would if you were stood there, that is why I us minimum aperture too, so everything is in focus, same as it is to the naked eye.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The long shots look very good but not the short ones.

Edit: I see I was pages behind, my comment is based on the original few pics.