Some photography and HDR questions

[Sgt_Strider]

Ever since the early part of summer, I kind of got myself into photography. I still have a lot to learn, but I'm hoping you guys can clarify some stuff and concept for me. I currently have a Panasonic FZ-8 and I don't intend to upgrade to a DSLR in the near future due to the amount of money required to get into that field.

For long exposure shots, do you guys bring a tripod? When I was in Beijing I tried to take some pictures in the dark, but the results weren't very satisfying even with image stabilization. I have a feeling a tripod is required, but to me it seems like a hassle to carry around. Are there any small portable tripod that I can easily stick into my bag?

How does HDR photography work? I've seen some pictures with HDR effects and they're amazing. Are they true to colour or there are some artificial modication that makes it "better" than what it would appear in real life? From what I read, you would need three pictures with different exposure to make it work. Is this true? Is this where auto bracketing comes in? I probably have more than 800 pictures from my trip that used auto bracketing. I'm under the impression that with HDR photography, I can somehow merge all three pictures to get a better picture due to the amount of "information" that is available from all three pictures.

[goofball]

For long exposure shots, do you guys bring a tripod? When I was in Beijing I tried to take some pictures in the dark, but the results weren't very satisfying even with image stabilization. I have a feeling a tripod is required, but to me it seems like a hassle to carry around. Are there any small portable tripod that I can easily stick into my bag?

Yes. especially if your camera doesn't do high ISO well. Plus there are just some effects that you get with long exposure that you don't handheld even with IS.

How does HDR photography work? I've seen some pictures with HDR effects and they're amazing. Are they true to colour or there are some artificial modication that makes it "better" than what it would appear in real life? From what I read, you would need three pictures with different exposure to make it work. Is this true? Is this where auto bracketing comes in? I probably have more than 800 pictures from my trip that used auto bracketing. I'm under the impression that with HDR photography, I can somehow merge all three pictures to get a better picture due to the amount of "information" that is available from all three pictures.

It's just taking the same scene but in different exposures so you get pictures which show more shadow/highlight detail than just a single shot. It's better with more than 3 pictures. Photoshop CS2/3 has an auto HDR merge feature though you still need to do some work with it after.

[Sgt_Strider]

Yes. especially if your camera doesn't do high ISO well. Plus there are just some effects that you get with long exposure that you don't handheld even with IS.

Just about any P&S cameras will have problems with ISO 200 and above. IIRC, it has to do with the small sensor in them. Admittingly, I only shot at ISO 100 because anything higher than that was simply way too noisy.

It's just taking the same scene but in different exposures so you get pictures which show more shadow/highlight detail than just a single shot. It's better with more than 3 pictures. Photoshop CS2/3 has an auto HDR merge feature though you still need to do some work with it after.

What kind of work are you talking about? I've been thinking of buying PS for a while now especially with a student discount, but I've hold back because that program isn't exactly newbie friendly. Are there any other programs that I can use to merge the three pictures? I want to see what I got though.

Can you also address the colour quesiton that I raised?

[goofball]

Just about any P&S cameras will have problems with ISO 200 and above. IIRC, it has to do with the small sensor in them. Admittingly, I only shot at ISO 100 because anything higher than that was simply way too noisy.



What kind of work are you talking about? I've been thinking of buying PS for a while now especially with a student discount, but I've hold back because that program isn't exactly newbie friendly. Are there any other programs that I can use to merge the three pictures? I want to see what I got though.

Can you also address the colour quesiton that I raised?

You're right, most P&S have bad sensors that don't do well with higher ISO's. I love Fuji's SuperHR CCD HR for this reason (Fuji F10 and other good camera's.

Photomatix can also merge. Photoshop Elements can but you will need to merge them manually, i dont' believe PSE has an auto HDR like Photoshop CS2/3 does (merge to HDR is what it is called).

If you want, you can send them to me and I will use Photoshop's HDR and see what comes of it.

With PS, you can kinda do what you want with color. Some will do it so it's artsy, some will do it with complete intention to try to mimic the scene. You can do what you like with it. Alot of it depends on your ability in PS, imagination, and the scene itself.

[VorteC]

^
Photomatix FTW

[Sgt_Strider]

You're right, most P&S have bad sensors that don't do well with higher ISO's. I love Fuji's SuperHR CCD HR for this reason (Fuji F10 and other good camera's.

Photomatix can also merge. Photoshop Elements can but you will need to merge them manually, i dont' believe PSE has an auto HDR like Photoshop CS2/3 does (merge to HDR is what it is called).

If you want, you can send them to me and I will use Photoshop's HDR and see what comes of it.

With PS, you can kinda do what you want with color. Some will do it so it's artsy, some will do it with complete intention to try to mimic the scene. You can do what you like with it. Alot of it depends on your ability in PS, imagination, and the scene itself.

I just don't have the time to learn PS right now. I've always wanted to, but never got around to it. I think after I graduate next year, I'll find some time to learn it. I'm probably going to buy an educational license for P.S too.

I'll take a look at Photomatrix.

[Sgt_Strider]

^
Photomatix FTW

I just downloaded that program. Can you tell me how to use it?

[goofball]

http://hdr101.com/hdr-tutorial/
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3038/h...ge-images.html

Try those.

[Sgt_Strider]

http://hdr101.com/hdr-tutorial/
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3038/h...ge-images.html

Try those.

Thanks!

With all the talk about the pros of HDR photography, what are the cons?

Also, can someone tell me if there are good portable tripods?

[goofball]

all tripods are portable. It just depends on how you define portable?

Cons that I can think of would be you would need a good static scene. It's hard to get HDR to work seamlessly if solid objects are changing.

Along with a tripod, a remote shutter release is also something to consider. Even tripping the shutter with the button can shake the camera/tripod and change the scene ever so slightly.

[NiMSo]

Thanks!

With all the talk about the pros of HDR photography, what are the cons?

A fair bit of extra effort is needed to do HDR. You'll have to capture multiple frames with different exposure settings. You'll need to have the camera mounted to ensure the frames match up precisely (and you can't capture moving objects, obviously). And then there's the extra work needed in post-processing.

In my opinion, HDR is an over-hyped trend, and it seems like everyone's trying to use it nowadays. However, it's not entirely useful for everything. I would consider landscape work the main area where HDR can be useful, as skies are often blown, while shadows get clipped too. But for other things, (like portraiture, sports, product work, etc.) it won't often be useful. And anyways, when people do implement it, I sometimes notice that the results look far too artificial when it's done poorly.

[Sgt_Strider]

A fair bit of extra effort is needed to do HDR. You'll have to capture multiple frames with different exposure settings. You'll need to have the camera mounted to ensure the frames match up precisely (and you can't capture moving objects, obviously). And then there's the extra work needed in post-processing.

In my opinion, HDR is an over-hyped trend, and it seems like everyone's trying to use it nowadays. However, it's not entirely useful for everything. I would consider landscape work the main area where HDR can be useful, as skies are often blown, while shadows get clipped too. But for other things, (like portraiture, sports, product work, etc.) it won't often be useful. And anyways, when people do implement it, I sometimes notice that the results look far too artificial when it's done poorly.

I guess HDR won't be too good for "people shots" then? Even with the use of a tripod, facial expressions can change ever so slightly in that 3-5 second span.

[NiMSo]

I guess HDR won't be too good for "people shots" then? Even with the use of a tripod, facial expressions can change ever so slightly in that 3-5 second span.

People will move, so that's already a huge problem. Secondly, there's very little reason to use HDR for portraits. HDR is not something you can apply to everything - it doesn't necessarily make a picture better. HDR is just a technique to handle scenes with a very wide dynamic range (like landscapes that mix bright skies with shadowy scenes).

[goofball]

HDR is for when you have scenes with high dynamic range that the sensor can't capture in a single exposure. The typical sensors have about 3-5 stops of latitude, IIRC. The human eye is around 11. That's why you want multiple exposures, then to blend them so you can get as close to the scene as your eyes saw. Shadow and highlight detail out of those multiple shots that you can't get in a single shot, or try to pull out with photoshop without bringing out digital noise in the shadow details.

Definitely not good for people unless they are exposed properly in at least one of the shots and you remove them from the other shots so you keep a good background when merging.