Re: HDR images question None are standard images in the way that they are just one shot, that is
true. But not all are HDR either. I've used masking techniques for some
and that's exactly the point: you can't see the difference between the
two methods, because there doesn't have to be a difference if you know
how to use HDR properly.
If I have time, I will add another tutorial to my site about HDR, but
for the time being this is what I found:
Most people try to 'get it right' directly in the interface you get when
you go from HDR back to 16 bits. That often gives the results that look
'3D' or 'painting'. I use a different approach, where I do as little as
possible in the HDR -> 16 bits conversion. When doing this conversion,
I'm only concerned with the highlights and the shadows. They have to be
right, meaning they both must have detail. Everything else can be fixed
later in the 16 bits image, because then I have all the Photoshop tools
I need to improve the image.
A second observation is that the defaults for the most powerful method
(Local Adaptation) are wrong. The microcontrast settings (Radius and
Threshold) defaults are almost always too high. If I use this method, I
use settings like a Radius of 10 or less and a Threshold of 0.1 or
something like that. This avoids that '3D' look. It does give a softer
image with not too much detail, but that problem can be solved later by
sharpening. And as Hebee Jeebes confirmed, this works so well that he
thinks the resulting detail is too high for a real photograph! Go
figure. ;-)
BTW: many people claim that PhotoMatix does a better job than Photoshop,
but I disagree. I think Photoshop gives far more natural results if you
use these settings.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
Nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga)
|
