QTPFSGUI

Morrisseeee

Wha ? you might say is that ?!!:eek:
Well its a free HDR program that I'm tinkering around with at the mo. I can't use photomatix as its too expensive & I don't like watermarks !
Give it a go (especially on these wet days) and see what it can do.
I've given these two (ordinary enough) photos a go and I'm trying to get a 'nice' 'balanced' HDR effect with them. I used the 'Mantiuk' tonemapping option.
http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/

Wood:
from 2 RAW files, I had tried 3 exposures but when it came to tonemapping I got a wierd blueish effect in shados:


Cobh Cathederal:
from one original RAW file, but used 3 exposures from it :

Cosmo K

Second one is nice, don't like the first one tbh.

Morrisseeee

Yeah, I think HDR works best indoors. I'm still not happy with this processing, but getting there, loads of tinkering to do, until I reach a happy medium or burnout or boredom ! It seems like an interesting bit of software with loads of tinkering on offer!
With regard to landscapes, it definitely brightens up the photo, giving it a 'warmer' more colorful look, but reaching 'that' point where it doesn't get 'over-done' is critical ! I must try it out on a better composition !!
With reference to a 'conversation' I had with a film photographer, his aim is simple: no need for HDR, be patient and wait for the right composition and the right light !

smelltheglove

I'm playing around with it right now. Not bad, although I am not sure whether I am satisfied with my results yet. I think hdr is one thing that needs to be done perfectly to work. The image I am using isnt the prefect candidate right now but I am seeing decent results.

Morrisseeee

Great, pls post up your efforts, and what you used !
It has a handy feature, whereby you can choose the options for your tonemapping and then view them at smaller sizes, ie. for a quick gander, then click the 'X' button to ignore it, but........then when you are happy with a certain option, you can choose a larger size like 3000*2700 etc and then pull this into Photoshop or similar for further touch-ups.

Valentia

Interesting ;-) I hate HDR with a vengeance most of the time. Very (very) occasionally I see some that are done well. I think the lighthouse shot in the "Donegal" thread is a good example.

One thing I will never understand is someone doing an HDR if there is a person in the shot. It always turns the shot into a cartoon.

The second one would work better if the ceiling was visible. One of the "real" uses of HDR is architectural interior shots where the vast range in exposures can be blended. I must have a go with that programme all the same

oshead

I find a lot of the time photogs use HDRI when there is no real need. For me if the image is way over the 7 stop range, Ie, lots of really dark shadow clipping and loads of bright highlight clipping then it qualifies as a potential candidate for HDR. Way too often you see shots where the image would look good with a bit of traditional camera skills, Ie where using filters, using
flash fill or a little exposure compensation would have done the trick.

dudara

I've been starting to play around with the idea of HDR and similar techniques - mainly to see if I like it - so thanks for the link to the software.

Morrisseeee

The second one would work better if the ceiling was visible

Yes, thats what I'm working on, but because I'm limited to one RAW file, the resulting over exposure file to increase light in the ceiling is a little noisy. I must either visit it again or choose a different subject.

Way too often you see shots where the image would look good with a bit of traditional camera skills

yeah, good point, but HDR expands the dynamic range, and thats the thing I'm experimenting with.

I've been starting to play around with the idea of HDR and similar techniques - mainly to see if I like it

.....me too :pac::D

denat

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Wha ? you might say is that ?!!:eek:

Thank you for the tipoff! I only heard of HDR recently and thought it was gimicky.

Then I saw the "Donegal Lighthouse", mentioned by Valentia above, and I changed my mind.

I think I'll have fun with this. Thanks again.

democrates

I found mantiuk to be the most useful tone-mapping option, fattal can be interesting at times but easily overdone. qtpfsgui is grand for combining multiple exposures into a HDR tiff, even if you don't do any tone-mapping.

Still waiting for the GIMP to handle 16-bit images internally, it's on the roadmap but it's a vast change that will affect many plugins and scripts.

Morrisseeee

I browsed thru my RAW files for a canditate last nite, so I decided to give this one a try, I was apprehensive at first cause I really like the original.
Its a gentle HDR but it shows how the shadows can be lifted, compared to the dark shadows of the original. What do ye think ?

Orig:


HDR:

Chorcai

Morrisseeee wrote: »

I browsed thru my RAW files for a canditate last nite, so I decided to give this one a try, I was apprehensive at first cause I really like the original.
Its a gentle HDR but it shows how the shadows can be lifted, compared to the dark shadows of the original. What do ye think ?

Orig:


HDR:

This is how to use HDR, sometimes less is more ! Fab

aidan18

Thanks for the link I have noticed the HDR comments on pix.ie the lifted shadow is very nice

Valentia

Not bad at all. Though the "glow" in the branches is still a bit much. That said the second is definitely the more commercial and would appeal to more people.

I'm just thinking selfishly here. An Bord Snip have me in their sights so I might have to be thinking of stuff like that :rolleyes:

Morrisseeee

Though the "glow" in the branches is still a bit much

Yeah, couldn't 'contain' it..... HDR does wierd things to skies/clouds !

An Bord Snip have me in their sights

"Chalk it down........" :eek::mad:
/On a lighter note: have they eventually caught up with your off-shore accounts, ie. off-shore near Valentia !!? :pac:snip:pac:

smelltheglove

I dont know how I got this, I pressed some buttons and this happened. What do you think?

I'll add the original in a few

democrates

@ Rachel, file that under photo redemption...
Was that just combining bracketed shots into a hdr or did you also use tone-mapping?

@ Morrisseeee, it sure brings out a lot more detail. I often follow up with a tone curve to restore lattitude, and I find some images can look flat after tone-mapping reduced the shadow which gave depth. It's a case by case job really.

smelltheglove

democrates wrote: »

@ Rachel, file that under photo redemption...
Was that just combining bracketed shots into a hdr or did you also use tone-mapping?

@ Morrisseeee, it sure brings out a lot more detail. I often follow up with a tone curve to restore lattitude, and I find some images can look flat after tone-mapping reduced the shadow which gave depth. It's a case by case job really.

I may be dim asking this but what do you mean phot redemption? IS it bad? I dont know much about hdr. I did it in tone mapping.

democrates

smelltheglove wrote: »

I may be dim asking this but what do you mean phot redemption? IS it bad? I dont know much about hdr. I did it in tone mapping.

Lol, sorry I was a bit vague there, it was just a play on the church since they dispense redemption
My 2c is that you've demonstrated how useful tone mapping can be, so well done you got my vote!

Morrisseeee

@ Rachel, file that under photo redemption...

Yes, nice one Rachel, you redeemed that photo nicely.

@ Morrisseeee, it sure brings out a lot more detail. I often follow up with a tone curve to restore lattitude, and I find some images can look flat after tone-mapping reduced the shadow which gave depth. It's a case by case job really

Yeah, each job to its own, unless you can hit on some kind of 'base' formula/settings and then do your normal processing from there.

Keep them coming folks, it would be nice to see peoples efforts, and maybe raise topics for discussion !

smelltheglove

democrates wrote: »

Lol, sorry I was a bit vague there, it was just a play on the church since they dispense redemption
My 2c is that you've demonstrated how useful tone mapping can be, so well done you got my vote!

Damn you, you had me on edge all night thinking I was after banjaxing it, I tried about 10 more shots then to see if I could get it right, I was completely confused:D (God I'm not smart at all)

democrates

smelltheglove wrote: »

Damn you, you had me on edge all night thinking I was after banjaxing it, I tried about 10 more shots then to see if I could get it right, I was completely confused:D (God I'm not smart at all)

Sooooooreeeeeeeee...

Your only mistake was thinking I know what I'm talking about lol.

Tone-mapping in qtpfsgui is so packed with options creating wildly varying results that I still find it a case of trial and error until I like the look of it. There's no specific result of tone-mapping that is universally considered 'correct' or whatever, it's pure personal taste.

democrates

Ok as velentia would say "less talk, more action". Did these two in qtpfsgui last year, finised off in the GIMP, feel free to kick lumps out of them.

1. Bandstand, Blackrock Park


2. Edward Rockets, Blackrock Main St.

dudara

Wow, there's something about that Eddie Rocket's photo that I find mesmerising. Good stuff.

smelltheglove

dudara wrote: »

Wow, there's something about that Eddie Rocket's photo that I find mesmerising. Good stuff.

I agree, the bandstand may be slightly overdone but the eddies one is magnificent, and I dont say that word often (maybe because I'm not good at spelling it:D)

djd80

I've enjoyed reading this thread, probably because I really like HDR photo's in general, sometimes I even like the really overdone ones....and Rachel you did an unbelievable job on that one alright...

Here are a couple of mine...

Heavy HDR Effect...


Not so heavy couple

smelltheglove

I love that first one dar, and thanks. That is a beautiful shot. You really need to print that one nice and large.

daycent

Really like the last 2 Darann.

djd80

Thanks a lot...I use Dynamic Photo HDR because it's seems easier than Photomatix, you just drag a ball around till you see what you like pretty much and its €40 compared to Photomatix's €70 odd...

dudara

I'm messing around with the program at the moment, with limited success - probably because I don't have many photos that would benefit from it.

Here's a shot of the Atomium in Brussels that I took last year at twilight



And here's the same photo after running it through with some tone mapping. Not convinced it's better - I just think that it's an alternative view.

jtang

I've been playing around with qtpfsgui for a few months now, I think the commandline pfstools/pfstmo etc... are much nicer and more powerful tools overall. But the the pfstools (hence qtpfsgui) seems to give very "cooked" images. I would recommend this tutorial http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/02/hdr-and-linux.html it's a little linux orientated but you can apply it to a windows workflow with qtpfsgui.

Overall i think just using hugin's align_image_stack with enfuse/enblend to give a more natural look. It's not real HDR but it gives a natural HDR like look which is what I prefer. Here's a few of my cooked images with either enfuse or pfstools (qtpfsgui) http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcftang/sets/72157622060717357/

democrates

@Dudara & Smelltheglove, thanks, the eddie rockets one has some colours set to zero saturation to give the remaining few impact. The clouds in the bandstand shot are a disaster, it was like 3 greyscale levels resulting in large uniform blotches, plus the bandstand gets lost in the trees and it's not just down to the distance from a wide lens, it's been overcooked plain and simple.
Like the atomium shots, "alternative view" nails it, for a lot of pp in general.

@jtang great link, I've used a lot of the programs there being a Linux user, but OSX users will also find that useful since macs are now unix based too. I like that he's rolled a bash script to automate it, will look into that at some stage because the time it takes to get one image through often means I only process my favourites.