some seagulls

[joshman (Josh)]

a lovely HDR i took on saturday of some seagulls down at southbank here in brisbane.

easily one of my best HDR to date.

[h0ughy (David)]

is there another shot to show what the original was like. did you unglue the seagulls after you took the images?

[RB (Andrew)]

Josh what exposures did you use for HDR?

[iceman (Mike)]

Nice image Josh, I love the walkway.

[acropolite (Phil)]

Nice composition Josh, I'd love to see the same shot with some sunshine.

[SkySearcher (Daniel)]

Awsome Composition. Josh, How do you convert your HDR to JPEG. I can't seem to do it in Photoshop.

[joshman (Josh)]

here's one of the original photos. this is the zero exposure compensation image. what i've been doing with my HDR is a bracketed exposure at 0, -2 and +2 EV. i find the using continuous drive mode with bracketed exposure works a treat, just hold down the shutter realease, wait for three shutter clicks, and tada!

the setting for this were as follows:
Canon 400D
1/125s
ISO100
f/8.0
55mm (89mm equiv.)

as for combining them...i used Photomatix, it works a treat!

it was quite a hassle almost, i took around 55 photos...all in HDR, which meant after i batch combined them...i had to manually open and adjust them, which was usually just a sharpen and crop, maybe some contrast.

hope i covered everything...

oh! here's the rest of the photos form saturdays expedition. most are in HDR, a few look a bit dodgy...

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

i see why you like this HDR game. some of those photos look amazing.

[Dujon]

Seagulls? All I can see are cranes.

Nah, nice shot. Keep up the good work.

[RB (Andrew)]

The reason I asked about the exposures is that a lot of people have a misconception of what HDR is all about.
Not all scenes are suited to the HDR process.
There are times when there isn't a wide enough difference in the dynamic range in a scene to warrant a HDR.
This is why Photoshop first checks the exposure difference of each frame and will reject them if there isn't enough of a difference within the frames.
People also confuse HDR with tone mapping which again is not the same thing.

For proper HDR shots you need a very big difference from the shadows to the highlights in a scene and to use between five to ten frames from almost dark to almost fully blown highlights to achieve a proper HDR image.

You're off to a good start though Josh.

[DeanoNZL (Adrian)]

For proper HDR shots you need a very big difference from the shadows to the highlights in a scene and to use between five to ten frames from almost dark to almost fully blown highlights to achieve a proper HDR image.

"The Eureka moment".
Thanks for the tip RB, I was wondering why my trials of PS HDR were not too good.
CS

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by DeanoNZL

"The Eureka moment".
Thanks for the tip RB, I was wondering why my trials of PS HDR were not too good.
CS

Adrian, good luck.

Here's a couple of mine, Sydney Opera House, GPO ceiling at Martin Place Sydney.

[joshman (Josh)]

Originally Posted by Rocket Boy

The reason I asked about the exposures is that a lot of people have a misconception of what HDR is all about.
Not all scenes are suited to the HDR process.
There are times when there isn't a wide enough difference in the dynamic range in a scene to warrant a HDR.
This is why Photoshop first checks the exposure difference of each frame and will reject them if there isn't enough of a difference within the frames.
People also confuse HDR with tone mapping which again is not the same thing.

For proper HDR shots you need a very big difference from the shadows to the highlights in a scene and to use between five to ten frames from almost dark to almost fully blown highlights to achieve a proper HDR image.

You're off to a good start though Josh.

ah!!!! as deanoNZl said before me...the eureaka moment!

in which case i do believe that what i have been doing is tone mapping, it seems to work out alright, the results are a bit hit and miss though...

something that only practise will improve!