# I am kicking myself...



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

The Texas Photo Forum contest is going to be a knock down drag out deal. The windmill and bullfrog shots are up against about 100 others in each respective division.

The HDR contest had only ten entries...if I had only know at the time. Then tonight I decided to expand my creative horizons...here's the process...


Go to Baltimore
Shoot 3 pix from +3 to -3EV and combine with HDR.
Realize the exterior doesn't look right so, clone back in only the window from the "correct" exposure.
In order to be able to clone out the ceiling light chain I had to shoot at an angle then distort the perspective back in PS to make it look straight on.
Clone out the chain of course.
Then work on levels and sharpness.
Being creative is way to much work, but I like the result.

*Winter Window*


----------



## Shooter (Jun 10, 2004)

Very nice shot sir.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

I saw froggy over there but I didn't know you had a windmill shot. I'll have to check it out.

Nice work. I need to try out the HDR stuff.
Mike


----------



## pelican (May 22, 2004)

I did some reading on HDR for the first time a month or two back. I always wondered how professional photographers got those perfect shots in so many contrasting light levels. Pretty cool stuff.

Very nice effect and photo, Rusty ... but you're right. That sounds like too much work.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

What's HDR???


----------



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

I like the result too but it somehow seems a bit barren of a room. Nice warm colors though. Would love to see a "before" shot Rusty.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Yes, it has nice warm colors. I like the lines and composition, especially with the arch of the window. Very nice Rusty, and good luck in the contest!


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*A little more detail...*



Arlon said:


> What's HDR???


HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. Unlike your eyes, a camera cannot capture two parts of an image that are subtaintally different in exposure and expose both parts correctly. In landscapes for example, if you expose correctly for the sky (say for a sunset) the foreground may will be too dark (if not a black shadow altogether). If you expose for the foreground - you blow out the sky.

With HDR you take the same shot with varied EV values (in this case +3 to -3 EV) and a program called Photomatix combines them and uses the additional processing capabilities of your PC to create a balanced image. Photomatix is available in a free trail version at their site.

The problem with HDR (commentary begins here) is that if you want a realistic look you really have to work with the program alot. Oversaturation, gray clouds and halos around dark objects on light backgrounds seem to be the biggest issues. Arlon check out the contest photos for HDR on the TPF site. You'll see alot of what I'm talking about.

If I get a chance I'll post the source images for this one tonight.


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*Believe it or not...*

Here are the three originals...


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Far out.

That's blown me away. How on earth will I ever know what's real again?

While you're fiddling, would it be worth darkening the top edge of the window where it looks like it's coming away from the frame, or would that be just going over the top?


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

Koru said:


> Far out.
> 
> That's blown me away. How on earth will I ever know what's real again?
> 
> While you're fiddling, would it be worth darkening the top edge of the window where it looks like it's coming away from the frame, or would that be just going over the top?


Too late for me to get in a debate about manipulation now. Which of these four shots do you think is the truest representation of what the scene actually looked like?

Had to leave the gap in so my sister in law would mke my brother in law fix it!!


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

RustyBrown said:


> Too late for me to get in a debate about manipulation now. Which of these four shots do you think is the truest representation of what the scene actually looked like?
> 
> Had to leave the gap in so my sister in law would mke my brother in law fix it!!


That's a wicked trick question, if ever I heard one! (And I'm glad your sister in law has you on her team! lol ).

I know which shot I like best, especially when compared to the others. Which reminds me, it would be an awesome photo (the first one posted, obviously) to get framed and to give them for a gift if you were looking for something. Heck, I wouldn't mind that one hanging on my own wall.


----------



## seawings (Aug 28, 2004)

RustyBrown said:


> Which of these four shots do you think is the truest representation of what the scene actually looked like?


 I am going to say that the "adjusted" photo is how we would "like" to see life...however, I suspect that "our eyes" (at least my old eyes) see picture (1) one in the group of three.


----------



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

And here I thought the wood was the floor, no wonder the perspective seemed a little odd. I just thought it was a really huge window. Very interesting process! The original shots look so different from what I was expecting, thanks for posting them Rusty.


----------



## Captain Mike (Nov 20, 2006)

*My 2 cents...*



seawings said:


> I am going to say that the "adjusted" photo is how we would "like" to see life...however, I suspect that "our eyes" (at least my old eyes) see picture (1) one in the group of three.


...I think the purpose of any type of adjustments is to give the viewer a chance to see the scene as if he/she were there in person. Unfortunately, on a fixed image the light we see is constant and does not allow our eyes to adjust to the extreme differences from bright light to shadows. Therefore we have to provide the adjustments manually with our photographs. So far, no Nikon, Cannon, Minolta, Lica, or Hassablaud can come close to matching the quality of seeing images as our eyes and brain give us automatically. However, we do what we can do to try to make permanent recordings of the beauty of life as we see it...So I think HDR gives us one more tool to accomplish this challenge...just like the entire digital format gave us more tools over silver film. ~Captain Mike


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*Agree to disagree...*



seawings said:


> I am going to say that the "adjusted" photo is how we would "like" to see life...however, I suspect that "our eyes" (at least my old eyes) see picture (1) one in the group of three.


I think the pottery exposure for this one is best, but are you also saying on an overcast day you can look out a window and have it be too bright to make out the trees, street and mailbox? I bet you can see detail in the pottery and still see what's outside.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Do you realise you have got me looking through windows and setting up things in front of them so I can figure out what you've done and how it works?


----------

