Photoshop/photomatrix and HDR
- Thread starter 97TJGUZZY
- Start date
bit torrent is always a viable solution to get stuff for great prices :la:
I've snapped some pics but I have no clue what I'm doing. Got a book to learn about it but haven't messed with it. The newest one can take videos too and I've been wanting to mess with that some.
What are some good editing programs?
I think max knows how to use a Polaroid camera
Edit: didn't see you had something to Max about it. Why hasn't he chummed in?
What are some good editing programs?
I think max knows how to use a Polaroid camera
Edit: didn't see you had something to Max about it. Why hasn't he chummed in?
Because apparently I'm blind and didn't see this.
I'll be honest, I've never done HDR because its one of those things that is massively overdone. Usually the best HDR photos are the ones that are done ever so slightly, not blown out to make it look like a cartoon. The purpose of HDR is to get proper exposure throughout your entire photograph. Typically I achieve this with off camera speedlights. Not saying this is a better way, just saying this is how I do it. This is the technique I used for the Vengeance buggy in the March/April issue of CRAWL.
First thing you need to do is have the proper photographs. Want it done right? Start off with good base photos. Typically you take 3~5 photos at different exposures. 3 is the minimum, 5 if you have a lot going on in your photo. You take one photo at proper exposure, then one or two over exposed and one or two under exposed. Use a tripod so all the photos have the same framing. It doesn't work if you don't have that.
I'll check tonight if my cheapo version of photoshop will do it. I think it will. For most of my stuff, I just use Photoshop elements (or lightroom) and I bet Elements will do it. Elements is a great program for a non-serious shooter. It has all the things you need and a touch extra for when you really need to make it happen.
I'll be honest, I've never done HDR because its one of those things that is massively overdone. Usually the best HDR photos are the ones that are done ever so slightly, not blown out to make it look like a cartoon. The purpose of HDR is to get proper exposure throughout your entire photograph. Typically I achieve this with off camera speedlights. Not saying this is a better way, just saying this is how I do it. This is the technique I used for the Vengeance buggy in the March/April issue of CRAWL.
First thing you need to do is have the proper photographs. Want it done right? Start off with good base photos. Typically you take 3~5 photos at different exposures. 3 is the minimum, 5 if you have a lot going on in your photo. You take one photo at proper exposure, then one or two over exposed and one or two under exposed. Use a tripod so all the photos have the same framing. It doesn't work if you don't have that.
I'll check tonight if my cheapo version of photoshop will do it. I think it will. For most of my stuff, I just use Photoshop elements (or lightroom) and I bet Elements will do it. Elements is a great program for a non-serious shooter. It has all the things you need and a touch extra for when you really need to make it happen.
From what I read and hear from the pros if you want HDR shoot film. LOL! Digital lacks the latitude of film and that is what HDR is suppose to replace. Max has it right 5 shot 2 over and 2 under is what most are doing to get the best results. Also I was told PS Elements can do it and anything the semi serious photographer wants or needs it to do. If I ever get a decent digital and ditch my film cameras I'll invest in PS Elements till I can justify the full version.
I literally have 80 film cameras at my house and I don't think I'm exaggerating much with that. My dad has a certain era of most every Nikon and canon that he's collected as well as other random ones. He gave me a film camera a long time ago to learn some photography and developing film got expensive very fast wasting a lot. If I was good and really did care I might would mess with film but I'll stick to digital now.
I guess his main camera is a canon 5 mark ii and I use his old canon xti. Considering I'm clueless about cameras ive shot some pretty ok photos. Im curious about the photoshop element y'all speak of
I guess his main camera is a canon 5 mark ii and I use his old canon xti. Considering I'm clueless about cameras ive shot some pretty ok photos. Im curious about the photoshop element y'all speak of
Ole Canon XTi. I used to steal my roommate's XTI for general shenanigans. Stock lenses weren't impressive but I got plenty of good images out of that camera. The Mark 5 has always been one of the "set the bar" cameras.
Steve, Adobe Photoshop Elements is basically a baby photoshop but I fail to see what is "baby" about it. I would say it has about 75% of what photoshop has, and it most definitely has all of the important functions. It lacks the plug-ins, file size extractor (make a small file really big without ruining image quality) and a few other things that no one except graphic designers ever use. I know the newest photoshop is ridiculous with many new features that are basically magic. No other way to put it. Even my pro friends say its magic.
I have both Photoshop and elements. Elements is more user friendly. Basically it has 2 modes for phot editing. One is "dumbed down" version which is really handy for quick photo work. The second mode is more in depth and more kin to normal photoshop. The second mode is great for cloning out sensor spots and whatnot. I will say I don't like how Elements handles RAW photos. Normal photoshop and lightroom do that better. However RAW files are a pain for the normal peoples so unless you need a serious photo, you wouldn't use it (also it murders hard drives. I've got a couple terrabytes of photos, all because the RAW files are like 20 MB each, that stupid 9 frames per second eats up disk space).
Steve, Adobe Photoshop Elements is basically a baby photoshop but I fail to see what is "baby" about it. I would say it has about 75% of what photoshop has, and it most definitely has all of the important functions. It lacks the plug-ins, file size extractor (make a small file really big without ruining image quality) and a few other things that no one except graphic designers ever use. I know the newest photoshop is ridiculous with many new features that are basically magic. No other way to put it. Even my pro friends say its magic.
I have both Photoshop and elements. Elements is more user friendly. Basically it has 2 modes for phot editing. One is "dumbed down" version which is really handy for quick photo work. The second mode is more in depth and more kin to normal photoshop. The second mode is great for cloning out sensor spots and whatnot. I will say I don't like how Elements handles RAW photos. Normal photoshop and lightroom do that better. However RAW files are a pain for the normal peoples so unless you need a serious photo, you wouldn't use it (also it murders hard drives. I've got a couple terrabytes of photos, all because the RAW files are like 20 MB each, that stupid 9 frames per second eats up disk space).
The film thing was a jab and a joke. I'm old school. Working on setting up a darkroom again and breaking out the 4x5. Elements can be picked up anywhere. Best Buy should have it. I have even seen it in Walmart. I have a full version of PS from a friend that does computer work but it's not upgradeable and not that new. Can you buy an older version of PS for less? I just read about the new Canon 5d MkIII it would be my camera of choice right now.. I would love to go digital but it would have to be cheap and a ff CMOS for me to buy in. The way I shoot I could not use anything else. I guess I could sell my rims and tires and get a camera?
4x5 field camera!!?? Too much want. I guess I need to procure one for my western trip (assuming I stop pushing it back).
I haven't kept up with new DSLRs in about a year and a half. My current setup has been working very good for the last 4 or 5 years so no reason to go messing around with it.
5D mark 1's have to be cheap as dirt now. However the glass, that always stays pricey.
Steve, one last thing: by editing your photos in Elements, you can turn your ok photos (assuming framing, focus, and settings are good) into great photos. Processing your photos is an important part.
Also since you are a student, Adobe gives discounts to students for these programs so you can order it directly from Adobe. That is what I did back when I was a student. Saved some $$$.
Back on topic: Brooks, I will do some looking into HDR and get back to you. Also might dabble in it a little myself.
I haven't kept up with new DSLRs in about a year and a half. My current setup has been working very good for the last 4 or 5 years so no reason to go messing around with it.
5D mark 1's have to be cheap as dirt now. However the glass, that always stays pricey.
Steve, one last thing: by editing your photos in Elements, you can turn your ok photos (assuming framing, focus, and settings are good) into great photos. Processing your photos is an important part.
Also since you are a student, Adobe gives discounts to students for these programs so you can order it directly from Adobe. That is what I did back when I was a student. Saved some $$$.
Back on topic: Brooks, I will do some looking into HDR and get back to you. Also might dabble in it a little myself.
Yea an old monrail grafic view. I love that thing. I'll have to check out the spec's on the Mk1. Kinda had my heart set on a Mk2 till the 3 poped up today. But almost $4K for a camera and I'm not a working pro again yet is a little steep.
Ya the xti has been good to me. I took it to Windrock and it got absolutely covered in dust and it still works fine. I need a new lense for it, one I had on it jammed and after he took it apart he couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. I've wanted a fisheye lense to be all hipster like and a tilt shift to mess around with.
I need to read back up on exposures and all. I don't mess with them that often but have some books about it all I will dust off. I just asked my dad to see what he uses and he said he uses photoshop so I may get it from him unless I find a better dumb user friendly option.
Those field cameras are pretty cool, he has an old one laying around I'm not sure if it works or not though. I think film is cool though and gives pictures a characteristic you can't capture in digital. He's always talked about dark room, I'd be interested in seeing how it's done.
My phone has the option of HDR pictures, although I haven't messed with it much.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
I need to read back up on exposures and all. I don't mess with them that often but have some books about it all I will dust off. I just asked my dad to see what he uses and he said he uses photoshop so I may get it from him unless I find a better dumb user friendly option.
Those field cameras are pretty cool, he has an old one laying around I'm not sure if it works or not though. I think film is cool though and gives pictures a characteristic you can't capture in digital. He's always talked about dark room, I'd be interested in seeing how it's done.
My phone has the option of HDR pictures, although I haven't messed with it much.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
Steve,
Check out KEH.com for lenses. Camera lenses are like hand tools, as long as the owner hasn't damaged them they last forever. Last I checked in Canon world, the 24-105L is about the best all around you can get. From what I heard, the Sigma lenses are made for Canon cameras. Normally I don't recommend 3rd party lenses (had many bad experiences) but Sigma lenses have been good to my Canon folk. I tried a couple Sigma lenses on my Nikon, no dice. But I did run a Sigma 24-70 on a Canon 30D a while ago. Reminded me of riding in a bone stock Classic Ford Bronco with the top down, felt right.
Yeah, cameras and wheeling. Don't get me going. Have to shoot me to shut up.
Check out KEH.com for lenses. Camera lenses are like hand tools, as long as the owner hasn't damaged them they last forever. Last I checked in Canon world, the 24-105L is about the best all around you can get. From what I heard, the Sigma lenses are made for Canon cameras. Normally I don't recommend 3rd party lenses (had many bad experiences) but Sigma lenses have been good to my Canon folk. I tried a couple Sigma lenses on my Nikon, no dice. But I did run a Sigma 24-70 on a Canon 30D a while ago. Reminded me of riding in a bone stock Classic Ford Bronco with the top down, felt right.
Yeah, cameras and wheeling. Don't get me going. Have to shoot me to shut up.
Sounds like you and I would get along great. I have eat, breathed, and lived photography since I developed my first roll of film when I was 12 I did put it down for a few years while I rasied my twins. One is intrested and the reason for me getting back into it. He took an a2e to the Crawl last summer and shot some film through it. I'll have to check out KEH I need a new lense my 28 - 105 is scratched. I'm rough on jeeps and cameras.
Ghost, my 18-200 (pretty much the only thing I use for off road photography) is on its 3rd or 4th UV filter and hood. I've killed a few hoods from dropping it. However hoods for that lens are $15. New lenses...well...are A LOT more than that!
Brooks, so I did research on this HDR business. Basically, you need to buy a program. There are a number of them out there that you download. Seems like you can get a pretty decent one for the ~$30 range. Not too bad. I looked into using photoshop elements to do the work. Didn't find anything in my initial search.
Only thing about HDR, it is overdone. Everyone and their brother has done it and most HDR photos are overdone. Look almost like a cartoon rather than an actual photograph. There is an HDR thread on pirate and if I remember correctly, the general reply was...negative.
If you've got a DSLR, I recommend learning how to actually use the camera on something other than the "auto" setting (if you already haven't) and getting photoshop elements. That'll do a lot more for you than a HDR program. Every once in a while I see a "intro to photography" lesson thingie on the groupon. I would say keep your eyes open on that or something similar. Also I offer lessons. Generally an afternoon costs a case of silver bullet assuming this is occuring in my neck of the woods
Brooks, so I did research on this HDR business. Basically, you need to buy a program. There are a number of them out there that you download. Seems like you can get a pretty decent one for the ~$30 range. Not too bad. I looked into using photoshop elements to do the work. Didn't find anything in my initial search.
Only thing about HDR, it is overdone. Everyone and their brother has done it and most HDR photos are overdone. Look almost like a cartoon rather than an actual photograph. There is an HDR thread on pirate and if I remember correctly, the general reply was...negative.
If you've got a DSLR, I recommend learning how to actually use the camera on something other than the "auto" setting (if you already haven't) and getting photoshop elements. That'll do a lot more for you than a HDR program. Every once in a while I see a "intro to photography" lesson thingie on the groupon. I would say keep your eyes open on that or something similar. Also I offer lessons. Generally an afternoon costs a case of silver bullet assuming this is occuring in my neck of the woods
I read the intro to photography as intro to pornography 
:
I've been wanting to take a class and keep on letting the groupons slide by. I need to get pass the auto thing on mine.
I haven't checked the website you said earlier on my computer yet but If I was looking for a lense that would be a multipurpose lense shooting mainly vehicles and what not what would you suggest? I forget what I had on there that broke but I liked it from the newb that I am but it was basic and autofocus.
: I've been wanting to take a class and keep on letting the groupons slide by. I need to get pass the auto thing on mine.
I haven't checked the website you said earlier on my computer yet but If I was looking for a lense that would be a multipurpose lense shooting mainly vehicles and what not what would you suggest? I forget what I had on there that broke but I liked it from the newb that I am but it was basic and autofocus.
97TJGUZZY
SUPPORTER
Ghost, my 18-200 (pretty much the only thing I use for off road photography) is on its 3rd or 4th UV filter and hood. I've killed a few hoods from dropping it. However hoods for that lens are $15. New lenses...well...are A LOT more than that!
Brooks, so I did research on this HDR business. Basically, you need to buy a program. There are a number of them out there that you download. Seems like you can get a pretty decent one for the ~$30 range. Not too bad. I looked into using photoshop elements to do the work. Didn't find anything in my initial search.
Only thing about HDR, it is overdone. Everyone and their brother has done it and most HDR photos are overdone. Look almost like a cartoon rather than an actual photograph. There is an HDR thread on pirate and if I remember correctly, the general reply was...negative.
If you've got a DSLR, I recommend learning how to actually use the camera on something other than the "auto" setting (if you already haven't) and getting photoshop elements. That'll do a lot more for you than a HDR program. Every once in a while I see a "intro to photography" lesson thingie on the groupon. I would say keep your eyes open on that or something similar. Also I offer lessons. Generally an afternoon costs a case of silver bullet assuming this is occuring in my neck of the woods
Thanks max, I have done some tinkering with our dslr but havent done much other than document a few trips. I feel the HDR is overdone, but it makes some cool photos and if for no other reason I like the way they look. I haven't done any editing yet as I'm not sure what to edit. I usually just copy to computer and upload... I'm still learning.
Here are a few photos I took on a trip last may, any comments?
I guess I need to get some software before I can talk about what to edit...
I would love to take you up on an afternoon training session but the ATL is a bit of a drive.
Read up on shurrter speed and aperature and what they do. Experement with them once you think you have an understanding of them. Put the camera on manual and play. I'd gladly go hang out one day and shot your camera with you Brooks. DSLR is something I will eventually get to but funds will not let that happen right now. Hell I have considered selling my jeep to fund it. LOL! I suspect an almost new set of 42's could get me in the door!
From what I see, you are taking mainly landscape style photos. For this, you want a small aperture setting.
What does this mean? The Aperture is a hole in the lens that controls how much light comes in. The trade off: big hole = more light in, but shallower depth of field (less is in focus). Small hole = less light in, but larger depth of field (more things at different distances are in focus). So for these kinda photos, I would say start playing around with the aperture. Typically, f/16 is recommended for these kind of photos.
However with a smaller aperture, comes longer shutter speeds. Take you hand and hold it out in front of you. Notice it moving? Yep. That is what your body does, moves. As you can imagine, the longer the shutter is open, the more prone your body is to affecting the image (AKA, your hands are shaking and thus, shake the camera, which shakes the image). From personal experience, 1/60 seems to be the lowest I like to go. Now I have gotten good shots at 1/10th shutter speed with a VR lens, but that was a lucky shot.
So how do you combat this? Tripod! A wal-mart tripod works well with a DSLR with the stock lens attached. As long as you don't start using heavy duty BAMF lenses (which I assume you won't) these little tripods work well. Heck, mine that I bought in 05' finally bit the dust on my last shoot. Its been a good one, I feel like I need to give it a proper burial or something. Bottom line, you can get a good-enough tripod for the same as taking your lady out for a fancy dinner sammich and a beer. Yes, I know. SOMETHING ELSE to carry. But I think you will see a difference in your photos if you do these two things.
Keep in mind what I suggested above is for LANDSCAPE photography only. You try to do this for off roading or sports and you will be upset with your results (well, assuming the planets don't align and grant you awesomeness, it has happened before but I wouldn't count on it).
What does this mean? The Aperture is a hole in the lens that controls how much light comes in. The trade off: big hole = more light in, but shallower depth of field (less is in focus). Small hole = less light in, but larger depth of field (more things at different distances are in focus). So for these kinda photos, I would say start playing around with the aperture. Typically, f/16 is recommended for these kind of photos.
However with a smaller aperture, comes longer shutter speeds. Take you hand and hold it out in front of you. Notice it moving? Yep. That is what your body does, moves. As you can imagine, the longer the shutter is open, the more prone your body is to affecting the image (AKA, your hands are shaking and thus, shake the camera, which shakes the image). From personal experience, 1/60 seems to be the lowest I like to go. Now I have gotten good shots at 1/10th shutter speed with a VR lens, but that was a lucky shot.
So how do you combat this? Tripod! A wal-mart tripod works well with a DSLR with the stock lens attached. As long as you don't start using heavy duty BAMF lenses (which I assume you won't) these little tripods work well. Heck, mine that I bought in 05' finally bit the dust on my last shoot. Its been a good one, I feel like I need to give it a proper burial or something. Bottom line, you can get a good-enough tripod for the same as taking your lady out for a fancy dinner sammich and a beer. Yes, I know. SOMETHING ELSE to carry. But I think you will see a difference in your photos if you do these two things.
Keep in mind what I suggested above is for LANDSCAPE photography only. You try to do this for off roading or sports and you will be upset with your results (well, assuming the planets don't align and grant you awesomeness, it has happened before but I wouldn't count on it).
Very good description. Generally I do not use a shutter speed less then the lense focal lengh. If its a heavy zoom I recomend no slower then 1/60 to 1/125 if you can.