It had been a long time pending, but finally I have done something I 
wanted to do for some time. My compact digital camera (Fujifilm FinePix 
S8000fd) has the possibility to automatically make three shots with 
different lighting parameters which makes HDR processing possible. I 
took the shots last summer. I have been experimenting now with the 
Fusion F1 application (http://fusion-hdr.com/home) to make HDR 
composites. Here is one result, from my neighbourhood.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dscf0128_hdr_mode_1.jpg' (1301 KB)

Preview of image 'dscf0128_hdr_mode_1.jpg'

Here is another.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dscf0125_hdr_mode_1.jpg' (1347 KB)

Preview of image 'dscf0125_hdr_mode_1.jpg'

On 2017/01/24 02:52 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Here is another.
>

Beautiful.

.. and now you can get an HDR TV to view it properly..

:)

-- 
________________________________________

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.01.2017 um 17:02 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> On 2017/01/24 02:52 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Here is another.
>>
> 
> Beautiful.
> 
> .. and now you can get an HDR TV to view it properly..
> 
> :)

No, he can't. It's a JPEG, so all the HDR information has already been
lost when he saved the image.

Nice try, Thomas :P

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> It had been a long time pending, but finally I have done something I
> wanted to do for some time...
> (clip)
> Here is one result, from my neighbourhood.
>

Really beautiful, just the photo itself. Looks like a painting. I haven't tried
any HDR photography yet; my consumer-grade Canon camera doesn't take RAW
images-- but it *might* be able to take a series of bracketed exposures like
yours does, although I haven't tried that yet(!)

The 2nd photo looks a *bit* dark in the shadows (or rather, 'muddy'), IMO, but
still nice.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2017 4:34 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.01.2017 um 17:02 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>> On 2017/01/24 02:52 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Here is another.
>>>
>>
>> Beautiful.
>>
>> .. and now you can get an HDR TV to view it properly..
>>
>> :)
>
> No, he can't. It's a JPEG, so all the HDR information has already been
> lost when he saved the image.
>

You mean the images he posted are JPEGs?

> Nice try, Thomas :P
>

Nice try clipka. ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2017 7:36 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> It had been a long time pending, but finally I have done something I
>> wanted to do for some time...
>> (clip)
>> Here is one result, from my neighbourhood.
>>
>
> Really beautiful, just the photo itself.

It is nice but the background is missing something.
I know. Mountains. :-)

> Looks like a painting. I haven't tried
> any HDR photography yet; my consumer-grade Canon camera doesn't take RAW
> images-- but it *might* be able to take a series of bracketed exposures like
> yours does, although I haven't tried that yet(!)
>
> The 2nd photo looks a *bit* dark in the shadows (or rather, 'muddy'), IMO, but
> still nice.
>
It looks fine on my monitor. In fact from a Dutch master it is very 
light. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> ...I have been experimenting now with the
> Fusion F1 application (http://fusion-hdr.com/home) to make HDR
> composites.
>

Thanks for the link, by the way.

Several years ago, I tried writing a POV_Ray scene to *try* and do my own
image-blending and tone-mapping, from three or more camera exposures (all just
JPEG images, naturally.) The code basically used the trace function and
eval_pigment, to simply compare brightness levels (and maybe color saturation)
of each image's pixels, then to choose which pixel looked... 'better.' (Ha.)
Although the *method* worked, the results were... not as good as I had hoped.
:-(  No surprise there-- my method wasn't very sophisticated (to say the least!)
One thing (among many) that I neglected to take into account was the 'local
contrast' between a pixel and its surrounding pixels. If I understand
tone-mapping at all, this local-contrast idea is an important one.

Oh well, it was worth a try!

Post a reply to this message

Thanks, all, for the comments indeed.

The first image, with the trees, shows some problems in the top left, 
maybe due to alignment problems there when the wind moved the leaves. 
Also, this is not a top end camera so I cannot guarantee the lens 
quality but it is appropriate for my own use. And of course Christoph is 
right: no hdr properties left /in/ the photograph itself. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24-1-2017 21:00, Stephen wrote:
> On 1/24/2017 7:36 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> It had been a long time pending, but finally I have done something I
>>> wanted to do for some time...
>>> (clip)
>>> Here is one result, from my neighbourhood.
>>>
>>
>> Really beautiful, just the photo itself.
>
> It is nice but the background is missing something.
> I know. Mountains. :-)

That is because you are standing on top of the mountain. :-) It is a 
high point in the landscape: an ice-age dune.

>
>> Looks like a painting. I haven't tried
>> any HDR photography yet; my consumer-grade Canon camera doesn't take RAW
>> images-- but it *might* be able to take a series of bracketed
>> exposures like
>> yours does, although I haven't tried that yet(!)
>>
>> The 2nd photo looks a *bit* dark in the shadows (or rather, 'muddy'),
>> IMO, but
>> still nice.
>>
> It looks fine on my monitor. In fact from a Dutch master it is very
> light. ;-)
>

I am playing with the settings in the program. I find the hdr settings a 
bit muddy too. The alternative 'sum' settings seem to result in crisper 
results.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message