Re: HDR with panoramic stiching.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Wiss, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:29:29 +1000, Peter Jason <> wrote:

    >With panoramic shots, is it better to apply the
    >HDR to the photos before stitching, or afterwards?


    I've always done it after. That is where the HDR tab is located. After the
    Optimizer tab.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Aug 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >What image processing or HDR software are you using that has an "HDR tab"?
    >
    >...and what software are you using that has an "Optimizer tab"?


    I use PTGui Pro.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Aug 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don Wiss

    Rob Guest

    On 10/08/2012 1:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-09 19:54:40 -0700, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:29:29 +1000, Peter Jason <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> With panoramic shots, is it better to apply the
    >>> HDR to the photos before stitching, or afterwards?

    >>
    >> I've always done it after. That is where the HDR tab is located. After
    >> the
    >> Optimizer tab.
    >>
    >> Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

    >
    > What image processing or HDR software are you using that has an "HDR tab"?
    >
    > ...and what software are you using that has an "Optimizer tab"?
    >
    > I currently use NIK HDR Efex Pro 2 for HDR processing, and I make my
    > panorama merges with CS5.
    >
    > Anyway I am going to engage myself in an experiment to explore both
    > methods. Results to be published soon.
    >
    >



    I have just started doing HDR in camera (3EV) then stitching.- this
    works very well.
    Rob, Aug 10, 2012
    #3
  4. Don Wiss

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/08/2012 17:39, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > I guess that would be a good way to go for HDR panos.
    >
    > I don't use any in camera HDR processing. My standard HDR capture is a 5
    > exposure bracket -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. There are times i will use three
    > exposures, and sometimes as many as 9.
    >
    > I have tried a few of the HDR processing products and have found that
    > NIK HDR Efex Pro 2 gives me the most flexibility to get results that do
    > not appear over cooked. That said there are times the surreal effect can
    > be effective, but not to the taste of all. So I try for the different
    > from time to time, but mostly use HDR for bringing a different look to
    > an image.
    > Here are a few examples and comparisons with the unadjusted image in the
    > exposure bracketed group, each trying for something a little different.
    >
    > 3 shot HDR, Eastern Yosemite
    > < http://db.tt/brdPFd1Q >
    > 5 shot HDR, Moonstone Beach
    > < http://db.tt/XLQuMW40 >
    > 5 shot HDR, AT-6
    > < http://db.tt/ZGHuxSvJ >


    Thanks for posting. At least two, if not all three, of those shots
    reminded me of why I /hate/ HDR so much!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 11, 2012
    #4
  5. Don Wiss

    Bruce Guest

    David Taylor <> wrote:
    >On 10/08/2012 17:39, Savageduck wrote:
    >[]
    >> I guess that would be a good way to go for HDR panos.
    >>
    >> I don't use any in camera HDR processing. My standard HDR capture is a 5
    >> exposure bracket -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. There are times i will use three
    >> exposures, and sometimes as many as 9.
    >>
    >> I have tried a few of the HDR processing products and have found that
    >> NIK HDR Efex Pro 2 gives me the most flexibility to get results that do
    >> not appear over cooked. That said there are times the surreal effect can
    >> be effective, but not to the taste of all. So I try for the different
    >> from time to time, but mostly use HDR for bringing a different look to
    >> an image.
    >> Here are a few examples and comparisons with the unadjusted image in the
    >> exposure bracketed group, each trying for something a little different.
    >>
    >> 3 shot HDR, Eastern Yosemite
    >> < http://db.tt/brdPFd1Q >
    >> 5 shot HDR, Moonstone Beach
    >> < http://db.tt/XLQuMW40 >
    >> 5 shot HDR, AT-6
    >> < http://db.tt/ZGHuxSvJ >

    >
    >Thanks for posting. At least two, if not all three, of those shots
    >reminded me of why I /hate/ HDR so much!



    <AOL> Me too! </AOL>
    Bruce, Aug 11, 2012
    #5
  6. Don Wiss

    Rob Guest

    On 11/08/2012 2:39 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-10 07:03:47 -0700, Rob <> said:
    >
    >> On 10/08/2012 1:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-08-09 19:54:40 -0700, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:29:29 +1000, Peter Jason <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> With panoramic shots, is it better to apply the
    >>>>> HDR to the photos before stitching, or afterwards?
    >>>>
    >>>> I've always done it after. That is where the HDR tab is located. After
    >>>> the
    >>>> Optimizer tab.
    >>>>
    >>>> Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    >>>
    >>> What image processing or HDR software are you using that has an "HDR
    >>> tab"?
    >>>
    >>> ...and what software are you using that has an "Optimizer tab"?
    >>>
    >>> I currently use NIK HDR Efex Pro 2 for HDR processing, and I make my
    >>> panorama merges with CS5.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway I am going to engage myself in an experiment to explore both
    >>> methods. Results to be published soon.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> I have just started doing HDR in camera (3EV) then stitching.- this
    >> works very well.

    >
    > I guess that would be a good way to go for HDR panos.
    >
    > I don't use any in camera HDR processing. My standard HDR capture is a 5
    > exposure bracket -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. There are times i will use three
    > exposures, and sometimes as many as 9.
    >
    > I have tried a few of the HDR processing products and have found that
    > NIK HDR Efex Pro 2 gives me the most flexibility to get results that do
    > not appear over cooked. That said there are times the surreal effect can
    > be effective, but not to the taste of all. So I try for the different
    > from time to time, but mostly use HDR for bringing a different look to
    > an image.
    > Here are a few examples and comparisons with the unadjusted image in the
    > exposure bracketed group, each trying for something a little different.
    >
    > 3 shot HDR, Eastern Yosemite
    > < http://db.tt/brdPFd1Q >
    > 5 shot HDR, Moonstone Beach
    > < http://db.tt/XLQuMW40 >
    > 5 shot HDR, AT-6
    > < http://db.tt/ZGHuxSvJ >
    >
    >

    I also have Nik software but just looking at a solution for pans. It
    becomes difficult to HDR pans.

    Like the images - the aircraft looks very nostalgic, suits the subject,
    beach still seems a little flat but gets into the shadows, Yosemite has
    heaps of grunt and the detail in the main subject and clouds, like that
    but unsure if taking the shadows out of the foreground helps, but
    distracts from the subject.
    Rob, Aug 11, 2012
    #6
  7. Don Wiss

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/08/2012 11:23, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > Personal taste is always the great intangible.
    >
    > While I find the garish overcooked HDR images disturbing at times,
    > especially with the way it has been used in some landscapes, HDR itself
    > is just another tool in the creative paint box. Rather than pick it out
    > of the box, and say "I don't like what it is used for, and I have no
    > need for it", and then throw it away, I prefer to think of what I could
    > do with such a tool, knowing that it is available. The great majority of
    > my image are the result of plain vanilla, single exposure, non-HDR
    > shots. However there are times I wonder what results I could get with an
    > HDR treatment.
    > With HDR, my preference is the more subtle approach, and results with a
    > look which provide a different view of subject detail, one might never
    > have thought dealing with in such a way, is something I dabble with, and
    > find interesting.
    >
    > Here are two more comparisons to ponder, the denizens of a tidal pool,
    > and a radial engine.
    > Sometimes it is nice not to have the pool bland.
    > < http://db.tt/J5NWAKDQ >
    >
    > ...and sometimes it is nice not to discount the details because of
    > impossible light.
    > < http://db.tt/I8XZNMzm >
    >
    > There is no point in discarding a particular router bit out of a set,
    > just because you don't like the way a particular curve looks, or a
    > particular chisel, because you can't imagine ever using it.


    Oh, when used like that I have no problems - it's the very garish
    results which aren't to my taste.

    As a matter of discussion, with the pool shot, I suspect that a simple
    contrast enhancement may have achieved as good a result as the original
    image doesn't appear to have a wide dynamic range. With the aero engine
    shot, did you try fill-in flash, and did you need a tripod for the
    multiple HDR shots?

    I take it these are multiple exposure shots, rather than simple dynamic
    range expansion or compression of a single shot?
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 11, 2012
    #7
  8. Don Wiss

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/08/2012 12:59, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > Agreed. The decision to shoot HDR was impulsive and very much experimental.
    > ...and I always have a "normal" exposure to tinker with, and I might yet
    > do that.
    >
    > Many times I have shot a 5 shot exposure bracket with the intent of
    > working it as an HDR, and the results have been miserable. So I use the
    > "normal" exposure, or one of the adjusted shots to use for single
    > exposure work, many times with far more satisfying results than the
    > failed HDR.


    Yes, we learn by experimenting., and the experience gained makes us know
    which technique may be best for which conditions.

    >> With the aero engine shot, did you try fill-in flash, and did you need
    >> a tripod for the multiple HDR shots?

    >
    > Fill flash would have been a valid solution, but my head was fogged by
    > HDR. However I think that even with some sort of diffuser, there would
    > have been flash hot spots off the reflective surfaces,


    For me, the specular reflections might add to the image, but I take your
    point and would need to see the actual images with and without flash to
    decide.

    > While I use my tripod for some shots, I find that my D300s + MB-D10
    > gives me 9 fps, and for a 5 shot exposure bracket series captured in
    > less than a second, I am able to hand hold well enough in most
    > situations for the alignment algorithms in HDR Efex Pro to fix any minor
    > movement I might impart to the exposure series.
    >
    >> I take it these are multiple exposure shots, rather than simple
    >> dynamic range expansion or compression of a single shot?

    >
    > Both are 5 exposure brackets; -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. I use the 1EV bracket
    > simply because it works for me in most cases.


    OK, I appreciate knowing the details.
    --
    Thanks,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 11, 2012
    #8
  9. Don Wiss

    David Taylor Guest

    On 11/08/2012 20:50, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <k051sr$gld$>, David Taylor says...
    >
    >> Thanks for posting. At least two, if not all three, of those shots
    >> reminded me of why I /hate/ HDR so much!

    >
    > How about these HDR shots:
    > http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Alexandria/Qaitbay/img.php?pic=16
    > http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/El-Alamein/German/img.php?pic=7
    > www.molon.de/galleries/Malaysia/Sabah/Bavanggazo/Views/img.php?pic=6
    >
    > This one was taken at noon time:
    > http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Luxor/Temple/img.php?pic=38
    > (here HDR helped avoid harsh light/shadow contrasts)
    >
    > And I have many more examples on my site (a total of 107 images so far).
    >
    > HDR is a useful tool under certain circumstances.


    As I said to the duck, it's the garish, over-saturated, and completely
    artifical-looking HDR which I hate. When used properly, HDR is indeed a
    useful tool, but many examples abuse rather than use the tool.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 11, 2012
    #9
  10. On 8/11/2012 2:52 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <2012081103230846517-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    > says...
    >> ...and sometimes it is nice not to discount the details because of
    >> impossible light.
    >> < http://db.tt/I8XZNMzm >

    >
    > How about using fill flash?
    >

    not for that metallic scene

    What is needed for it is a large white cloth fill-reflector.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Aug 11, 2012
    #10
  11. Don Wiss

    Rob Guest

    On 14/08/2012 2:55 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <2012081221312516395-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    > says...
    >> From my EXIF data; Subject distance 2.0m.

    >
    > How accurate is the distance calculated by the camera?
    >
    >> ...and since you have been discussing the image based on what you have
    >> seen in the comparison shot I posted, here is a larger version of the
    >> HDR with that comparison.
    >>
    >> T-28 "Trojan" with Wright R-1820-76A Radial engine, 1425 hp.
    >> < http://db.tt/G9Yj70un >

    >
    > This one really looks very artificial. Since you were so close to the
    > subject you should have used fill flash. Even the low power in-camera
    > flash would have sufficed.
    >



    Well no if you had used flash or a reflector that would have created
    some unnatural shadows on the cylinders. (note where the sun's shadow is
    on the cowls.)
    Rob, Aug 14, 2012
    #11
  12. Peter Jason <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:00:38 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>On 2012-08-11 12:43:44 -0700, Doug McDonald <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 8/11/2012 2:52 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>> In article <2012081103230846517-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    >>>> says...
    >>>>> ...and sometimes it is nice not to discount the details because of
    >>>>> impossible light.
    >>>>> < http://db.tt/I8XZNMzm >
    >>>>
    >>>> How about using fill flash?
    >>>>
    >>> not for that metallic scene
    >>>
    >>> What is needed for it is a large white cloth fill-reflector.
    >>>
    >>> Doug McDonald

    >>
    >>That sounds like a much better solution than fill-flash, but HDR did
    >>the job for me without too much trouble. Besides I didn't have an
    >>equipment cart and assistant with me.


    > Also, fill flash will only work for near objects.


    Unless you have either a zoomable flash, or a remotely triggerable
    one. I sometimes illuminate darkly shaded doorways or porticos in a
    building facade by sticking a remote flash in them, just enough power
    to give enough shadow lift to be able to read nameplates etc. in a big
    print.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 14, 2012
    #12
  13. On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > In article <2012081221312516395-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    > says...
    >> From my EXIF data; Subject distance 2.0m.

    >
    > How accurate is the distance calculated by the camera?
    >
    >> ...and since you have been discussing the image based on what you have
    >> seen in the comparison shot I posted, here is a larger version of the
    >> HDR with that comparison.
    >>
    >> T-28 "Trojan" with Wright R-1820-76A Radial engine, 1425 hp.
    >> < http://db.tt/G9Yj70un >

    >
    > This one really looks very artificial. Since you were so close to the
    > subject you should have used fill flash. Even the low power in-camera
    > flash would have sufficed.



    There are, as they say, many ways to skin a cat. There is no need to use
    fill flash to do this scene if the original photographer didn't want to;
    HDR can suit this task quite well, if done right.


    --
    Ryan McGinnis                         @bigstormpicture
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
    The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 19, 2012
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Duncan

    Re: Stiching

    Duncan, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    Duncan
    Jul 13, 2003
  2. John Houghton

    Re: Stiching

    John Houghton, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    456
    Roger Halstead
    Jul 24, 2003
  3. tim sewell

    Re: Stiching

    tim sewell, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    353
    tim sewell
    Jul 24, 2003
  4. stu7

    Re: HDR with panoramic stiching.

    stu7, Aug 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    244
  5. Liam O'Connor
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    120
    Liam O'Connor
    May 13, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page