First of all, thanks for all the comments on yesterday's shot. As I write this there are 71 comments, which must be something of a record for an image put up on a Friday ;-)
Anyway, here's effort number two, and while this might not be as immediately striking as yesterday's, I do like this one too. Technically, this one is better. I mentioned yesterday that I thought the original images weren't particularly well aligned, and I initially thought the same about this one. However, the actual problem was to do with chromatic aberration – that C1 Pro doesn't correct. The seven initial images for this one (with shutter speeds of between 1/8th and 1/500th) were converted with Photoshop and corrected for chromatic aberration prior to being combined into an HDR file. The net result is that the initial image was much cleaner and sharper.
As always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
what a great picture again, i like the painting kind of light/effect. Did you also aplied toning for this one?
comment bydjn1 at 09:34 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
frans: thanks, and yes, this was partially decolourised then toned.
comment byandreas at 09:39 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
Just simply brilliant! I like the fact that this one is a bit toned down compared to the previous image. It has got that dreamy effect over it. I love it.
comment by matt at 09:45 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
The best you've posted for a while. Love the colour, the framing, everything. Looks like the belly of a spider to me. I'm never going to Blackpool again if they are that big!
comment byBrian at 09:52 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
Man I love this pier and I've never been near it. Yesterday's is striking and I do like it. But I love the texture and depth in this one. Wonderful.
comment byMichael Dominic at 09:52 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
Nice.
comment byEllie at 09:52 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
This is very dramatic, i love the tones. Who says winter hasnt got some brill pictures to offer! Im tired, so sorry this comment isnt too constructive. But yep, i love this photo!
comment by Monika at 10:05 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
beautiful
comment byIain at 10:08 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
I like this too, domineering labyrinthine, frightening. The light underneath is great.
comment byAnil at 10:10 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
I've long been wanting to try out my hand at HDR. This and the one from yesterday will make me go out and get some shots to try this technique. Thank you for giving me that drive ;)
comment byJon at 10:11 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
Really really great. I like the monochromatic feel it is even better then yesterday’s picture. I am really impressed with this technique.
comment byJoe at 10:44 PM (GMT) on 25 February, 2006
The tonal range in this photo (compared to yesterday's) seems a lot more natural - excellent stuff. Are you manually focusing when taking the series of shots for HDR?
comment byanagnorisis at 12:04 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Im amazed how you can make interesting subject of the same thing over and over again! Absolutely amazing. Well done.
Great Symmetry. texture and reflection in this image. The toning gives a rather cold mysterious feel to it.
comment bydjn1 at 12:19 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Joe: the only thing that I changed between shots was the shutter speed, from 1/8th to 1/500th in one stop increments.
comment byCraig at 12:30 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
I did not chime in yesterday but I really like these last two images. Thanks for the link to the software also - I have tried HDR in CS2 with little more than frustration. Nice work!
comment byClay at 12:48 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
I just had this conversation on MSN with a friend. I found it amusing. The conversation that is. The image is fantastic.
Me: wow
Me: chrome
Me: it seems so simple yet.... wow.
Amber: huh
Moobz: i hate that chromasia guy
Amber: I want to make love to his photography
Moobz: i want to rip the genetics out of it and use it on my own work
comment byClay at 12:50 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
p.s. no i don't really hate you. it's a term of respect... honest.
comment byRyanT at 01:13 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
very complex and interesting shot. I love all aspects of it.
comment byMaran at 01:55 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
I prefer old fashion manual HRD in Photoshop! Hope you can post some HRD without the tone mapping before I decide to completely hate Photomatix HRD! :-)
comment byMichael Sarver at 03:04 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
great lines and processing. I like the way this HDR turned out moreso than yesterday's shot...
comment byJohn at 03:19 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Outstanding images the last 2 days. These photos remind of post cards from the last century. Makes me want to run out and upgrade to CS2 tomorrow.
comment byPlasticTV at 03:28 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
i'd fall head over heels over this one if i haven't see yesterday's. But i do like the supporting pillars being covered by those weird growth. They look like they are donning woolly socks. :)
comment by hannan at 04:38 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Great symmetry..wonderful......but maybe its too grey...it would have been great with the natural colours...
comment by ani at 04:57 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
beautiful! as soon as it loaded, i said 'oooo!' out loud. i haven't looked at yesterday's yet so i'm excited to check that one out next.
comment byViking at 05:59 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Yeah, this one's much better technically. Not that I have any HDR experience :) But this one maintains all the realism of a photo. I also think it's interesting that you left some underexposed areas instead of bringing everything into full exposure. It works well.
comment byMatt Simpson at 06:20 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
I don't know what you're talking about saying that yesterday's is more striking, this is by far the superior image. The detail is exquisite and the framing is near-perfect.
comment byDuane at 07:13 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Interesting perspective. The pier leads you into the shot. Nice.
comment byFellow Eskimo at 07:20 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
I still like yesterdays better...probably because of the color. But still, I like the highlights and shadows on this one.
comment byAhamed at 07:52 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Very cool once again. This one has a more subtle effect but still has that odd feel because the underside of the pier is strangely well lit.
The whole image looks more organic than man made, like a giant spider with furry legs.
Great image. I like this one slightly more than yesterdays - the muted tonal palette makes it seem less 'obvious' as an HDR image, which was probably not the objective but to my mind gives the overall image greater appeal. It's all down to personal taste though I guess.
Actually, it's the complexity of the detail here that really appeals to me here. I understand that much of that detail is only noticable because of the extended dynamic range, but what really grabs me about is one is there's so much to look at here. Really nice Dave.
comment byIoannis at 11:31 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
And how do you correct chromatic abberation?
I like the saturation of this one... It makes an interesting effect.
comment byeclipse-space at 11:37 AM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
this is a very nice one. i like the post-processing (as always), there isn't anything i can complain of this.
comment by Kevin J Walters at 12:33 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Nice image. I've thought about doing something similar with negative scans at different light levels to more accurately capture wide dynamic range and then compress down to screen range. Haven't actually tried blending them together yet.
Is there a way to view the pre-photoshop images for the photos on your web site?
comment by Jasmine at 02:25 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
HDR is new to me. After yesterday's shockingly wonderful amazing shot, I followed your links and did some reading about this fascinating technique. The concept is so simple, and obviously the doing is complex. Three hours to process that first image! I read that the recommended number of exposures is three, using only the images that add value. I’m really interested to understand why you chose to use seven images and how the results differ from using fewer images.
I can see how HDR photos could grow old really fast, and there is this gigantic technological gap because most of our monitors can’t display the full range of an HDR photo (channels and bits and all that rot). I had a look through the flicker HDR pool and the results range from way over the top bizarre, to sweetly surreal, to gently subtle. This is fun and I’m going to enjoy the ride. Thanks Dave!
comment bysuresh at 02:45 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
All I have to say is wow. The lighting is very nice.
comment bytetsu at 02:57 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Wow!
The contrast is excellent! :-)
comment byEllie at 03:14 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Heh, i agree with someone earlier whi said 'i want to make love to his photography' lol. I dont get this whole HDR thing, but im sure gonna try it out myself. Thankyou again for inspiring!
comment bymatt at 03:21 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
This looks like the underbelly of a large spider!
comment byLee at 03:49 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Once again nice, but why is this one also glowing in the middle?
comment by windows at 04:15 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
i was wondering... if you could take some "elite and light" photos...
Do you know what I mean?
comment by Tanveer at 04:38 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Again, the surreal nature, and the subtle tonal changes due to HDR processing is mesmerizing. Please share tips on how to process these shots, or links for insturction. I have to start taking shots this way. Stunning!
comment by Deb at 05:27 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
The exoskeleton of a fallen alien arachnid warrior, marooned for eternity on an inhospitable planet and adapted for the amusement of the natives many moons ago....so long ago it's slipped into the collective unconscious and now it ignobly, but successfully, masquerades as a ......pier....
(I need a holiday...)
comment byarmeen at 05:48 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
i like the complexity of the photo and the composition is well selected.
comment byJELIEL³ at 06:48 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
That's just bristing with details. I love it.
comment byJason Ertel at 07:15 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Great perspective and subdued colors.
comment byBill Hooker at 07:36 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Any chance you could put up the originals (maybe even pre- and post-correction), so we could have a look at the process? I'm curious to see just what kind of dynamic range we're actually talking about here.
comment byJohn H at 07:55 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Very nice! Great colour tones and contrast.
comment byowen b at 08:27 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Seriously, if you have a problem with this image then I'm really missing something here. What is Chromatic Aberration, and how has it affected the end result in a way that you don't like? Why were the original images unaffected?
i saw this image right after I read that the new pxite challenge this week is "structure". This image couldn't be more fitting. I can't wait to try HDR myself.
Also, I am under the impression that you can combine the images in RAW format using the Photomatrix software, correct? So wouldn't you first combine the RAW images, and then convert to JPG, and then do tone adjustments/curves?
comment byEllie at 08:47 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
I agree with Deb on the whole Alien thing...
comment bydjn1 at 10:26 PM (GMT) on 26 February, 2006
Thanks everyone.
Clay: lol. And tell Amber she can visit anytime ;-)
Maran: yep, I guess these are a matter of taste.
Tim (@ photovernacular): oddly, the more desaturated you make these images the more natural they look. In black and white they don't seem anywhere near so strange.
Ioannis: you correct chromatic abberation when you process the RAW file in Photoshop.
Jasmine: as I understand it the recommendation is that you shoot enough images to cover the dynamic range in one stop increments. For this shot, three wasn't anywhere near enough.
windows: no, I don't know what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Deb: :-)
Bill: at some point I'll put up a tutorial, but the original images aren't very informative. At one extreme the sky is perfectly exposed and the rest of the shot is in darkness, and at the other, the underside of the pier is perfectly exposed and the rest of the shot is blown out. The rest fall somewhere in between.
owen b: no, I don't have a problem with them now. As for chromatic aberration: it's a lens failure, especially noticeable at the edge of images where different colours fall in slightly different places. The net result is that you get colour fringing, especially at the edge of dark objects.
moe: I'm using Photoshop to convert the RAW files, Photomatix to produce the HDR file and tone curved image, then Photoshop again to postprocess.
comment byGary at 01:59 PM (GMT) on 27 February, 2006
ideal image for HDR to expose that underbelly
comment byGordon at 03:29 PM (GMT) on 27 February, 2006
it looks like 1940s cracked out but from the movie 12 monkeys. i'm not a fan of HDR I think it is a distraction from what digital photography is really about. it works here though.
G.
comment bymiles at 07:23 PM (GMT) on 27 February, 2006
There's something about the combination of the wood and barnacles that really suits HDR!
comment bymat at 11:47 PM (GMT) on 28 February, 2006
Maybe I'm alone with this but I don't particularly like those HDR photos. They don't look natural to me but more like paintings. This is not what I expect from a photo. It is to do with the light, I think. It seems somehow unreal.
comment byCharles at 03:21 PM (GMT) on 1 March, 2006
I think HDR will forever change the way we look at digital photos. Stunning image.
I was wondering as I looked at this if you did something to merge several together. The first time I didn't go into the comments You defintely hit the right combo here. I haven't had the time to practice with HDR yet but this makes me want to go out and play!
First of all, thanks for all the comments on yesterday's shot. As I write this there are 71 comments, which must be something of a record for an image put up on a Friday ;-)
Anyway, here's effort number two, and while this might not be as immediately striking as yesterday's, I do like this one too. Technically, this one is better. I mentioned yesterday that I thought the original images weren't particularly well aligned, and I initially thought the same about this one. However, the actual problem was to do with chromatic aberration – that C1 Pro doesn't correct. The seven initial images for this one (with shutter speeds of between 1/8th and 1/500th) were converted with Photoshop and corrected for chromatic aberration prior to being combined into an HDR file. The net result is that the initial image was much cleaner and sharper.
As always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
what a great picture again, i like the painting kind of light/effect. Did you also aplied toning for this one?
frans: thanks, and yes, this was partially decolourised then toned.
Just simply brilliant! I like the fact that this one is a bit toned down compared to the previous image. It has got that dreamy effect over it. I love it.
The best you've posted for a while. Love the colour, the framing, everything. Looks like the belly of a spider to me. I'm never going to Blackpool again if they are that big!
Man I love this pier and I've never been near it. Yesterday's is striking and I do like it. But I love the texture and depth in this one. Wonderful.
Nice.
This is very dramatic, i love the tones. Who says winter hasnt got some brill pictures to offer! Im tired, so sorry this comment isnt too constructive. But yep, i love this photo!
beautiful
I like this too, domineering labyrinthine, frightening. The light underneath is great.
I've long been wanting to try out my hand at HDR. This and the one from yesterday will make me go out and get some shots to try this technique. Thank you for giving me that drive ;)
Really really great. I like the monochromatic feel it is even better then yesterday’s picture. I am really impressed with this technique.
The tonal range in this photo (compared to yesterday's) seems a lot more natural - excellent stuff. Are you manually focusing when taking the series of shots for HDR?
Im amazed how you can make interesting subject of the same thing over and over again! Absolutely amazing. Well done.
Great Symmetry. texture and reflection in this image. The toning gives a rather cold mysterious feel to it.
Joe: the only thing that I changed between shots was the shutter speed, from 1/8th to 1/500th in one stop increments.
I did not chime in yesterday but I really like these last two images. Thanks for the link to the software also - I have tried HDR in CS2 with little more than frustration. Nice work!
I just had this conversation on MSN with a friend. I found it amusing. The conversation that is. The image is fantastic.
Me: wow
Me: chrome
Me: it seems so simple yet.... wow.
Amber: huh
Moobz: i hate that chromasia guy
Amber: I want to make love to his photography
Moobz: i want to rip the genetics out of it and use it on my own work
p.s. no i don't really hate you. it's a term of respect... honest.
very complex and interesting shot. I love all aspects of it.
I prefer old fashion manual HRD in Photoshop! Hope you can post some HRD without the tone mapping before I decide to completely hate Photomatix HRD! :-)
great lines and processing. I like the way this HDR turned out moreso than yesterday's shot...
Outstanding images the last 2 days. These photos remind of post cards from the last century. Makes me want to run out and upgrade to CS2 tomorrow.
i'd fall head over heels over this one if i haven't see yesterday's. But i do like the supporting pillars being covered by those weird growth. They look like they are donning woolly socks. :)
Great symmetry..wonderful......but maybe its too grey...it would have been great with the natural colours...
beautiful! as soon as it loaded, i said 'oooo!' out loud. i haven't looked at yesterday's yet so i'm excited to check that one out next.
Yeah, this one's much better technically. Not that I have any HDR experience :) But this one maintains all the realism of a photo. I also think it's interesting that you left some underexposed areas instead of bringing everything into full exposure. It works well.
I don't know what you're talking about saying that yesterday's is more striking, this is by far the superior image. The detail is exquisite and the framing is near-perfect.
Interesting perspective. The pier leads you into the shot. Nice.
I still like yesterdays better...probably because of the color. But still, I like the highlights and shadows on this one.
Very cool once again. This one has a more subtle effect but still has that odd feel because the underside of the pier is strangely well lit.
The whole image looks more organic than man made, like a giant spider with furry legs.
Great image. I like this one slightly more than yesterdays - the muted tonal palette makes it seem less 'obvious' as an HDR image, which was probably not the objective but to my mind gives the overall image greater appeal. It's all down to personal taste though I guess.
Actually, it's the complexity of the detail here that really appeals to me here. I understand that much of that detail is only noticable because of the extended dynamic range, but what really grabs me about is one is there's so much to look at here. Really nice Dave.
And how do you correct chromatic abberation?
I like the saturation of this one... It makes an interesting effect.
this is a very nice one. i like the post-processing (as always), there isn't anything i can complain of this.
Nice image. I've thought about doing something similar with negative scans at different light levels to more accurately capture wide dynamic range and then compress down to screen range. Haven't actually tried blending them together yet.
Is there a way to view the pre-photoshop images for the photos on your web site?
HDR is new to me. After yesterday's shockingly wonderful amazing shot, I followed your links and did some reading about this fascinating technique. The concept is so simple, and obviously the doing is complex. Three hours to process that first image! I read that the recommended number of exposures is three, using only the images that add value. I’m really interested to understand why you chose to use seven images and how the results differ from using fewer images.
I can see how HDR photos could grow old really fast, and there is this gigantic technological gap because most of our monitors can’t display the full range of an HDR photo (channels and bits and all that rot). I had a look through the flicker HDR pool and the results range from way over the top bizarre, to sweetly surreal, to gently subtle. This is fun and I’m going to enjoy the ride. Thanks Dave!
All I have to say is wow. The lighting is very nice.
Wow!
The contrast is excellent! :-)
Heh, i agree with someone earlier whi said 'i want to make love to his photography' lol. I dont get this whole HDR thing, but im sure gonna try it out myself. Thankyou again for inspiring!
This looks like the underbelly of a large spider!
Once again nice, but why is this one also glowing in the middle?
i was wondering... if you could take some "elite and light" photos...
Do you know what I mean?
Again, the surreal nature, and the subtle tonal changes due to HDR processing is mesmerizing. Please share tips on how to process these shots, or links for insturction. I have to start taking shots this way. Stunning!
The exoskeleton of a fallen alien arachnid warrior, marooned for eternity on an inhospitable planet and adapted for the amusement of the natives many moons ago....so long ago it's slipped into the collective unconscious and now it ignobly, but successfully, masquerades as a ......pier....
(I need a holiday...)
i like the complexity of the photo and the composition is well selected.
That's just bristing with details. I love it.
Great perspective and subdued colors.
Any chance you could put up the originals (maybe even pre- and post-correction), so we could have a look at the process? I'm curious to see just what kind of dynamic range we're actually talking about here.
Very nice! Great colour tones and contrast.
Seriously, if you have a problem with this image then I'm really missing something here. What is Chromatic Aberration, and how has it affected the end result in a way that you don't like? Why were the original images unaffected?
i saw this image right after I read that the new pxite challenge this week is "structure". This image couldn't be more fitting. I can't wait to try HDR myself.
Also, I am under the impression that you can combine the images in RAW format using the Photomatrix software, correct? So wouldn't you first combine the RAW images, and then convert to JPG, and then do tone adjustments/curves?
I agree with Deb on the whole Alien thing...
Thanks everyone.
Clay: lol. And tell Amber she can visit anytime ;-)
Maran: yep, I guess these are a matter of taste.
Tim (@ photovernacular): oddly, the more desaturated you make these images the more natural they look. In black and white they don't seem anywhere near so strange.
Ioannis: you correct chromatic abberation when you process the RAW file in Photoshop.
Jasmine: as I understand it the recommendation is that you shoot enough images to cover the dynamic range in one stop increments. For this shot, three wasn't anywhere near enough.
windows: no, I don't know what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Deb: :-)
Bill: at some point I'll put up a tutorial, but the original images aren't very informative. At one extreme the sky is perfectly exposed and the rest of the shot is in darkness, and at the other, the underside of the pier is perfectly exposed and the rest of the shot is blown out. The rest fall somewhere in between.
owen b: no, I don't have a problem with them now. As for chromatic aberration: it's a lens failure, especially noticeable at the edge of images where different colours fall in slightly different places. The net result is that you get colour fringing, especially at the edge of dark objects.
moe: I'm using Photoshop to convert the RAW files, Photomatix to produce the HDR file and tone curved image, then Photoshop again to postprocess.
ideal image for HDR to expose that underbelly
it looks like 1940s cracked out but from the movie 12 monkeys. i'm not a fan of HDR I think it is a distraction from what digital photography is really about. it works here though.
G.
There's something about the combination of the wood and barnacles that really suits HDR!
Maybe I'm alone with this but I don't particularly like those HDR photos. They don't look natural to me but more like paintings. This is not what I expect from a photo. It is to do with the light, I think. It seems somehow unreal.
I think HDR will forever change the way we look at digital photos. Stunning image.
I was wondering as I looked at this if you did something to merge several together. The first time I didn't go into the comments You defintely hit the right combo here. I haven't had the time to practice with HDR yet but this makes me want to go out and play!