After looking at Eric's hdr pano... mine suck! The dark "shadow" mask around window frames are too thick on my panos. Anyone point me in the right direction to improve on panos shot inside a house?
I use photomatix pro3...
Thanks
Stephan
HDR
-
erik leeman
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:51 am
- Contact:
If you are talking about my pano, I must disappoint you, I don't do HDR/LDR, ever.
I think HDR/LDR nearly always looks absolutely horrible!
So I use PTGui's native 'exposure fusing' instead + a lot of manual masking etc. in Photoshop.
You cannot do without at least some work in Photoshop if you are dealing with a mixture of natural and artificial lightsources anyway.
No auto pilot will ever guide you to good results with subjects like these, you'll just have to do most of the work yourself.
Sorry 'bout that.
Cheers!
Erik
I think HDR/LDR nearly always looks absolutely horrible!
So I use PTGui's native 'exposure fusing' instead + a lot of manual masking etc. in Photoshop.
You cannot do without at least some work in Photoshop if you are dealing with a mixture of natural and artificial lightsources anyway.
No auto pilot will ever guide you to good results with subjects like these, you'll just have to do most of the work yourself.
Sorry 'bout that.
Cheers!
Erik
I'd concur with that… a lot of HDRs look terribly odd and artificial, and there's a tendency to overstaurate and make the subject look 'otherworldly'.
I now produce almost all my panos using tonemapping with Enfuse. I find you get the benefits of the greater dynamic range of bracketing source shots in a more naturalistic manner.
Smourt, if you've not looked at Enfuse you should check it out, you may be pleasantly surprised at the difference it can make to your workflow. You'll still need some work in PS as Erik suggests, but it may provide you with a better starting place.
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse
I now produce almost all my panos using tonemapping with Enfuse. I find you get the benefits of the greater dynamic range of bracketing source shots in a more naturalistic manner.
Smourt, if you've not looked at Enfuse you should check it out, you may be pleasantly surprised at the difference it can make to your workflow. You'll still need some work in PS as Erik suggests, but it may provide you with a better starting place.
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse
HDR is fine but people have little to no idea what they are doing.
Photomatix can fuse also, yet people choose to tone map and get it all wrong.
Personally I use Tufuse Pro, Photomatix and EnfuseGUI along with the fusing options in PTGui Pro.
As Erik points out, you have to make decisions and adjustments that are pleasing to the eye. There is no automated system that is a magic bullet.
It''s hard to beat layers in Photoshop for proper control.
There is not much worse than a badly compiled HDR. Fact is, if you can tell instantly that it is HDR - you have failed.
Regards, Smooth
Photomatix can fuse also, yet people choose to tone map and get it all wrong.
Personally I use Tufuse Pro, Photomatix and EnfuseGUI along with the fusing options in PTGui Pro.
As Erik points out, you have to make decisions and adjustments that are pleasing to the eye. There is no automated system that is a magic bullet.
It''s hard to beat layers in Photoshop for proper control.
There is not much worse than a badly compiled HDR. Fact is, if you can tell instantly that it is HDR - you have failed.
Regards, Smooth
Smourt
I do not completely agree with the remarks made by Erik and Jobes. I think most people use HDR as a way to express themselves. I use HDR to reduce the contrast. Lots of my architectural church pictures are heavily using HDR; But I make sure you cannot see or at least it’s hard to see I have used HDR.
I posted this picture one to a photo forum tagged it HDR; I got a really big complement: This is not HDR.
(7 pictures from 0.5 - 25 sec, using Photomatix Pro)
Anyway; back to your question. I sometimes use HDR; When using Photomatix Pro its really hard to get non HDR looks; Did you try to use PTGui Pro? The pro version can use HDR. I have to admit that sometimes the HDR version is not always good as the non HDR version; (sometimes the mood of picture is changed; for instance I made a panorama of snowy environment at the start of the day; the HDR version did not had morning sunlight but normal sunlight. So I used only part of the pictures available.)
So I sure use HDR in churches (or inside any building if the contrast is to big); But outside when I need to capture the atmosphere HDR is not giving me the result I like (YET!!)
Lots of panorama's shown via this forum use highly saturated pictures. It’s a matter of taste if you do like it. Personally I think a panorama can be more saturated than a "normal" picture; but again it’s all a matter of taste. (the old discussion while prints where still comping from a lab instead of printer; people who use Kodak paper or other brands)
I do not completely agree with the remarks made by Erik and Jobes. I think most people use HDR as a way to express themselves. I use HDR to reduce the contrast. Lots of my architectural church pictures are heavily using HDR; But I make sure you cannot see or at least it’s hard to see I have used HDR.
I posted this picture one to a photo forum tagged it HDR; I got a really big complement: This is not HDR.
(7 pictures from 0.5 - 25 sec, using Photomatix Pro)
Anyway; back to your question. I sometimes use HDR; When using Photomatix Pro its really hard to get non HDR looks; Did you try to use PTGui Pro? The pro version can use HDR. I have to admit that sometimes the HDR version is not always good as the non HDR version; (sometimes the mood of picture is changed; for instance I made a panorama of snowy environment at the start of the day; the HDR version did not had morning sunlight but normal sunlight. So I used only part of the pictures available.)
So I sure use HDR in churches (or inside any building if the contrast is to big); But outside when I need to capture the atmosphere HDR is not giving me the result I like (YET!!)
Lots of panorama's shown via this forum use highly saturated pictures. It’s a matter of taste if you do like it. Personally I think a panorama can be more saturated than a "normal" picture; but again it’s all a matter of taste. (the old discussion while prints where still comping from a lab instead of printer; people who use Kodak paper or other brands)
Jeroen / Amersfoort / The Netherlands
-
erik leeman
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:51 am
- Contact:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough: I wrote above that none of my panos, including the 'room with the view', are HDR/LDR.
I did not write that I do not use multiple exposures, instead I wrote I use exposure Fusing and manual masking in Photoshop.
That is what I have used for practically all of my panoramas, in fact I couldn't have made any of them without mixing exposures!
The ability to properly merge exposures is essential for making quality 360x180 panoramas, but HDR/LDR is best left to the specialists in the cinematic industry, because that's the application it was designed for.
Again, learn how to use an exposure fusing tool, like PTGui Pro or Enfuse. Results will be MUCH more realistic!
Of course 'artists' who need to 'express themselves' can use whatever they like or know to be effective for what it is they want to express, but that's a completely different motivation compared to what most other people make VR panoramas for.
And completely different from what I imagine most Pano2VR users are trying to create.
Erik
I did not write that I do not use multiple exposures, instead I wrote I use exposure Fusing and manual masking in Photoshop.
That is what I have used for practically all of my panoramas, in fact I couldn't have made any of them without mixing exposures!
The ability to properly merge exposures is essential for making quality 360x180 panoramas, but HDR/LDR is best left to the specialists in the cinematic industry, because that's the application it was designed for.
Again, learn how to use an exposure fusing tool, like PTGui Pro or Enfuse. Results will be MUCH more realistic!
Of course 'artists' who need to 'express themselves' can use whatever they like or know to be effective for what it is they want to express, but that's a completely different motivation compared to what most other people make VR panoramas for.
And completely different from what I imagine most Pano2VR users are trying to create.
Erik