# Hi-Def pictures



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

I am no professional photograper but have a general understanding and like to think i can compose and shoot a decent photo but just recently i have seen one or two hi def photos i would like advice on...

see here:



















Are images available to me with a canon 400d and canon is usm lenses??

Would somebody explain how i could shoot these kind of photos pure without photoshop or is it not possible?


----------



## R30 (Oct 30, 2005)

Don't honestly know, that red looks phenomenal in 2nd pic though. Why no photoshop though? Photoshop is your friend.


----------



## Mark J (May 10, 2007)

Marc,

They look like HDR images (high dynamic range)

They have been created by stacking several images on top of one another that have been tweaked in PS. Requires tripod work. (I think !)


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

These aren't "Hi Def" images, but HDR images, they are made by merging an under exposed image, a normal exposure image, and an over exposed image.

Have a look at http://www.hdrsoft.com/ for a starting point.


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm not an expert on photoshop but my guess is the images have had post processing in HDR possibly.


----------



## Solaar (Oct 26, 2005)

There was a long-ish thread in this section on HDR photography if I remember correctly.


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

Ah quality......thx guys...:thumb:


----------



## Brisa (Aug 9, 2006)

The red vx looks like a few filters may have been used there too.


----------



## Solaar (Oct 26, 2005)

Brisa said:


> The red vx looks like a few filters may have been used there too.


From looking at the sky I think you're right.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

There was probably a polarising filter used, and just a bit of messing with the saturation/hue in photoshop.


----------



## The Apprentice (Nov 22, 2007)

your 400D seems to have "bracketing" feature



> "and bracketing (+/-3 stops in full stop increments, selectable Blue/Amber bias or Magenta/ Green bias) are also available"


to give you the under/over exposed but you would still need to blend the layers
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_canon_eos_400d.php


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

The Apprentice said:


> your 400D seems to have "bracketing" feature
> 
> to give you the under/over exposed but you would still need to blend the layers
> http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_canon_eos_400d.php


There is a difference between exposure blending and HDR merging.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

Marc, by the looks of the clarity in those images I'd take a punt that they were done with at least a 20/30d and an L series lens. You'll have to put a bit of work in to get something similar from a 400d.

Have a look at my old website, http://paul.photos.me.uk for some examples of images shot with a 30d. Bare in mind though that I let my fotopic sub lapse, so they are heavily compressed pictures.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Wonderdetail said:


> Marc, by the looks of the clarity in those images I'd take a punt that they were done with at least a 20/30d and an L series lens. You'll have to put a bit of work in to get something similar from a 400d.
> 
> Have a look at my old website, http://paul.photos.me.uk for some examples of images shot with a 30d. Bare in mind though that I let my fotopic sub lapse, so they are heavily compressed pictures.


I'd disagree with that, the 400d is more than capable of producing results like that, you may need to stop the kit lens down a little to get it pin sharp, but to say you need L glass is going a bit far.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

"You'll have to put a bit of work in to get something similar from a 400d. "

e.g, with a 20 or 30 d (the top one was taken with a 20d, I found the exif) it's often a case of point and shoot with P mode. On a 400, you need to be more selective. I know, cos I had a 350 before I bought the 30d. I didn't mean you can't get the results, just that it's more difficult to.


----------



## Kev_mk3 (Sep 10, 2007)

Wonderdetail said:


> Marc, by the looks of the clarity in those images I'd take a punt that they were done with at least a 20/30d and an L series lens. You'll have to put a bit of work in to get something similar from a 400d.
> 
> Have a look at my old website, http://paul.photos.me.uk for some examples of images shot with a 30d. Bare in mind though that I let my fotopic sub lapse, so they are heavily compressed pictures.


some cracking shots on your site buddy :thumb:


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

Cheers cap'n. My best work isn't on there, as I retained copyright and didn't want people nicking the pictures! 

I've retired from that game now..


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Wonderdetail said:


> Cheers cap'n. My best work isn't on there, as I retained copyright and didn't want people nicking the pictures!
> 
> I've retired from that game now..


How many weddings did you do?


----------



## Kev_mk3 (Sep 10, 2007)

Wonderdetail said:


> Cheers cap'n. My best work isn't on there, as I retained copyright and didn't want people nicking the pictures!
> 
> I've retired from that game now..


im just starting lol


----------



## James_R (Jun 28, 2007)

Most of my pics look like that second one down of the Red VXR.

:lol:


----------



## Kin Mak (Jan 27, 2008)

Second picture looks like a fisheye lens was used as well.

Here was my amatuer attempt at a HDR shot of my revious car's interior.


----------



## JasonRS (Aug 8, 2006)

I'd go with HDR too.

shoot in RAW/DNG too

possible use of a neutral density filter as well, maybe a graduated one in the fist pic to balance background / sky lighting.


----------



## ST_Colin (May 11, 2007)

I have to say the VXR shot does look like a bit of exposure blending has been done. I feel alot of photos that are HDR don't need exposure blending. It does has it's advantages though and if used correctly it has some great results.

Exposure blending in photoshop takes alot of time and practise to get good results.

By the way, that interior shot looks pretty good.

Colin


----------



## Chrish SRi (Mar 21, 2007)

there is a program called Photomatix i think that does it and then allows you to tweek it.... its a damn site easier than using photoshop


----------



## Kin Mak (Jan 27, 2008)

There is a photomatrix plugin for photoshop as well.


----------



## Chrish SRi (Mar 21, 2007)

need to get hold of that one then :thumb:


----------



## BigNorm (Mar 17, 2008)

Im liking the interior shot


----------



## NickP (Nov 20, 2005)

A couple of cars pics I've taken - I use Photomatix Pro


----------



## jedi-knight83 (Aug 11, 2006)

hmm although the pic you just posted is 300dpi and the ones mark posted are 450dpi.

wonder what camera they were taken on?


----------



## NickP (Nov 20, 2005)

Mine were taken using a 350D, although they've been scaled down by fotki...


----------



## mouthyman (May 1, 2006)

i found a nice plugin for photoshop

you can download an evaluation version or buy it,
here is a quick example of what it can do on the standard settings with 1 image

before









after









and you can tweak every aspect of the process,

you can find the plugin here
http://www.mediachance.com/plugins/redynamix.html


----------



## mouthyman (May 1, 2006)

oh and ive just found a serial to validate the program for free, but best pm me for that


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Can you PM me the serial please?

Ta


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Actually, don't worry mate, just spotted it won't install on a Mac.


----------



## Toolman (Nov 17, 2007)

Hi, can you PM me the sn? thanks!


----------



## MARKETMAN (Aug 22, 2006)

can you pm me serial no: please
:wave:


----------



## mouthyman (May 1, 2006)

ok pms sent,

its probably better if you pm me to ask, because im not always watching this thread


----------

