# HDR Shot



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

*Fake HDR Shot using 1 JPEG*

Ive just got hold of an HDR Prog called Oloneo http://www.oloneo.com/ and produced this with it. dead easy to use. Heres my pic. I know some find these images marmite but im learning so have maybe over cooked it :lol: The image is the beach bar from my holiday in Egypt last week. I thought it had some nice colours etc and would make a good pic. It is however a single Fine Qual JPEG and not RAW. Btw no watermarks!









Comments welcome, Phil


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Looks good to me :thumb:

I've been having a dabble with Oloneo too and really like it for not getting the overblown HDR effect when you don't want it, and the sheer speed it works at compared to Photomatix, it's lightning quick in comparison. The sliders are much simpler to use as well, and actually seem to do something, I love it!


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

Multipla Mick said:


> Looks good to me :thumb:
> 
> I've been having a dabble with Oloneo too and really like it for not getting the overblown HDR effect when you don't want it, and the sheer speed it works at compared to Photomatix, it's lightning quick in comparison. The sliders are much simpler to use as well, and actually seem to do something, I love it!


Its so easy to use and i havnt even used 3 or more bracketed raw shots yet and it produces great results. Well to me anyway.:lol:
Phil


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Like I say, I love it, it gives far crisper results than Photomatix in my opinion, although I daresay there is a degree of operator failure present when I twiddle the Photomatix sliders, but with Oloneo you don't get that slightly smoky, misty look that Photomatix often gives and you get a lot less noise from multiple exposure shots than with PM too. But maybe that is me as some Photomatix shots I've seen have been stunning. Anyone into HDR should give Oloneo a whizz as in my book it knocks PM for six, but I believe there is a new version of PM out so maybe that is an improvement.


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

Multipla Mick said:


> Like I say, I love it, it gives far crisper results than Photomatix in my opinion, although I daresay there is a degree of operator failure present when I twiddle the Photomatix sliders, but with Oloneo you don't get that slightly smoky, misty look that Photomatix often gives and you get a lot less noise from multiple exposure shots than with PM too. But maybe that is me as some Photomatix shots I've seen have been stunning. Anyone into HDR should give Oloneo a whizz as in my book it knocks PM for six, but I believe there is a new version of PM out so maybe that is an improvement.


How much is PM though? Ive got the trial that leaves watermarks and also PS CS5 Extended Edition. I have Elements 8 also. I doubt i would pay for PM tbh. I still need to get out and do some bracketed RAW shots purposely for HDR mind. 
Phil


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

GIZTO29 said:


> How much is PM though? Ive got the trial that leaves watermarks and also PS CS5 Extended Edition. I have Elements 8 also. I doubt i would pay for PM tbh. I still need to get out and do some bracketed RAW shots purposely for HDR mind.
> Phil


PM is now $99 by the look of it, whatever that is in Great British Pounds now. My beta version of Oloneo runs out shortly, don't know how much it will cost when they start charging for it, if they do (God I hope not :lol. I see there is an updated version of the Oloneo beta jobbie out now so I'll try downloading that tomorrow, apparently they've sorted one or two issues people have commented on. Unless the latest PM is a big improvement I'd recommend anyone wanting an HDR programme to go straight to Oloneo, it really is the mutts nuts as far as I'm concerned (you may have noticed I quite like it :lol


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

... but only a single JPG does not an HDR make... it can't. The entire point is to extend the dynamic range, which by definition requires at least two shots of different exposures. Doesn't have to be RAW, just need to be different. 

Bret


----------



## VixMix (May 8, 2008)

Bum! - no Mac version


----------



## ksm1985 (Dec 27, 2008)

nice i am away to download it
cheers


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I am going to go and have a play with this program thanks for the tip!


----------



## ksm1985 (Dec 27, 2008)

oh it requires windows xp sp3 :S  whatever that is


----------



## Mini 360 (Jul 17, 2009)

VixMix said:


> Bum! - no Mac version


Gutted!


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

bretti_kivi said:


> ... but only a single JPG does not an HDR make... it can't. The entire point is to extend the dynamic range, which by definition requires at least two shots of different exposures. Doesn't have to be RAW, just need to be different.
> 
> Bret


How do you see HDR of wildlife for example then? Some of the shots ive seen surely couldnt possibly have been made from more than one image due to movement. Im not totally disputing what you say, im just going off what ive read and seen. When i first read about HDR i came across many sites showing how to make HDR like pictures from one image. 
Phil


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

HDR of wildlife is virtually impossible, as is it when dealing with anything involving clouds, leaves or wind. You can take the shots and hope, but that's what it is, unless you're using a very, very nice camera with silly ISO levels and have lots of light to play with.

You can HDR-ize anything. That doesn't make it a true HDR...

Any scene tends to have contrasts well over 100,000:1, especially if it involves darkness and sunlight in direct juxtaposition - and there maybe even 1,000,000:1 is possible. The numbers aren't relevant except for the fact that your camera sensor can only deal with differences several orders of magnitude smaller - call it 1000:1. So if you have a band member on a bright stage with a spot in the shot, chances are your spot is burned out if the band member is exposed halfway correctly, all other things being equal. 
With me so far?

That shot is dead because of the burn. You can't rescue any detail there, you don't even have a colour. Taking a much slower shot of the background lighting and a much brighter one of the guy would be an excellent way to deal with it - however, the limitation of the camera sensor still remains. Oh, and your subject has already moved on.

So, HDR is used to merge a shot taken with the shadows exposed correctly and a shot with the spots exposed correctly (in this case probably 1/640 - 1/1000 and 1/15). Covering the middle then only makes sense.

Stupidly high ISOs (I'm talking 64k+) enable us to think about processing this in-camera. The K-7 from Pentax is able to do HDRs from one shot by amplifying certain areas and then mixing them on the spot. My personal preference would be for the camera to save them - that would be fantastic and enable an awful lot which is currently simply not possible. However, it also removes any need to give a toss about light, thus removing 90% of the skill necessary to take decent photos. Would doubtless please clueless consumers, though....luckily, it won't happen any time soon as the sensor tech simply isn't there yet.

HDR was created as a technique to merge different exposures together to retain and increase detail at all levels. If you're only using one exposure, you're not using HDR, you're simply trying to expand the range shown on paper of that pic. 
Why it works is pretty simple: instead of trying to correct the exposure for all (or a significant percentage) of the pic, you take one frame and 'correct' that and repeat as many times as you like. No, it's not a true HDR because that would involve multiple initial exposures, but it is a potentially interesting method of trying to rescue a pic which would otherwise be a pool of light and shadow.

OTOH, decent curves and good RAW processing can go a loooong way towards eliminating the need for this - again, though, it's not easy and requires understanding on the part of the user which is not always desired in today's "NOW!" world.

Fussing about HDRs, though... go read this: http://kenrockwell.com/tech/death-of-photography.htm. I'll quote from it:



> Still photographs need dynamic elements to be successful. Moving and living subjects have to be caught at the peak of the action, the decisive instant that says it all. Landscapes, nature and architecture needs to be caught in the right light. The right light isn't in the middle of the day: the right light is very short-lived at the ends of the day. Clouds come and go, and the best syrupy golden light of dawn often only lasts for seconds. The strongest photos are those that capture something in transition.
> 
> Think of the best photos you can imagine. Is the subject just sitting there? Not likely. Most likely, something is happening, be interaction between people, or it's nature doing something interesting. You can't capture any of that with multiple exposures.


Bret


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

Bretti, thats all way over my head and i need to re read it a few times so ive changed my thread title making it more appropriate.
The thread i was getting at was this one showing moving objects and wildlife.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=2958025
Im not knowledgeable enough to discuss it tbh as its all new to me so i will say no more. I got the program and had a mess. I will defo get out and take some shots with the aim to produce some true HDR shots in the future and post them up if i can get anything worthy:thumb:
Phil


----------

