Got a Photography Question?

[ProjektDaze]

Post it here and I'm sure some of the Pro's won't mind helping out. (I looked around and didn't see a thread dedicated to this. I think it'd be easier to gather all the questions here instead of a new thread to search for)

I'll start.

Two questions:
1. Is it better to shoot in RAW format or JPG Format? What's the difference?
2. What exactly is HDR shooting? Is it just timed exposure shots?

[Stephen]

RAW x 100000000000000


Think of it as a "digital negative" As opposed to editing a developed picture


HDR = High dynamic range = cliche and lame

But its the same shot with multiple exposures.

Its not really a bad idea, its just the execution often sucks

[akufc]

1.) I'm no expert, but from my reading RAW is the best to shoot in because it's like a digital negative. JPG loses it's quality each time you save it. As for what's best to shoot in, it depends what you're shooting sometimes. The thing about RAW is your shot bursts are lower compared to JPG and the size, I've read people who shoot events sometimes shoot in JPG because they can take more photos faster i.e weddings, dinner parties.

I personally have always shot in raw, I think my D90's 8 shot burst in RAW is plenty enough for "random" type photos of moments.

2.) HDR is High Dynamic Range, there should be a bracket feature on your camera. It basically takes 3 shots to then merg in PS. Of course you can do your own exposing which I've done a few times. The point of the HDR from what I've read and done myself is to expose for every light range in the scene you are shooting. It creates some cool effects some people take it to the extreme and others do it for a more natural shot. Here is two of mine that I did.

4 shot HDR exposed the road, sky, moutains, trees


3 shot built in bracket with 3stop between each shot from the D70


2 shots, grass and sky

[phish sticks]

+1 on shooting RAW. Almost shoot exclusively in RAW now, it gives you so many options to play around with once it on the computer.

And WOW those ^^^ are examples of HDR done right, all too often you see shit like this:

[ProjektDaze]

Not too sure I get HDR yet. Maybe it's because I've never played with HDR that I don't see the bracket on my camera. So its basically 3 exposures merged into one? oO

Just interested in it because of shots like these

[RedE46Bimmer]

yea it's 3 shots(or more or less) at different exposure levels mergeed into one. I used a free trial of photomatix and played around with it for a while. You can look up tutorials on YouTube, that's how I learned enough to fool around with it a little, but my free trial expired

[akufc]

Think of HDR as a way to capture a surreal type scene, the best example is sunsets. When you set your camera up and take a single shot of a sunset you either get a great shot of the sky and your foreground is all black or you get your foreground and the sky is overexposed.

HDR mindset would be you take a photo of the sky and the foreground to keep it simple. The 3 shots is get highlights, midtones and shadows and you use something like photomatrix or PS to make the HDR.

Another concept applied to automotive would be something like the famed Sean K. If you read his blog he builds shots alot in the HDR type of concept. Exposing for different aspects in the scene and merges them all together in PS, perfect example the Skyline he shot for a mag and how he faked a rig shot. HDR concept with a twist.

http://seanklingelhoefer.blogspot.com/

[dinanm3atl]

HDR is used when a single exposure cannot properly expose a shot. So you will have dark shadows. Or blown out highlights. So you take multiple exposures and you expose for the sky. Expose for the shadows. Expose for the foreground etc

Combine and you have your HDR. IMO good HDR doesn't jump out and say "This is an HDR".

[Kielan]

How do you remove reflections in PS?

[tivs31]

it's almost impossible to remove reflections in photoshop...

It'd take alot of spot leveling and clone stamping, and that almost never looks good.

The thing to use to eliminate reflections is a circular polarizer on your lens when you take the picture. It can cut most reflections out really well. It's better to try to minimize the reflects in the shot setup rather than in post work

[Dane]

Combine and you have your HDR. IMO good HDR doesn't jump out and say "This is an HDR".

i agree completely. and it's usually when not EVERYTHING is exposed correctly. you still may have a really bright highlight, or dark shadow, but it looks far more realistic. i **** the glow of many HDR's. i'm guilty of doing it too in the past.

[dinanm3atl]

i agree completely. and it's usually when not EVERYTHING is exposed correctly. you still may have a really bright highlight, or dark shadow, but it looks far more realistic. i **** the glow of many HDR's. i'm guilty of doing it too in the past.

Agreed. You don't have to have every single part perfect. It could still be 'dark' or still be 'overexposed' in places. You just get an overall feel so you can see into the shadows but still see the details of the highlights.

[Dane]

[Kielan]

Now that is a damn good HDR. Definitely doesn't punch you in the mouth saying "look at me, look at me, I'm a HDR." Very well done.

[ProjektDaze]

I went to go shoot a few practice shots in RAW format but when I putthem on my computer they came out 160x120....why?

Figured it out, RAW+Basic is what I needed to be in.