Photoshop Questions

[ddrueding]

Or really one big question with a bunch of small ones tied-in.

HDR Pano stitching. I know how to manually do an HDR composite of images using "Merge to HDR" and I know how to do stitching using "Photomerge". I'm trying to find a way to automate some phases of this process. Photomatix has the ability to be pointed at a folder and automatically take x-number of them at a time and create HDR images. Some googling revealed someone who did it with a Mac, but they didn't describe the process.

I find myself doing this manually quite often, and some help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ddrueding]

Ugh. It also seems that CS4 cannot photomerge 32-bit images. That sucks.

 

[e_dawg]

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question, but i wonder why you need to maintain a 32 bpp workflow, as it's clearly giving you problems?

Your panos have more scene contrast than mine, but I have gotten decent panos without HDR and with using only 8 bpp JPEGs straight out of the camera. I don't think you need the DR and the bit depth that you think you do.

http://catalytic.ca/Berlin-square-pano-1-.html

http://catalytic.ca/Berlin-from-P-Platz.html

http://catalytic.ca/Prague-Mala-Strana-pa.html

Me thinks a $70 graduated ND filter is a much simpler and more efficient (and possibly more effective) solution than 32 bpp, multi gigabyte, gigapixel HDR files.

 

[ddrueding]

e_dawg,

I appreciate your opinion, and I like the images you linked to, but I've noticed that I like images with a lot of contrast, and that I dislike blown highlights or clipped shadows. Even though trying to cram massive amounts of dynamic range into an 8-bit image makes it look less like a photograph, I do like the effect. I feel that your Prauge pano linked above could use some more range itself; there is a large wall right in the middle that is off-the-scale white. It does provide an effect, but I miss the detail that might have been there.

Granted, the recently linked image of mine was processed beyond all recognition, but I do like to have all the range and textures of the scene represented in the picture.

 

[ddrueding]

WRT the 32bpp workflow, even if I wasn't planning to go nuts with it, I still like the flexability in my full-res/uncropped/unprocessed original. Getting all the information together first keeps the options open.

 

[udaman]

e_dawg,

but I miss the detail that might have been there.
I do like to have all the range and textures of the scene represented in the picture.

2 different issues. RU using 450 or 20D? Maybe get a Nikon (ssssh, don't tell Tannin). More fine detail/textures w/Canon, but depends on how much pixel peeping/cropping you do.

D90 is pretty good...way less noise @medium high ISO/12.5 EV DR compared to nearly 2stops less for the Canon 450D. D700 better/FX but bigger/heavier (D3x will give you all the res you need until you can afford a Red Epic 645 or 3x645= 617 engine/brains )...then consider ergonomics superiority of the Nikon, faster AF, etc

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

*note: ^^^above flash? tends to crash my browser on my under powered laptop

Anyone try the new DxO, purported ISO25,600? on sale 33%off until Dec 31

 

[ddrueding]

I'm running with the 450D for now, and if I get anything it will be a 5DII.

 

[e_dawg]

e_dawg,

I appreciate your opinion, and I like the images you linked to, but I've noticed that I like images with a lot of contrast, and that I dislike blown highlights or clipped shadows. Even though trying to cram massive amounts of dynamic range into an 8-bit image makes it look less like a photograph, I do like the effect. I feel that your Prauge pano linked above could use some more range itself; there is a large wall right in the middle that is off-the-scale white. It does provide an effect, but I miss the detail that might have been there.

Granted, the recently linked image of mine was processed beyond all recognition, but I do like to have all the range and textures of the scene represented in the picture.

I know what you're saying, but I still don't think you need 32 bpp HDR to capture all the contrast that you want. I didn't even try to capture everything for my panos. If I did, I would have exposed for the highlights used RAW files and recovered any clipped highlights before stitching. Point is that I could have done it easily with 16 bpp RAWs without HDR had I tried. And that you can do it too if you learn how to use GND's for landscape photography as per best practices.

WRT the 32bpp workflow, even if I wasn't planning to go nuts with it, I still like the flexability in my full-res/uncropped/unprocessed original. Getting all the information together first keeps the options open.

Sure, that is the ideal, but you don't always need 32 bpp to get the job done if you know what you're doing with 16 bpp. Did you see what I could do with an 8 bpp JPEG source file in 5 min? Imagine if I had 16 bpp and more time to work with? It's not that 32 bpp is bad, theoretically... it's just that it seems to cause problems for peoples' workflow (and you have experienced that yourself), and that means it's not very practical for the small amount of improvement.

 

[e_dawg]

And BTW, not only were those images 8 bit JPEGs SooC, they were shot with an Olympus E-520, which is known to have less DR than most APS-C cameras.

 

[Handruin]

I'm running with the 450D for now, and if I get anything it will be a 5DII.

You might want to wait a bit and see what canon does about the issues being reported. I've been reading complaints of block dots and banding issues with the 5D MKII.

 

[ddrueding]

Oh, believe me, it won't be anytime soon. With things as they are, all major purchases (except our honeymoon to Kauai) are on hold.