HOME | DD
Okavanga — Twelve Apostles HDR
Published: 2014-03-15 14:26:41 +0000 UTC; Views: 1946; Favourites: 93; Downloads: 48
Redirect to original
Description
On the Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Australia, the Twelve Apostles set of sea stacks is the most popular of the extraordinary coastal scenery in this region. The name is a modern PR invention and there are not 12 of anything here. This image is an HDR composite of three shots and I've used this to show the structure of the cliff face on the right-hand side, often seen in other images as a simple very dark mass.Related content
Comments: 45
The quality of light in this part of the world, and a bit nearer the Equator is quite different from what we are used to certainly in the UK - very vibrant colours.
Many Thanks, Steven.
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Always very welcome David...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Beautiful photo with a great color contrast and a well-done composition!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Many thanks for those kind comments!
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Stunning shot, David. And thanks for your supporting story because, first looking at the title, I started counting. I did not see 12 of anything. But, oh; what a shot. Just brilliant. On tripod?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Brilliant stuff, Dave!
Cheers!
Henry
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
very nice, saw that once only
on TV and discovering all sorts
of stuff here. Glad you took
the shoot. How did you combine
3? Horizontal or vertical? really
nice job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi David - as an HDR based image all the images are shot with the same view - it is not a pano where I would have gone left to right. I used Photomatix Pro to do the grunt work and tweaked it using the Gimp. I see you use a Canon. If you use their Digital Professional Photo software, then you may have noticed that it has an HDR processor now - its not bad. Worth a try.
BTW, I've travelled a bit in Costa Rica - good place, but wet in the mountains!
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, so several shots layered in software and combined so the exposure
of the cliff area is "over exposed" compared to ocean section...
I lost the canon software a few years ago,
maybe need to find a copy.
Wondering though, could you have not just dodged that section of
the cliff or would it not have been the same colors? I assume the color
would be better with that software/different photo.
Thanks for responding, I really like that photo. Huel Howser on PBS
did a special of that side of Australia and a famous turquoise blue
bay... near perth.. what a beautiful place, dont remember the name.
Jurien bay I noticed on yahoo just now above perth, but seems like
different name, the HD show was really beautiful calm water of all
shades of blue... awesome. Closest I have seen is in the Caribbean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The answer to your query is "yes and no"! The idea behind HDR - high dynamic range - is that camera sensors do not have as wide a range of tonal values, light/dark as human eyes have, and consequently have limited dynamic range. So, in a predominately bright scene (as per this image) if the photographer exposes for the light areas, then anything dark will be essentially black. If s/he exposes for the dark area then the rest of the image is washed out. Before the advent of HDR software, the solution to this problem was as you say. You could take two exposures, overlay them and dodge in the lighter exposure of the dark area. Indeed, that is still done and is an option in advanced HDR software. You could even do this with one single shot, make two layers and brighten one before dodging it in. Using HDR techniques, however, you do something else as well. The primary objective of HDR technique is to allow bright areas that would otherwise be blown to show detail and dark areas that would otherwise be "black" to show structure and detail. However, part of the HDR process involves blending contrasts together. This blending takes place across the whole of the image - so-called global contrast to give a good balance of, say, white skies and dark cliffs, and on a smaller-scale basis - so-called local contrast - and this enhances the contrast of objects that are "small" in comparison to the overall image. It is this latter feature that gives rise to the distinctive "HDR look". The result is usually one that looks markedly different from that arising from a dodging technique. HDR theory is quite complex and often misrepresented, but there is plenty of free software or trial software to work with to try it out - Google and ye shall find!
(BTW - Remember that the final image is actually a low dynamic range version of the intermediate HDR image which cannot be seen in its entirety as monitors and other media have a worse dynamic range than camera sensors.)
Hope this helps
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very cool explanation, I thank you very much for
the detailed explanation! I have seen those HDR acryonyms
however not delved into finding out all of that. Basically,
it is making somewhat of a "false color" image out of
the real light spectrum, hence why all these photos
I have been seeing here on this site are like that. I thought all
were completed using photoshop mods, not this automated
process/specialized HDR method. Very cool. One thing
that has changed in technology at least Security and smaller cameras
with CMOS and CCD chips is in order to achieve higher megapixel
count, they have reduced the size of each RGB cell in the chip itself.
The downside is these cameras have less physical area in which to
gather light, therefore need image processing firmware in the camera
to compensate for lower light gathering. One reason I keep my old
little Canon, that and image size of 10mb per photo is to me a hassle
since I don't want to make posters.... I wonder if the dynamic range
of my older camera is in fact higher since the cell size is larger and
more light gathering???? It might be awash... CCD's/CMOS are amazing
devices and have changed the world. Canon used to have an extra large
size chip in their SLR's I assume they still do....
I have been fortunate to have worked in the imaging field in other aspects
since the early mini-computer days where we did false color images for various
types of scientific processes... been a long time since I have read or kept
up with the latest stuff.... thanks for the spark of interest!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Many thanks for this interesting reply - sounds as if we have had similar backgrounds wrt mini-computers!
There are a couple of points that need a bit more explanation. The dynamic range of a sensor does not depend on its size nor on the number of pixels. It depends on the sensitivity of the individual sensors. When these different light sensitive chips first appeared they were not particularly sensitive and had a dynamic range of about 7-8 stops, now most camera sensors are up at about 11-12 stops, some higher at about 14 stops. That compares with the human eye of 17-18 stops. (I expect others will dispute the exact numbers I have given, but it is the order of magnitude changes that are important.) That means that the modern sensor can distinguish about 4000 different levels of light in each of three primary colours.
The increasing size of the chips allows more individual sensors, and hence more pixels. Nowadays, 16-22 megapixels is the norm, whereas a decade ago it was 5 - 6 megapixels. Probably, most photographers who understand these things would say that the practical limit for DSLR photography has now been reached. Increasing the number of pixels further for 35 mm equivalent cameras doesn't really make sense. There will always be high end applications that could use more, but that is a different matter.
Regarding "false colour", I know what you mean - we used instruments years ago that gave false colour output. However, strictly speaking,the term false colour is applied when a physical quantity or phenomenon, say length or height, that has no colour attribute is ascribed a colour that varies with the quality. That sounds a bit difficult, so here is an example. Suppose you measure the height of a mountain and draw contour lines at 100 meter intervals to depict the mountain. Those contour lines - the heights - have no intrinsic colour - they are just lines. But, to make a greater visual impact you could ascribe colours, say blues for low heights, through greens, yellows, oranges, and reds to increasing heights. So your contour plot is now coloured from blue to red. That is false colour. Perhaps unfortunately, the term has also become used in cases where processed colours are different from "real" colours - a situation that occurs frequently in photography. Strictly, the term artefactual colours should be used, as the new colours are artefacts of the processing - see my Infrared work for example for lots of examples.
Anyway, that's enough for today I think!
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the really nice reply. I understand this technically
more now thanks for going into that detail.... I did not realize
or keep up to date with this in the past few years. One thing
I do know is that 22 megapixels is way too high a resolution
for me, since I prefer a pocket camera and have not looked
at Steve's digicams site for years, not sure what Canon now
offers for the Elph. I am happy with my beat up little thing.
I know one thing that amazed me was the large diameter
lens camera and high res photos taken with normal optics
in the SR-71 for surveillance- that sort of stuff impresses me
done in the 60's too.
Maybe medium format like Hasselblad and Mamiya could use
larger lens and higher density chips and take advantage... not sure... again
I have not even looked into that for a long time.
I used the term false color incorrectly, you are correct completely.
We used it for imaging much like they now do for MRI's, etc.
Thinking back at a Data General RDOS and those machines
with a 24" dia. platter that held 5 megabytes, and
all that cryptic command line low level crap like "attach disk"
and what 5 commands just to access a file. I did like PC-DOS
believe it or not when offered early on though.
I need to spend some time looking at your work, thanks for being
cool, this is certainly a nice forum/site. I enjoy it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad to have been of help - so much has happened over the last decade that keeping up with technical matters is all but impossible. You are correct about the medium format cameras - they can and do have larger chips with more pixels. However, you are talking mega bucks for even a lens. Then there is portability! You're comment about liking your camera is also a good one. We all should remember that at the end of the day it is the photographer and whatever camera that s/he uses that does the work. Having a top flight system does not make you any better.
Yes, I remebr the old days with those big platters, and trying to write code! PC_DOS was a breath of fresh air in those days and seemed so easy compared to what had gone before, but look at the advances since then!
Nice Talking.
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Many thanks - honoured to receive such praise from a master!
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Amazing! Those giant rocks look like a sort of architecture! Wonderful!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed they do, Linda - a natural architecture hewn by wind and sea. This was spectacular, but I didn't have enough time to do it justice. I'll have to go back.
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know about that, David; it looks to me that you did it more than justice! (of course, I wasn't there in person to see just how grand it was)...and again, the different shades of blue; just gorgeous!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was sooooo busy, Linda, that I felt jostled and not in photographic control. There was so much I wanted to do, but couldn't. Anyway, this image seems pretty popular.
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
very nice, subtle HDR... great work David. I would love to have a crack at this spot for sunrise/set.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Absolutely agree about dawn and dusk, but we were staying a long way off. I did a lot of long exposure work here but it did not pay off, partly because of the hassle of hundreds of other tourists. I couldn't get good angles, nor time to think. Busiest place in Oz except for Melbourne.
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Excellent HDR work to bring out the unique scenery, David!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you, Cecily - the HDR technique has worked well here - the natural look of the stacks and sea has not been lost.
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Stunning! And fascinating how those chunks of cliff have remained.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are stacks like this dotted along the coast and even a large island well off shore that have been formed in the same way. Gradual erosion by the sea of soft rock. But spectacular it is.
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed, but very busy for Australia!
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Many thanks - I've managed to fill the frame!!
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fantastic shades in the sea and rock...beaut, my friend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Probably, if I hadn't said, most people would not realise this is an HDR based image, Oriole. It is the structure and detail of the cliff on the right that is normally "black" in most commercial shots that gives this the edge.
Many Thanks
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 0