Nikon or Canon best for HDR?
- Thread starter Lensflare
- Start date
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Photomatix usually.....
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you asking? Its not the camera that produces the HDR, its software. Both Canon and Nikon are equally good at metering and bracketed shots to provide the starting point images for the process..... :shrug:
Or is it way past my bedtime and I am missing some humour? :shake:
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you asking? Its not the camera that produces the HDR, its software. Both Canon and Nikon are equally good at metering and bracketed shots to provide the starting point images for the process..... :shrug:
Or is it way past my bedtime and I am missing some humour? :shake:
- Messages
- 2,697
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
what's HDR?
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a process that some people use to try and salvage really crap photos by turning them into cartoon-like disasters and then pretending that's what their intention was all along
- Messages
- 2,697
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheers - I shall remember that for future reference
alexnail
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 323
- Name
- Alex Nail
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Seriously dont do HDR unless you are absolutely sure that is what you want. I rarely see HDRs that are done well. Consider it carefully. If you ask a question like that it suggests to me that you are a beginner in which case I would presonally inclined to stay clear.
Alex
Alex
- Messages
- 2,946
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
HDR as said above is all in the software.
Its usally associated with creative work or art, which starts off using a photograph of choice.
Some like it, others don't,there are plenty out there that DO, if you like it go for it.
Its usally associated with creative work or art, which starts off using a photograph of choice.
Some like it, others don't,there are plenty out there that DO, if you like it go for it.
R
reddeathdrinker
Guest
It's a process that some people use to try and salvage really crap photos by turning them into cartoon-like disasters and then pretending that's what their intention was all along
It's obvious then - Canon cameras are better for HDR
I've seen some truly stunning photos by a guy on here, bulb76 (?) I think on a Nikon. I've had some success with Canon but now I've switch to Nikon I'm hoping to have more success
(Man that just looks odd, switched to Nikon...)
theMusicMan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,838
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a rather ignorant question that is...:shrug:OK folks, which is best for HDR? Nikon or Canon?
theMusicMan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,838
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Huh Pete...? You moved to Nikon now...? I thought your Canons shutter recently died and you were getting it fixed. What you using now...? D3/D700..?
I've seen some truly stunning photos by a guy on here, bulb76 (?) I think on a Nikon. I've had some success with Canon but now I've switch to Nikon I'm hoping to have more success
- Messages
- 12,095
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and what a fairly unhelpful answer that is
As everyone has said both camera will bracket or shoot RAW which is the two main routes for HDR. I did only just realise earlier that some Nikons will only bracket by 1 stop at a time (so you need to shoot 5 shots continuously to get 2 stops) where as I think all Canons will let you bracket by 2 stops. I generally use 2 stops for any HDR as it captures more highlight and shadows that 1 stop (though obviously not always needed).
Have you read Petemc's (him who posted earlier, the big Nikon pleb) HDR guide? http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/
- Messages
- 12,095
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've seen some truly stunning photos by a guy on here, bulb76 (?) I think on a Nikon. I've had some success with Canon but now I've switch to Nikon I'm hoping to have more success
:jaw drops: Stunned that someone recognises and remembers my work
Do I get a mention in your book too
theMusicMan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,838
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
meh... 'twas so ignorant it didn't even warrant an answer...and what a fairly unhelpful answer that is
But in all seriousness, you're a Canon user so possibly wouldn't really appreciate the ignorance in the OP's question I guess JL.
OP
Lensflare
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Folks, don't reply to this because it will probably be closed again before I can get back on.
Thanks Dark Star for showing me where it went - I was away working for a few days, came back to read the answers and it had disappeared, which is why I asked it again.
I have been in conversation with Pete Mac about my woes with the results of trying to get some HDR to work....from both canon and Nikon. A G10 from Canon and a D3 from Nikon. he has given me some wonderful pointers for how to try and get some reasonable results, instead of INCREDIBLY NOISY pictures from the D3 even at 200 ASA......the G10 produces far quieter HDR images at the outset.
Why is this? Is it something to do with the way the relative RAW files are processed - it isn't to do with the actual image quality because the D3 produces perfectly accepable shots before fiddling with them.
So all those who gave me sensible answers, thank you.
From a total ignoramus who asked an ignorant question.
Thanks Dark Star for showing me where it went - I was away working for a few days, came back to read the answers and it had disappeared, which is why I asked it again.
I have been in conversation with Pete Mac about my woes with the results of trying to get some HDR to work....from both canon and Nikon. A G10 from Canon and a D3 from Nikon. he has given me some wonderful pointers for how to try and get some reasonable results, instead of INCREDIBLY NOISY pictures from the D3 even at 200 ASA......the G10 produces far quieter HDR images at the outset.
Why is this? Is it something to do with the way the relative RAW files are processed - it isn't to do with the actual image quality because the D3 produces perfectly accepable shots before fiddling with them.
So all those who gave me sensible answers, thank you.
From a total ignoramus who asked an ignorant question.
CaptainPenguin
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,161
- Name
- Nigel Cliff
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a process that some people use to try and salvage really crap photos by turning them into cartoon-like disasters and then pretending that's what their intention was all along
Thats just what i was going to say
OP
Lensflare
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I wouldn't. I have seen some really stunning images that have been created by exposure overlays, HDR if you like.
I would really like to get my head around how to create some - not to save otherwise rubbish shots (although probably old crap will be turned out playing with the technique) but to understand the scene and be able to recognise a good HDR shot in the making....like you recognise a good, strong black & white when you see it.
This is only the same thing, when you can lean to see in HDR, understand when what is in front of you will turn out a really good HDR, then have the knowledge to take the shot understanding the result that the Photomatix will produce, then you can start to do HDR.
Do you complain when you see a really crap B&W shot?
Do you complain when you see a really crap colour picture?
Why then, do you complain when you see a crap HDR.......it is just that the author hasn't created a good one. That doesn't make them all bad, just the bad ones.
I do really bad HDR at the moment - but I would like to be able to do better ones...so I am asking for help with the ingredients required to cook the cake first.
Then I'll ask how much of each ingredient iss required......and for how long.
Good photographs are made, not taken.
I would really like to get my head around how to create some - not to save otherwise rubbish shots (although probably old crap will be turned out playing with the technique) but to understand the scene and be able to recognise a good HDR shot in the making....like you recognise a good, strong black & white when you see it.
This is only the same thing, when you can lean to see in HDR, understand when what is in front of you will turn out a really good HDR, then have the knowledge to take the shot understanding the result that the Photomatix will produce, then you can start to do HDR.
Do you complain when you see a really crap B&W shot?
Do you complain when you see a really crap colour picture?
Why then, do you complain when you see a crap HDR.......it is just that the author hasn't created a good one. That doesn't make them all bad, just the bad ones.
I do really bad HDR at the moment - but I would like to be able to do better ones...so I am asking for help with the ingredients required to cook the cake first.
Then I'll ask how much of each ingredient iss required......and for how long.
Good photographs are made, not taken.
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hmm, mental note for the future... want to start an arguement mention HDR.
My personal view on all this is that HDR and the associated Tone Mapping does have its place and can look stunning. Just like many other techniques (e.g. high/low key, B&W conversion, selective colouring, major photoshopping etc.) it can be abused or done ineffectively. Equally on the right image it can make the difference. If you plan it from the start then the chances are it will work well, if you don't then you are more likely to end up with a disaster.
To answer the OP's question I suspect that Canon with the 2 stop bracketing will be better for HDR shots, but would love to see Pete (one of the masters of HDR IMO) do a proper test on this and provide a definitive answer (I'm sure he can borrow some Canon kit from a fellow TPer). However, at the end of the day the camera is just a tool and Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, Fuji et al each have their strengths and weaknesses and unless you are shooting only one type of photography then each is as good as the other.
P.S. Love the simily Pete
My personal view on all this is that HDR and the associated Tone Mapping does have its place and can look stunning. Just like many other techniques (e.g. high/low key, B&W conversion, selective colouring, major photoshopping etc.) it can be abused or done ineffectively. Equally on the right image it can make the difference. If you plan it from the start then the chances are it will work well, if you don't then you are more likely to end up with a disaster.
To answer the OP's question I suspect that Canon with the 2 stop bracketing will be better for HDR shots, but would love to see Pete (one of the masters of HDR IMO) do a proper test on this and provide a definitive answer (I'm sure he can borrow some Canon kit from a fellow TPer). However, at the end of the day the camera is just a tool and Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, Fuji et al each have their strengths and weaknesses and unless you are shooting only one type of photography then each is as good as the other.
P.S. Love the simily Pete