CS5 and HDR

[gregf]

<p>Does anyone have experience with CS5 HDR merge when *not* using a tripod? How well does CS5 align the images?</p>

[davewilky65]

<p>Gregory CS5 or any other HDR software will not work if the images are not lined up like they would be if using a tripod.It just wont be worth trying.</p>

<p>Dave W</p>

 

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Software, even we're in an age when it seems that it can do almost anything, can only do so much when you throw a large variable into the mix such as misaligned images and possible camera movement. A good tripod is a must for the best HDR renderings.</p>

[gregf]

<p>Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. It's just easier to carry the tripod around than risk lost photos.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>nonsense. I regularly shoot panos w/o a tripod and PTgui stitches them fine and my hunch is that CS5 will also. There is a bit of body english 'technique' (rotate from the waist, do NOT pivot the camera) but it's eminently do-able and the results are very good.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>What utter nonsense, why do people who don't do something comment on it. Maybe if they had tried it they would realise it works fine.</p>

<p>Gregory, CS4 (and I can't believe CS5 is worse) does an amazing job of stitching handheld HDR and panos, sure a tripod is optimal but the software works well if you don't use one. All modern HDR, blending, and stitching software have alignment algorithms built in that adjust for lens distortion, misalignment and subject movement.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I can't say for Photoshop CS5, but Photomatix does a good job aligning hand-held frames to produce HDR images. PTGui does likewise for panoramas. It's important that the focal length remains unchanged, so that only translational corrections are required. In most lenses, changing the focus or even the aperture can change the effective focal length.<br>

I take advantage of automatic bracketing for HDR's, which allows you to shoot up to 9 frames in a little more than a second with a single shutter press, using a Nikon D3</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I've gotta agree that hand held isn't a limitation any longer.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>What utter nonsense, why do people who don't do something comment on it. Maybe if they had tried it they would realise it works fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! Been doing this since I picked up a dSLR years ago, tripod isn't essential for merging/"HDR"...</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I must not be using the correct body English to enable me to rotate about the nodal point of my lens, because if I have objects closer than, say, 6 feet, I have registration problems that neither the latest version of Photomatix nor a year-old version of Dynamic Photo HDR can correct. If everything is over, say, 20 feet away, I'm OK with hand-holding for HDR.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[howard_m]

<p>thats true. if you have up-close items, then you either need the nodal point rail or make your shots so that the item of interest is contained within a single frame. there are some compromises ;)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>We need to separate the two techniques, HDR and stitching are not the same and the same techniques are not needed for image capture, you can, of course, do both at the same time, but the original post was regarding handholding HDR image sequences.</p>

<p>If you are doing HDR the nodal (entry) point is irrelevant, as all images in the stack are from the same place, if you are stitching panoramas then the entry point can be problematic if foreground objects are close enough. I have never had a problem with handheld HDR, in fact I often shoot my HDR sequences with my camera atop a 10 ft painters pole.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>You are absolutely right, Scott. I didn't read the thread completely. I saw the word "stitching" used in one of the more recent posts and took off from there. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>