HDR, Any thoughts / advice?

dnme

I was out this morning in Renville with Fenster and Mikeanywhere. We were trying out multiple exposures with a view to HDR processing. Anyheew, when I got home, all the stuff I'd shot was either exposed to far left or too far right and I did not have a decent range that was workable. So I went out into the back garden this afternoon and practiced.

Many attempts later..........

The attached image is purely for HDR discussion purposes (not exactly a beautiful scene etc) and I'd love any feedback or advice. It was shot around 4:15pm-4:30pm and the overall exposure is prety accurate in relation to what I was actually seeing.

I donwloaded Photomatix and have been playing round with it. Is it used by folks here? rated?

Kintarō Hattori

Don't you need three images for HDR, one slightly underexposed, one perfectly exposed and one slightly overexposed?

CabanSail

The image you have for the example does not have need of HDR. There is no loss of detail in the highlights or shadows.

From reading your post it seems to me that you may be missing the whole point of what HDR is and when it should be used. For many situations there is more than enough detail available in the RAW data so that you can get a good result from justthe single exposure. I am assuming here you have a camera that shoots RAW & that you are doing so. Once the Dynamic Range of an image is beyond that which a RAW file can accomodate (+/- 4 stops) then you can start to use multiple exposures to bring back detail in the Highlights & Shadows.

I have tried Photomatix and found it to be fine & know a lot of others really like it. What I have been doing recently is to combine the images on layers in Photoshop & that way been able to keep more control. It allows a more subtle result which does not look like HDR, which to me is the aim of the exercise.

dnme

No CanabSail, I was shooting in jpeg, it was dusk and the range between forground and sky was huge. I shot 6 images in all, the two extremes are below.

nilhg

dnme wrote: »

No CanabSail, I was shooting in jpeg, it was dusk and the range between forground and sky was huge. I shot 6 images in all, the two extremes are below.

[img*]http://boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=96160&stc=1&d=1258313494[/img]

[img*]http://boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=96161&stc=1&d=1258313502[/img]

I think you've just proved that it works.......:D

TBH if I had to criticise, I'd say it looks too normal, you've made it look like midday, well november midday in Ireland.

dnme

Is there any tutorial on the web for replicating this using a single raw that CabanSail talks about above?

I'm a beginner and have not used raw yet.

Fenster

Looks good, TBH. Not over-processed at all.

KarmaGarda

I'm not a fan of HDR at all, but I have to say that's one of the better attempts I've seen at it. The problem with HDRs is it's very easy to overdo them. You've managed to avoid that with this, so well done I say!

dnme

KarmaGarda wrote: »

I'm not a fan of HDR at all, but I have to say that's one of the better attempts I've seen at it. The problem with HDRs is it's very easy to overdo them. You've managed to avoid that with this, so well done I say!

Karma, many thanks...I'm blown away :rolleyes:
I couldn't agree more about the over cooked thing when it comes to processing, not just HDR's either.

Mycroft H

It really looks like a novembers midday tbh, slightly overdone me thinks.

Bringing back the foreground by maybe 1-1.5 stops might help a little bit.

Cosmo K

I think its a bit overdone tbh, the stonewalls are just too bright, it doesn't look natural. But thats an easy mistake to make, I had the same problems when I started playing around with HDR.

CabanSail

You have managed to produce a realistic image from the HDR, so you are well onto the right track. I made the mistake that that was an image that you wanted to apply HDR.

What I do not understand is this feeling that shooting in RAW is some great unknown. It is just capturing all the data that your sensor produces and then allowing the photographer to make decisions about it.

mikeanywhere

Well done for having another go at it. I will pm you some links to HDR which will help when I log onto my other machine where the are stored.

dnme

CabanSail wrote: »

I made the mistake that that was an image that you wanted to apply HDR.

So what you're saying is that my first attempt at HDR was so good that you thought the result was actually one of the pre-processing inputs

CabanSail wrote: »

What I do not understand is this feeling that shooting in RAW is some great unknown. It is just capturing all the data that your sensor produces and then allowing the photographer to make decisions about it.

I know you are right, it's just that I have never done any kind of image processing (yet). I have Photoshop (student ver) on the way so it will be my next big learning curve. I stay away fro raw atm simply because I can't open / view them.

bullpost

dnme wrote: »

I know you are right, it's just that I have never done any kind of image processing (yet). I have Photoshop (student ver) on the way so it will be my next big learning curve. I stay away fro raw atm simply because I can't open / view them.

Download the Gimp and this raw plugin (all free) and you're away in a hack:

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

red_ice

i prefer the over processed look with HDR. Be it extreme detail, tonal changes, or surreal looking (not as much the surreal stuff, but it has its place imo). Then again does "over processed" with HDR mean seeing into the shadows and getting colour while it happens? Sure we arent used to it with single shots, however HDR is truer to the eye in my books.

If i wanted a standard photo i would learn to take it as best i can with a single shot, then if i felt the need for post processing (as most do) i would do it on a single frame.

HDR never looks right with an under processed look when trees/plants/long grass are involved because wind moves them and <insert app> will have no problem aligning critical points in the shot, but everything else will be in different places which makes for odd blurs in the image. Very counter productive and going against the point of using such techniques..

Then again, i dont know much about this stuff, but thats how i see it.

The above shot could have been achieved with a single shot and a smidge of photoshop/lightroom/whatever.

Kudos for not going overboard, but i think theres room to play with in that shot

dnme

Hey red_ice,

Yes I agree with you also, there is certainly a place for the processed look, it is its own kind of art form, just not really my cup of tea (subject to change of course )

You are totally right about blur in HDR's, I tried a few yesterday of a beautiful tree with stunning rust coloured foliage, the HDR result was to blurry to use. That's why I'm particularly interested in CabanSail's first earlier post talking about single image HDR's with RAW. Are there any tutorials around I wonder?

KarmaGarda

dnme wrote: »

Hey red_ice,

Yes I agree with you also, there is certainly a place for the processed look, it is its own kind of art form, just not really my cup of tea (subject to change of course )

You are totally right about blur in HDR's, I tried a few yesterday of a beautiful tree with stunning rust coloured foliage, the HDR result was to blurry to use. That's why I'm particularly interested in CabanSail's first earlier post talking about single image HDR's with RAW. Are there any tutorials around I wonder?

I've often performed "Fake HDRs" in The Gimp, but only when there isn't dramatic light differences between the different ranges in the photo. Here's the one I sometimes use for The Gimp:

http://gimpology.com/submission/view/fake_hdr_look_in_gimp/

I'd perform a quick google for "fake hdr photoshop" and you should get loads of results. That's how I came across the above tutorial