HDR photography

gsxr1

I have seen some photos on google and decided to acquire some HDR software.

I have not had great success in my first attempt .

I took 5 photos today in Bodenstown cemetery at 5 different exposures , expecting better results. My pic is bland . I would want better color.


My question would be.. What are the recipes to finding the correct light and sky cover . In order to get that bright exciting picture that HDR produces

here is the lowest exposure and the highest - and + 2



as for the pic itself. I was just passing the place and stopped. I know I could have chosen a better place. was just a trial shot.

i using this software http://www.hdrsoft.com/

Ballyman

gsxr1 wrote: »

My pic is bland . I would want better color.

When there was no colour in the first place, where did you expect it to come from?

Try it again at sunset somewhere where you would have a very high dynamic range between bright and dark. This is what HDR is for, where there is a huge difference between bright and dark in a scene. You didn't really have that here.

Go easy on the sliders as well when you do find the right scene.

pete4130

It was a dull dull day to begins with, so it makes things hard from the outset. Your best bet it to overcook it slightly in your HDR software and convert to BW for a high contrast/high detail effect. Sometimes this is the only way to get an HDR to work on such a dull day.

5uspect

To me HDR is useful when the geometry of the scene is not ideal for a grad filter.
However many HDR shots also come with a lot of extreme saturation which make them look horrible.

Here is one that I took a good while back:


I didn't go overboard pulling back the sky as I wanted to keep it somewhat natural looking. Nicely tone mapped HDR can be good at giving an other worldly type effect but often ends up as overbaked muck.

hoganpoly

Nice shot 5uspect ,Where was it taken

DBIreland

hoganpoly wrote: »

Nice shot 5uspect ,Where was it taken

Looks like the underside of the Living Bridge in University of Limerick...

5uspect

Yep, about 6 or 7am in UL one autumn morning. My office used to be just around the corner.

hoganpoly

up that early fair play, cracking photo

mehfesto

This months Digital Photographer magazine had a good 5-page piece on how to do them correctly. That said, some of the images were horribly overcooked.

I plan on trying it, but with less extreme changes/editing.

ozymandius

A couple of links you may find useful -

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/ - there is a lot in this. Make the effort to go through it all.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1012/10122206HDRpart1.asp - new series just started on DPReview.

Remember - less is more. HDR doesn't have to look horrible.

Nebezpeci Mys

From my own experience I would suggest that you play with the software to see what it can (or cannot) do and perhaps a bit of reading could help - I got 'Complete Guide to HDR' by Ferrell McCollough and found it absolutely brilliant. It's very easy to read, with 'screenshots' and practical examples.

Also, don't forget that some shots may look good as HDR's converted to BW...

And most importantly - have fun!

DougL

Wow, a HDR image I actually like! Subtle is good.

Thecageyone

I described one of my older images as 'subtle HDR' somewhere before, may have been on Flickr. And was shot down because apparently you cannot do HDR subtly ... which is , of course, Bullcrap.

This is the image


Long while back, I only very briefly dabbled with HDR, wasn't really for me, but i do like that one.

moss.ie

still not made my mind up about HDR.....
before

after


alltho it is great for graphics n posters etc

gsxr1

wow.

I think if I was selling a product , like a helicopter or Kwacker. I would use HDR in the advert as it leaps out at you.
But if I was to hang a picture on my wall, I would try and keep the original image.

5uspect

That's not really HDR tho. All you've really done is aggressive tone mapping to a perfectly exposed image. There are no regions of over or underexposure.

For example applying the curve shown below to your before image:


HDR is about taking a scene that the camera cannot fully capture because the distribution of light is too great. The light is too bright and the shadows too dark. Once you capture enough exposures to cover this range you store it in a single 32bit file which now should contain the full light distribution. However in order to actually use it you need to select a subset of the dynamic range.

For landscapes a grad filter will stop the bright sky down and narrow that dynamic range. With HDR you tone map to shift the dark and light extremes towards the centre.

I like the examples in this article:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

magicbastarder

the sky looks wrong in that helicopter HDR shot, especially on the left hand side.

Abelloid

How do you produce a HDR image from a moving object, such as the motorbike above?

Thecageyone

You can fake HDR by using the one image. Open it up in photoshop, underexpose it by a step, save that as your second image, over expose it by a stop, save that as your third, original of course being #1. You can merge those 3 images in a program like photomatix, or even within PS itself and perform HDR adjustments.

Abelloid

Is that considered cheating? Will a lot of detail be lost when using a single image?

Zillah

Thecageyone wrote: »

You can fake HDR by using the one image. Open it up in photoshop, underexpose it by a step, save that as your second image, over expose it by a stop, save that as your third, original of course being #1. You can merge those 3 images in a program like photomatix, or even within PS itself and perform HDR adjustments.

Surely you'd have to do this from RAW, otherwise you could achieve the exact same effect with some careful curve adjustments?

Anyway, I hate 99% of HDR images I see, they're usually over-cooked and often scenes that don't even require the technique, like the above chopper. HDR is not and should not be a style, it is a technical effect for overcoming technical limitations. I think 5uspect's bridge example is a very good one.

Thecageyone

You're not going to get precisely the same dynamic range, but as for cheating? Some would say you can't really cheat HDR.

Yes, an underexposed RAW file would be best to start from, create your over exposed images from that, once it has all the required detail within the shadows and highlights to begin with.

And no, I've messed with it before from Jpeg files, it really isn't like pushing curves around. You are getting 3 ranges of high and low lights. Not the same as bracketing on scene, but it can be effective ... if you like HDR. Which, I don't either.

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

You're not going to get precisely the same dynamic range

A digital RAW has at most 5 stops of light from highlight to shadow, so whether you underexpose and overexpose the same file....you are still left with EXACTLY the same DR as the original file. All tonemapping does is essentially extract all that infor in the DR into one file/image and try to make a balanced exposure. By making 3 files from the one RAW file you can make a pseudo HDR which is no better than a heavily tonemapped image. The DR of a RAW file is always going to stay the same....hence HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE means bracketing with 3, 5, 7, 9 or more files.

Using 3 files works ok, using 5 files works better, using 7 files works better again and using 9 or more files is the better option as you have a higher and more overlapping DR than using less files so you get a better, more natural looking image.

It depends on lots of things, the type of light, the DR of the scene, how its processed, what application used to process it.

Thecageyone

Thanks for the lesson, I was never interested in HDR enough to read all that elsewhere :P

digitalbeginner

This HDR is processed from a single RAW file shot on a 5D MkII. The only thing extra thing done was some cloning out of a reflection on the left hand side



Dave

5uspect

But it isn't HDR either. It's tone mapping.
You could maybe say that a RAW file is a medium dynamic Range format that allows for aggressive curve adjustment without fear of posterisation. But no matter how many bins your ADC has you still can't go beyond the upper and lower limits of your camera's range at a given setup. That is why you need multiple exposures to build the full histogram.

When you process a HDR file to convert it from a 32bit file to a viewable 16 or 8 bit image you are selectively reducing the dynamic range but selecting bins across the range to give a good approximation of the data in the scene.

magicbastarder

yep, it's not HDR, it's just dodging and burning with knobs on.
and i much prefer the original.

LeoB

I only started to play with this H.D.R a few weeks ago and find its not suitable for everything.

My personal preference and where I think it works best is where you have some nice clouds in a scene and or some water. That said I really like the motorbike shot above.

I use photomatrix and find it good to play around with. It is sooo easy to go overboard and I much prefer the medium setting

Of the 3 images below I think #1 works ok but the other2 are slightly over done? Esp #3
Rush Harbour Co. Dublin
[EMAIL="%3Ca%20href="][/EMAIL]">

Drummanagh and Martello tower Rush
[EMAIL="%3Ca%20href="][/EMAIL]">

Rogerstown Estuary Rush
[EMAIL="%3Ca%20href="][/EMAIL]">

Abelloid

Sorry, I think they're all overdone, to the point where they look like they're printed on foil.

5uspect

Sorry, but I have to agree, they're awful.

nilhg

I know I've said this before here but if you want HDR that doesn't look like "HDR" then it's hard to pass LR/Enfuse.

If on the other hand you want that "look" then photomatix et al are the way to go.

magicbastarder

LeoB wrote: »

Of the 3 images below I think #1 works ok but the other2 are slightly over done? Esp #3

they all look unreal.

chisel

HDR is a polariser - and I don't mean of light!!


LR enfuse is very good for non HDR HDR as nihlg says above. Maybe better described as a blended exposure. However, although its not to everyone's taste the "overcooked" HDRs are here to stay, and can be very effective. Its a technique well worth tricking about with and learning.

Enfuse et al are excellent for situations where there is a big range - say where there's bright sky and dark foreground. Its really works well in those areas.

LeoB

JustinOval wrote: »

Sorry, I think they're all overdone, to the point where they look like they're printed on foil.

Its a matter of taste? I think. I like #1 but would not be gone on the other 2 that I posted. I would probably agree they are over done but I thought that was the idea behind H.D.R

5uspect wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to agree, they're awful.

No problem. I disagree

nilhg wrote: »

I know I've said this before here but if you want HDR that doesn't look like "HDR" then it's hard to pass LR/Enfuse.

If on the other hand you want that "look" then photomatix et al are the way to go.

Photomatrix it is, With a good bit of experimtation.....

magicbastarder wrote: »

they all look unreal.

#1 is pretty close to what I saw.

chisel wrote: »

However, although its not to everyone's taste the "overcooked" HDRs are here to stay, and can be very effective. Its a technique well worth tricking about with and learning.

This is it. I would not be a huge fan of H.D.R but think in some situations it can work well. It would take someone like me,relativly inexperienced, a while to really get to grips with this.

I also agree "overcooked" H.D.R is here to stay. I have a lot of tricking about to do.

Without going off in a tangent isnt this the beauty of photography where we agree or disagree on a particular aspect or style of photography.

Thanks for the feedback

KylieWyley

chisel wrote: »

HDR is a polariser - and I don't mean of light!!

HDR, the marmite of photography.

Borderfox

This is hdr, I use it to get to black and white. One thing I have noticed about HDR is a lot tend to look washed out, this is a dead giveaway and you need to reintroduce contrast. Colours are usually a bit mad and this is why I go to black and white. Processed using photoshop (camera raw) and photomatix and converted with Nik Slvr efx pro


This one too, 1dmk3 24-70 7 shot spread 0.5 ev. I wanted and repeatable way of going to black and white even in flat skies

GhostInTheRuins

LeoB wrote: »

#1 is pretty close to what I saw.

Seriously if I saw that kind of scene I'd be scared that the end of the world was near :pac:

condra

Leo B, with all due respect, I think you will find that around 9 out of 10 people will tell you that your HDR examples there are completely overdone. They don't look like photographs anymore. There is too much contrast and haloing. They look aggressively photoshopped, which is tacky in most peoples eyes.

Personally, my favourite HDR photos are SUBTLE, like these examples I found on google:







Just my 2 cents

Hecklar

I hate HDR with a passion, but shot 2 is a cracking pic Condra.

condra

Hecklar wrote: »

I hate HDR with a passion....

I hate extreme HDR, but I don't usually like any extreme post processing. When done in a subtle, useful way, I think HDR can be just another technique for getting better colour or more detail. People have been mixing exposures and making composites in varying ways for a long time already.

Agreed about the second pic. Very stark and engaging portrait.

Adrian.Sadlier

These shots are at different ends of the HDR spectrum. Both turned out the way I wanted. Its a question of taste (or lack of it - its up to you)

line6

when you look at a scene your eye takes a series of snapshots of that scene - adjusting the pupil accordingly for brighter and darker areas

the brain then processes those snapshots and puts the whole thing together as an image

the only difference in this respect, between hdr and what you see, is motion - the eye does this constantly on the fly and gives you a moving image

this is one reason why it is so difficult to capture what you are seeing with a single exposure

hdr makes it possible to get nearer to what YOU are seeing, rather than what the camera is seeing

magicbastarder

line6 wrote: »

hdr makes it possible to get nearer to what YOU are seeing, rather than what the camera is seeing

yes, but the brain is used to this effect while looking at a real scene, but not having it done already for it in a HDR pic, which is why it can look horrendous.

Cook my sock

have only ever done one hdr just to see what was involved in doing it, I think it turned out ok, not overcooked, but theres not many times I would do it personally!
Here's the picture.

LeoB

condra wrote: »

Leo B, with all due respect, I think you will find that around 9 out of 10 people will tell you that your HDR examples there are completely overdone. They don't look like photographs anymore. There is too much contrast and haloing. They look aggressively photoshopped, which is tacky in most peoples eyes.

Personally, my favourite HDR photos are SUBTLE, like these examples I found on google:







Just my 2 cents

Make no mistake about it, 9 out 10 dont like them and thats fine by me. But I do think #1 is ok.
I have only used photomatix a few times and do think it works well in some conditions. My favourite scenes would be around water and skies and this is where I have seen some very good shots, mainly B & W. I hope by other people posting images here people like me will learn how to use it more effectivly.

Your #2 shot above is excellent

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

These shots are at different ends of the HDR spectrum Both turned out the way I wanted. Its a question of taste (or lack of it - its up to you)

Taste and thats what it really boils down to. I like both of your images.

If I may throw in a question and maybe again its taste but what value incriments should I use when taking shots I may use in H.D.R, should I use 1 Stop, 1/3 or 1/2 stop +/-?

Great feedback. THANKYOU.

Borderfox

Use as small a stop as possible, the 1dmk3 allows 7 shots and I generally use 1/3rd of a stop between to minimise noise, I shoot 2/3rds to 1 full stop above anyway

Adrian.Sadlier

A very good site on HDR, with some great examples of its use, reviews of products etc. is www.stuckincustoms.com

condra

Borderfox wrote: »

Use as small a stop as possible, the 1dmk3 allows 7 shots and I generally use 1/3rd of a stop between to minimise noise, I shoot 2/3rds to 1 full stop above anyway

FWIW, I've read that 3 images (+/- 2 stops) is usually recommended.

pete4130

condra wrote: »

FWIW, I've read that 3 images (+/- 2 stops) is usually recommended.

From experience, the more images you use, the broader your Dynamic range, the less noise you have and the more seemless/less HDR images look. I've shot the same scenes using 3, 5, 7 and 9 bracketed shots all +/-1 and the more images you can bracket in, the better the final outcome is for the image.

Shooting 3 images at +/-2 technically has the same DR and shooting 5 images at +/-1. In reality, the HDR shot with 5 images at +/-1 will have more tonal information as it doesn't have to stretch information from 5 images as much as it has more of a tonal range between the images as opposed to the 3 image HDR.

Even the difference between 7 & 9 Image HDR's is noticeable.

Promac

More chance of motion blur though - you'd have to be very selectived with the subject matter or just really quick!

I know it's not the same thing but the Shadows/Highlights tool in photoshop is great for pulling more range out of a single image - if used sparingly of course.

Never got great results from the HDR simulator though. Always comes out over-baked.

Necronomicon

Is there any half-decent free HDR software? I downloaded a trial of Photomatix and experimented, I liked (some!) of the results. I have Elements 9 and I've been looking for HDR tutorials using it, but my post-processing skills leave a little to be desired.

Here's the first thing that came out of experimenting with Photomatix, C&C very welcome: