Edges in HDR

<p>Hi,<br>

I did some work on the attached image - did an HDR from three bracketed shots.<br>

I still see red edges around curtains in the room, how can I get rid of that?<br>

Also, how can this image look better, more real, perhaps? I like the saturated look on this one, though<br>

Thanks</p><div></div>

<p>Did you use Photoshop HDR?<br>

I prefer Photomatix (it is easier for me). <br>

I would load all 3 images as layers and mask each one for a more "normal appearance" and possibly just adjust Saturation via another layer.</p>

<p>The saturated look, and "more real" are mutually exclusive objectives.<br /><br />The most distracting - among many - of the artifacts in those results is the change in the outdoor light from left to right. The trees on the left are wildly too bright, while the trees out the right window appear to be socked in fog. Which might be realistic (say, an approaching thunderstorm or something), but the halo around the tree boundaries - which makes them appear to be causing the air near them to glow - is so heavy-handed that there's no chance of if feeling realistic. I'd also do what you can to prevent any of that layering from impacting the textiles in the foreground.<br /><br />The purple fringing on the curtains is the sort of CA (common with brightly back-it hard edges, with some lenses) that you should fix <em>before</em> combining images together. If nothing else, you could just mask that area and desaturate the magentas, to make it less noticeable. But I really think that's splitting hairs, since the whole scene feels so false. That scene really is one where you'd be better off choosing a time of day when you can balance the room light with the exterior light - or, add light to the room with a bounced flash so you can keep the whole thing under better control. It will look a lot more natural.</p>

<p>Another word is "<a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm">contradiction</a>".<br /> The rule here, and not only for HDR, but especially for HDR, is almost always:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>If you can tell it's been done, it's almost certainly overdone.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> In the old days, there was a time when fisheye lens or mirror lens pictures were really cool. Nowadays, most of those images look terribly dated.<br /> A few years ago, many photography and other magazines had covers with neon-edged HDR images - its time, however, has already come and gone.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Thanks, all.<br>

I know the neon-edged HDR images are passe. The hotel owner wanted the distant hills and trees in the picture and unfortunately I could only shoot at mid day owing to the room's availability.<br>

Here's another non-HDR image of the same room. Didn't use flash in this one.<br>

I used off camera flash bounced off the ceiling for other rooms in the hotel. Attaching a sample here.<br>

Some of the images were shot at 640 ISO - how much noise reduction and sharpening is needed for such kind of interior (Non-HDR) images? I don't like to sharpen my landscape and other pics as much but guess interior spaces have to look a bit sharper?<br>

Thanks</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the pic of the other room lit by off camera flash bounced off the ceiling.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can tell it's been done, it's almost certainly overdone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you can't tell it's been done, what's the point? <br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/145203491/large.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/140862856/large.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/148805889/original.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>If I can't impart some sort of <em>look </em>(for lack of a better word) through HDR which is not otherwise normally obtainable, why would I bother with it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I can't impart some sort of <em>look </em>(for lack of a better word) through HDR which is not otherwise normally obtainable, why would I bother with it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it useful to extend the dynamic range of an older sensor to something nearing what I used to expect when shooting film. I strive for it to be unnoticeable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it useful to extend the dynamic range of an older sensor to something nearing what I used to expect when shooting film. I strive for it to be unnoticeable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the goal, I'm more likely to use layer blending and omit HDR software altogether. Most of my HDR work involves layer blends too since I nearly always combine one or more frames from the bracketed set with the HDR render.<br /> I guess my thinking is that I <em>like</em> for there to be some surreal qualities in my HDR stuff, sometimes subtle, sometimes not.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/143918245/large.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="504" /><br>

Couldn't find this one when I posted earlier...</p>

What's the point? As these photos are for a client to use to get a potential customer's interest in renting from them, the

look in his first two photos may not be very effective because people want to know what their room will actually look like,

not some abstract over processed version of it.

 

What might work better is to combine the sections of the photos that have a perceptually realistic look for the outside and

the inside of the room.

 

Yes this means working with layers and masks in Photoshop. Hopefully you shot raw and not JPEG.

 

The goal is to an an image that appeals to the emotions. Ask yourself when doing this kind of advertising shoot: do these

photos make this place look like somewhere I want to go? Is this room a room I want to wake up in?

The use of any technique is only appropriate when it is in service of the a desired end result, whether you as an individual

or you or a client are defining the desired end result.

<p>Ellis, thanks for steering the thread back on topic. Sorry I nearly hijacked it with my posts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I can't impart some sort of <em>look </em>(for lack of a better word) through HDR which is not otherwise normally obtainable, why would I bother with it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps because you want to recover the dynamic range visible to the human eye, but not to the film nor sensor?</p>

<p>If a "look" is what you want, why not go all the way and do completely computer-generated images? Reality is so limiting, isn't it?.~</p>

<p>If you love the "glow" by all means stick with it. You can also wear all the make-up you want and have green hair, no one is stopping you, really.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can also wear all the make-up you want and have green hair...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you've seen my facebook page? </p>

<p>Thanks, Ellis and Howard.<br>

I submitted all pictures to the client a few days ago. I didn't have time to do much multi RAW processing by hand so I just used the saturated/photorealistic presets in Merge to HDR Pro, and then tweaked the sliders again in Camera Raw.<br>

Some pics came out a lot more natural looking.<br>

Thanks for your help.</p>