HDR images

Hello Pentaxians,

 

I am a dedicated Pentax user for last 15 years. I follow this forum regularly. I

have been reading about HDR imaging for last couple of weeks. I find it

exciting. I did not see any photo or comment about it in this forum. I made some

HDR images with my ist DL files. Just wondering whether anyone has any thought

(or photo).

Best,

Subho<div></div>

While that is a beautiful scene, I personally am not a fan of HDR. Most HDR images look like really good video game graphics to me.

I find the whole idea VERY intriguing, although I must admit I didn't realize it was called HDR (High Dynamic Range) when I first began reading about. In the most recent issue of PC Photo, there is an article regarding Double Exposure using Photoshop, but the idea of using 3 bracketed photos to show all the shadows and highlights seems like a great idea depending upon the type of photos you're talking about (particularly landscape photos, IMHO). In case you haven't seen this great article, here's a link. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

 

I'll be trying this technique in the future! Good job on yours!

Subho could you let us know what tools did you use to create this HDR image?

matt would have to tell you which issue of rangefinder it was, that had an article on

HDR images. The guy the article is about took post-Katrina New Orleans photos.

They looked like sketches out of a comic book, but it was really fascinating...

PS - I like the pic. I really like that the details are not lost in the highlights, and the

shadows still pop out w/o overwhelming the image.

That is a well done HDR, Subho. HDR is unlike sex in that, when it's bad, it is NOT better than nothing. In the wrong hands it turns cartoonish, but that's what some people like!

HDR always makes me feel as if I just put glasses on and improved my sight all of a sudden. In my opinion photographic images do not neccesarily have to be a 100% realistic copy of 'reality'. And so, you came up with a very nice and attractive picture. I would like to see more....

i haven't tried HDR yet, but have seen some that I loved, a ton that I just liked and a few that fall in Mis's bad/block it from memory category. I guess it's also a bit like sex though, in that it won't get good without practice! ;-)

 

I like your image here, btw...

Wow

 

That is one of the first HDR images I've seen where the photog hasn't gone overboards with the effects. What program do you use? I have photomatix, but it seems to induce a helluva lot of noise.

 

Mis

 

Is good HDR like a threesome ? We've already used the "master of my domain" from Seinfeld, maybe it's time for a "Ménage à trois" challenge?

 

:-)

 

Fredrik

Thank you guys and gals for those nice comments. Generally I use a set of 5 or 7 pics (-2 EV to +2 EV). I use photomatix basic version to generate the HDR. Its a freeware :-) Final curve, level adjustment is done with PS CS2. I am still learning HDR. I would like to make panorama HDRs. Thanks again.<div></div>

Yup, I use the the free version of Photomatix too, but I haven't done anything that

I've really impressed myself with. Still trying to figure out if I'm gonna pony up the

cash for the full version.

 

One concept that I don't get is the 'That's not the way my eye would see it'

argument. Our eyes are highly dynamic devices, and try as we may we cannot

capture photographs that look 'just as the eye would.'

 

I shoot scenes all the time where I get yellow and red blinkies in the same frame

where my eye could still distinguish details in both areas. HDR stacks and higher

dynamic ranges on our sensors are tools to capture more of what our eyes see.

 

On the other hand, many of the awesome things that we see in astrophotography are

things we cannot see because they are too faint (although some are captured with

IR, gamma, x-ray, and other specialized sensors). Many nebule and galaxies look

bigger than the moon from the surface of the earth, but we have to leave the shutter

open for several minutes to gather enough light to see it. You'd be amazed what

kind of stuff with fill the frame with a 200-400mm lens if you can just keep your

camera aligned to the same spot in the sky long enough.

 

Nobody ever looks at a Horse Head Nebula photograph and complains that 'it doesn't

look like my eye would have seen it'...

"Nobody ever looks at a Horse Head Nebula photograph and complains that 'it doesn't look like my eye would have seen it'..."

 

Word.

Agree - what do the 'as the eye sees only' proponents say about black and white photography? I too work on landscapes I make with Photomatix Pro - usually 3 exposures 2 stops apart - the K10D makes this very easy to do. In this one the colours are real, but this range of tones won't come out of just one shot.<div></div>

HDR=High Dynamic Range photography

to do hdr-

if you put camera into full auto matrix metering, take first shot note fstop and shutter speed. put camera into full manual, see if camera still has the matrix fstop and shutter speed. if yes, then using shutter speed go up 2-4 shutter speeds 1 fstop worth of shutter speed at a time. the back to matrix shutter speed and go down same number of shutter speeds.

christian bloch in his hdri handbook did a test of 1 fstop bracketing vs 2fstop bracketing. there was an obvious image quality falloff using the 2fstop bracketing. if the image quality decline in 2stop bracketing is acceptable to you then use the 2 stop. 1 stop is recommended for max image quality, though of course it needed more shots.

this is on a tripod with cable release.

no, you should not use 1 raw shot and convert 1 stop up and down, because their is not enough dynamic range in the 1 raw shot. dynamic range is why we are doing this, hdr is trying to get all it can. If you use a single raw shot and triple convert it, you still end up with no more DR than the single raw shot.

the group of shots can be raw or jpeg. if jpeg they can be used as is. if raw remember that you HAVE to batch process all 3-9(?) shots. this is because the pp has to be all the same on every pic. you cannot, for example make any attempt to get the shadow details of the group of raw pics, because that would require different amounts of pp, and you cannot do that with hdr. the pp for all shots has to be identical.

for me i just shoot them in jpeg and use them from the camera, that way they are all identical because the camera jpeg settings are the same for every shot. i also put my hand streched in front of the lens and take a check shot and when done take a ending shot with hand. this tells me where the hdr group is on my memory card when i transfer to the pc.

the only important item is to bracket using shutter speeds only. if fstops are used it changes dof between shots. and shoot enough shots, 3-9(?) is the optimum. the only other thought is to shoot a scene that deserves the the hdr technique, too many people are shooting hdr because it is new or different or whatever. many people are using hdr software on scenes that do not have enough dynamic range; they end up with images that have been enhanced by hdr software, they are not hdr images. the dynamic range was not in the scene to begin with. the scene for hdr should have a very wide dynamic range. this can be checked with a spotmeter on different areas. NOTE: use of auto bracketing on a camera may not work unless you know the bracketing is using the shutter speeds to bracket. in any event, you really need 3-9(?) shots for hdr; this is more than the auto bracket fcn on almost all cameras. and the bracketing has to be both sides of the middle shot. make you use enough brackets to cover the previously checked dynamic range. it does little good to bracket for a 10stop dynamic range when the scene has 14stops.

and the scene should have no movement, if so the item will blur in the hdr image.

do not adjust the focus. set the focus on infinity or use a hyperfocal setup for focus.

do not adjust the white balance for individual shots. go with awb or 1 setting and do not change it.

remember, hdr was created and meant for scene that have a dynamic range that exceeds the dynamic range of the camera sensor, about 5-6stops for jpeg or 7-9 for raw. hdr with the required software allows the user to capture a scene that has very high dynamic range.

I currently use Dynamic-Photo HDR and recommend it. Less than � the price of photomatrix and it has 6 different looks, (the photomatrix look is included), and each of the 6 looks can be fine tuned. Get Dynamic-Photo hdr here-http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html; also included is a program that is part of DP hdr that can make a fake hdr look image from a jpeg.

pp. after the hdri is made and is in a folder, i open in pe6. there i use noise ninja(to reduce noise), auto levels(to give a normal overall brightness amount), and focus magic(to sharpen and give a better focus. also is focus magic is used do not sharpen at all, that is double sharpening and is guerenteed to make artifacts.). save as tiff. DO NOT USE AUTO CONTRAST OR ANY OTHER CONTRAST ADJUSTMENT. that is what you just did in the hdr software. also do not adjust any shadows or bright areas. the point of hdr is to let the shooting of multiple shots and the hdr software combining of those shots take care of the dark areas and bright areas.

 

 

 

As Alisa said, I also find the idea intriguing but I have seen so many heavy-handed attempts with extreme haloing and unrealistic colours that I am hesitant to embrace it. Peter's image above "Waitpinga Rocks - 3 exposure HDR" is an excellent example of what happens when you get it right. I am not ready to invest in software specifically for HDR but I will definitely try it out this summer. Images like this mid day iceberg shot could have benefitted from HDR.