HDR Programs and Uses

[tylerwind]

I've been investigating HDR for some time now and have learned a lot about it.

I've been thinking I might go ahead and get a program and start giving it a

real effort. I wanted to get some input on a couple of questions before I do:

 

1. From what I understand, my options for HDR are Photomatix (which costs $99)

or getting a plug-in for Photoshop (and I think there may be a way to do it in

PS but it's more difficult and time consuming?). I have heard Photomatix is

the only one that allows you to use 3 different exposures from a RAW file,

which I find often is better than 3 different exposures because of movement of

the camera or any object in the scene. Are there any other programs out there?

I just wanted to be sure I have all the info before I make a purchase...I hate

spending money on software so wanted to double check before I buy Photomatix.

 

2. Do many of you find HDR useful in making realistic photographs? Let me

explain what I mean--a lot of HDR images I see look almost fake...kind of like

a drawing or painting. This is NOT necessarily bad, so please don't be

offended if you like producing these images. I also find them attractive but I

personally like a shot that looks more normal. I see on a few HDR pages they

have examples of shots that look very normal and are drastically improved with

HDR--to be honest, I look at them and just think there is wonderful lighting

and don't look at it and immediately think "Oh, that's definitely HDR." Do you

guys find HDR has much use, assuming you want the pictures to look realistic?

 

I did a trail picture with Photomatix...attached to this post is the original

shot and the next post will have the HDR. I was pretty pleased with the result

and thought it looked pretty "realistic." What do you guys think? Keep in mind

too that I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE how to do tone mapping...I just made it

spit out a picture without doing adjustments.

 

Thanks for the help!

[tylerwind]

Here is my HDR attempt--I'd love to hear some thoughts from objective people. I know this photo isn't great--it was just suitable for an HDR example.

[tylerwind]

Just wanted to double check and make sure of something--you can only get Photomatix off the web for $99, right? Just wanted to make sure it wasn't being sold anywhere else for a better price. Thanks!

[phule]

<<I have heard Photomatix is the only one that allows you to use 3 different exposures from a RAW file>>

 

Just to clarify, generating 3 images from the same RAW file is not HDR. HDR incorporates producing an image with a dynamic range that cannot be captured by a single RAW file.

[tylerwind]

Rob--I'm a bit confused by that. So, obviously photomatix allows you to do this but you are saying it is not a true HDR? (so, it's really just a definition difference?) The way I made my HDR above was to make 3 "developings" from a single RAW file--one at -2, one at +2, and one as shot. I guess this is 3 "developings" and not 3 "exposures" but what is the difference? I've heard they aren't quite the same (not sure how they differ...if you do please enlighten me!) but if I shoot a shot as metered, then another at -2. Then, I get home and convert the as metered RAW file to a JPEG and develop it at -2, won't the underdeveloped from the as metered RAW file be pretty close to the -2 exposure I took in the field? If not, how will these 2 images differ? I guess this leads to the bigger question which I don't have a firm grasp on which is this: "Why is it not ideal to adjust your exposure on a RAW shot?" Are adjustments just not quite the same quality (and if so, in what way are they inferior?) as the same exposure taken in the field? Thanks for the help and education!

[tylerwind]

I see I got to rambling a little bit in my last response...sorry! Let me clarify and be more concise:

 

You got out and shoot a shot at -2, 0, and +2. You get home and use those 3 files to make an HDR image. You then take the "0" shot produce a -2 and +2 from your RAW file and use those to make a (pseudo)-HDR image. How will the 2 end results differ? Will they be pretty much the same? Will the true HDR have better contrast? Sharpness? Clarity? Will you only see a difference when you print them? Thanks so much for all the help!

[phule]

<<but what is the difference?>>

 

The difference is that developing 3 images from one single RAW file doesn't get you any more information than you already had. You're just massaging the same information.

 

HDR is about capturing more information than you can with a single image. It's specifically about incorporating information from multiple (and different) exposures into one image file.

[tylerwind]

I understand...but, doesn't "massaging" the information from one RAW file sometimes produce a more pleasing picture with a greater (properly exposed) range? Do you lose any quality when you combine 3 developings from a single RAW file? Or, can you get the same print size as if you printed the original file? Thanks so much for the help, Rob (and anyone else who would like to chime in)!

[emre]

>> Do you lose any quality when you combine 3 developings from a single RAW file?

 

No, but you do not gain any either.

 

>> Or, can you get the same print size as if you printed the original file?

 

Yes, if you are adept with Photoshop.

 

Rob's last explanation was quite succinct.

[alan_olander1664878205]

The shadow areas of an image have much less "data" than do areas in the midtones and highlights. (This is why "expose to the right" is often recommended.) You don't gain any data if you change the exposure in RAW, you just move it around. An in camera exposure that placed the shadows in the middle areas or higher of the histogram, would have much more data associated with it. By shooting your scene with different exposures, you give each area, shadow through highlight, much more information to work with.

[tylerwind]

Thanks to all for the help. Alan--that was an excellent explanation and helps me understand things a lot better. Ok, so now I understand why 3 in camera exposures are better than 3 from a single RAW file. But, if you don't have 3, is using a RAW file to make 3 "bad" in any way? Take my example above--I think few people would disagree that my pseudo-HDR improved that shot immensely. What I'm trying to ask is, are there drawbacks to using "HDR" with 3 exposures from a single RAW file OR, is that just not as good as if you had 3 in camera exposures? Although the shadows and highlights will not have ALL the information in a single RAW file that 3 exposures would, you can IMPROVE the detail in the shadows and highlights but using 3 exposures from a RAW file, right?

 

To sum that up, from what I understand, if you have a high dymanic range shot you have 3 options:

1) The best is an HDR from 3 separate in camera exposures

2) Although it lacks the detail in the shadows and highlights, an "HDR" with 3 exposures from a single RAW file can substantially improve the shot

3) Any original file will be an impossible exposure and not be as pleasing as either of the options above.

 

So, an HDR type image from a single RAW file will give you a better result than the original, but the amount of detail you can show for the shadows and highlights will not be equal to what you have with 3 in camera exposures.

[mendel_leisk]

I hear the Adobe Camera Raw with CS3 has some sort of shadow enhancing.

[wisp]

In response to Alan: "The shadow areas of an image have much less "data" than do areas in the midtones and highlights. (This is why "expose to the right" is often recommended.) You don't gain any data if you change the exposure in RAW, you just move it around. An in camera exposure that placed the shadows in the middle areas or higher of the histogram, would have much more data associated with it. By shooting your scene with different exposures, you give each area, shadow through highlight, much more information to work with."

 

I don't think this is quite right. I have been experimenting with CS2 a bit - not specifically in HDR, but in trying to figure out why, with some of my photos, it insists on the automatic settings of - exposure and + brightness, when to my eye - the shot looks exactly the same if I turn both off. I was playing with this the other day and happened to have the 'highlight highlights' feature on in the RAW import - the - exposure, + brightness option had DRAMATICALLY fewer blown hightlights than the option of leaving both the exposure and brightness as shot. I am now in the habit of listening to photoshop when it adjusts the exposure in this way.

 

My take away from this with regard to HDR is that the sensor may have greater dynamic range than the 8-bit file that it defaults to (changing the bit depth to 16 has absolutely no effect on this), so although it may not produce as dramatic an effect as with 3 truly separate exposures, there may be some validity to performing HDR with 3 'developings' of a RAW file.

[tylerwind]

Thank you again for the responses! Joshua--I tend to agree with what you have to say. I can see where there is almost certainly more image information in 3 truly separate RAW exposures but in the same breath would say that based on my very limited experience it also seems that there is much detail to be gained from the shadows and highlights of a single RAW file by using HDR with 3 RAW "developings." (perhaps the image will not equal that of 3 separate exposures, but it will be much improved) To me, the example image above that I posted proves this point because it is drastically improved throughout the complete range of the photo with HDR--perhaps not "as much" improved as it would be with an HDR from 3 separate exposures, but it is substantially more pleasing. Am I missing something? Thanks again for the help!

[jlkphoto]

"Am I missing something?"

 

Yes. You're missing what your own eyes and mind are telling you. If you like the result of what you've done with 3 "developments" of 1 RAW file, then you're done!

 

In fact, if you take a series of 5 or 7 or 9 images from very dark to very light and run them through HDR software, THAT is when you'll get the strange artificial look of a drawing or painting.

 

I often use only 2 "developments" of 1 RAW file to increase the apparent dynamic range of an image and depending on the image, it can look great.

 

Experiment! Ignore the "experts!"

 

Have fun....

[tylerwind]

Thank you, Jeff. That was great! I just wanted to be sure there was no "problem" with what I was doing. By that I mean that I wasn't creating an image that I could never print because it would lack detail and resolution in certain areas or something like that. It's obvious to me there is an advantage to using it for 1 RAW file (I haven't tried multiple in camera exposures) so I was confused as to why many people are against it and it is not more widely used. I most say in all honesty that if you take the picture above that I posted of the shrimp boat, the HDR image I created is MUCH closer to the reality I saw (pretty good recreation, actually), while every exposure I took (I did bracket that shot, although I didn't use them for HDR) stunk and looked nothing like even what my eye saw. From what you said and what I've seen and experienced myself, using 1 RAW file may work wonderfully for me because it will allow me to have a bit more dynamic range that in my experience create a MORE life-like recreation of what I saw than using widely bracketed, separate exposures which create the "artificial" look that I find interesting, but not what I want all of my shots to look like. Many people say that with HDR you can create "more than the eye can see"--I don't really want to do that, I just want to create EXACTLY what the eye can see...if I shoot a sunrise at the beach if I expose the sun exactly how MY eye sees it, the sand it black. I think my method will give you closer to what you actually see. I don't want the HDR shot in that example to look like 2 exposures--one of the sky and one of the sand. I want the sky properly exposed to look like what I see and then some detail in the foreground, again, just like my eye can capture. Basically, I want this to serve much the same purpose as a graduated neutral density filter for me--I think that is often my goal here. Thanks for chiming in with that--I appreciate your response. Any further thoughts are appreciated!

[tylerwind]

I have been doing some searching and found the following review on flickr.com by simonov. I found in interesting and pretty much exactly what I want to do...I think I really want DRI (Dynamic Range Increase) and not true HDR. Now, the only question becomes--do I need Photomatix or can I do everything with Photoshop? If Photomatix is a good resource, do I get the plugin for PS or the solo software program? I'm leaning towards getting both for $109 (ie-the plug-in is only $10 more than the program) Any advice is appreciated!

 

Quoting simonov:

"I have been very intrigued lately by high dynamic range (HDR) and Dynamic Range Increase (DRI) photography, and have followed with interest the debate raging hereabouts over whether much or most of the "HDR" photos posted on Flickr really are "true" HDR.

 

I tend to agree with the pedantic camp, if for no other reason than because I believe words have meaning and it should be pretty clear that there is not enough information in a single exposure to generate a high dynamic range image. DRI, which lays no claim to a very wide dynamic range, makes more sense. I also agree that most of the HDR on Flickr looks surreal if not comical and, after a while, pretty much all of a type.

 

But my interest in HDR/DRI is as its use as a practical tool for trying to show, in a single photograph, more of what our eyes and brains see when we take in a scene. Our brains can simultaneously process information in shadows as well as highlights, something a (typical) camera cannot do, though theoretically digital technology should allows this someday.

 

So while I'm waiting for my copy of Photoshop CS, with its HDR feature, to arrive, I thought I would play a little with levels and curves and layers to create DRI or "faux" HDR images in Photoshop v7. Taking a cue from the tutorial here:

 

www.flickr.com/photos/cleever/255026221/

 

He takes a JPEG and uses curves to produced three "bracket" exposures, then throws everything into Photomatix for "instant HDR." Of course, he admits this is not really HDR, but it gave me an idea for very quickly producing a single image using Photoshop (I don't have Photomatix and really don't want it) with highlight and shadow details preserved.

 

Maybe old hat to most of you, but in the old days I would have spent a lot of time making masks and stuff."

[tylerwind]

Better yet, even more searching has revealed True Tone High Dynamic Range (TTHDR) on flickr.com.

 

Here is a quick quote describing the goal and what is and is not TTHDR: "Anything telltale of an HDR algorithm or process I try to catch and remove, as the point of this group is to demonstrate dynamic range capabilities that are indistinguishable from a single exposure, or what the eye may have seen."

 

I want to produce a high dynamic range but at the same time one that is indistinguishable from what the eye may have seen, not something that looks "solarized or cartoonish." (that is another quote from flickr.com)

 

Just wanted to share this information I found during my research, as I felt it may be of interest and value to those of you who have been kind enough to read and/or respond and also those who search this topic in the future.

[tylerwind]

Ok, forget reading all this and just go to this website:

 

http://petemc.net/hdr-guide/

 

That site answers EVERY question I have about HDR and then some! Everything from which softwares, definitions, using the software, examples, tone mapping, you name it! It is one of the most concise articles I've read on anything in photography. If you have any interest in HDR I highly suggest you read this. There are also links throughout the article and at the bottom for even further reading. A few important points that were clarified:

 

1. 3 RAW images are better than 1 RAW/3 developings because of the increase in information BUT, the difference is usually minimal and depends on the dynamic range. If you have really, really dark shadows 3 RAWs will be superior but if you are just trying to pull out a little shadow and tone down a highlight 1 RAW appears to work just fine. The difference seems to be an increase in noise.

 

2. HDR programs, if used correctly, do NOT have to produce the cartoonish, over the top images we sometimes see. Instead, they can be used to show MUCH CLOSER to what our eye can see than any other type of photography. It has been successfully demonstrated to me that if used correctly in the right situation, it is THE MOST realistic shot you can obtain. As an example, point your camera at the rising sun and snap whatever exposure you want...you must either wash out the highlights or make everything around the sun shadows. This isn't at all what your eye sees. But, with HDR you can get much, much closer.

 

3. People like to argue over what is HDR and what is not. For me, I don't care but I want people to look at my photos and think they are realistic--that is all. I do NOT want a photo where someone glances and says "Oh, that's one of those HDR cartoon shots." Call it what you want: High Dynamic Range, Dynamic Range Increase, True Tone High Dynamic Range, Pseudo-High Dynamic Range, Faux High Dynamic Range, etc.--I've seen all of those titles but in the end, the only thing I'm concerned about is the end result. Is the image pleasing and does it appear realistic? (often even more realistic than any of image you could have created without HDR)

 

I had been scared away from HDR because I didn't want "funny" looking pictures. But, I've been shown that it can be a great tool for replacing a graduated filter and for reproducing a BETTER representation of what your eye saw when you looked through the lens. I think I'm going to invest in Photomatix and start learning when and how to do this right. Thanks for the help, information, and guidance. Hope my postings were of assistance to you guys as well! I'm always open to further thoughts and comments!

[alan_olander1664878205]

Joshua and Tyler,

 

If you want a better explanation of what I was trying to get across, read the first part of "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Frazer about "Exposure and Linear Capture".

[tylerwind]

Alan--Thanks again! I'll try to check out that part of the book you mentioned. From what I've read, I do not disagree with your comment at all. I do think there is MORE information to work with if you have 3 RAW files but on the other hand, I also agree that you can make a better image from a single RAW file. In other words, I can get more detail out of the highlights and shadows with 3 RAW files but if I only have one, I can still IMPROVE the detail in the highlights and shadows. The difference between the 2 gets greater as the dynamic range gets larger. In other words, if your shot has a range of 2 stops, 3 RAW files and 1 RAW file HDR will give close to the same image. However, if you have 5 stops, then the 3 RAW file HDR image will be superior. I think it boils down to this--if you have to really underexpose the highlights from your shot on the computer or really overexpose your shadows, you will get progressively more noise. Slight alterations on the computer are fine, but the larger the exposure alteration the more noise and the more benefit 3 RAW files would be. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks again!

[phxmark123]

I'm new to RAW shooting but I understood that a RAW capture was from image to sensor. That no camera controls were accepted. All controls, like exposure ect. were done with the software. So why would anybody take 3 exposures. Excuse my stupidity if I am wrong, like I said I am new to RAW. Thanks

[jlkphoto]

Mark, depending upon the scene, a single raw capture cannot "see" the full dynamic range.

 

The way around this is to capture an exposure for the shadows, another for the highlights, and maybe a third to get the best exposure of the mid-tones. Some people take way more than 3 captures just to get the best exposures (and least noise) across the scene.

 

Then you use the HDR software to combine the full range or whatever combination looks best.

[phxmark123]

Jeff, After doing some practicing today I see what you mean. Some of my shots I could get landscape details but the contrasting clouds were difficult. Thanks. I will work on multiple exposures.

[john_burgreen]

I use 7-exposures to make these HDR <a href=http://www.hdrjapan.com/>Japan Pictures</a>