HDR

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>I have just upgraded my software, It wil allow me to do HDR images, The software is the NIK Software HDR Pro,<br>

Question to get th ebest results from this software (what i mean by best results is an image that is not overly difinable as an HDR image ie looks really fake) what compensation should is best used when bracketing? Would you be best served by normal exposure and then bracketing 2 shot at -1ev and -2ev. I know it wil depend on the scene luminance range , but as a general rule is there a method to this.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>i dont think the result of the over process HDR that whe see is due to how well or not you have make the bracketing.. i think it is just a matter of ... over processing ; )</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I agree with Patrick. The "really fake" look is from not spending enough time learning how to be subtle with the HDR program's controls.</p>

<p>You bracket based on what kind of scene you have. Your camera's exposure meter will pretty much handle the "easy" part of the scene, all the mid tones. If you have small, intense highlights (candle flames, interior lights in an architectural shot, small bits of glare off ice, a sunset) then bracket some in the - direction. If you have a "blinking highlights" option, you can use that to determine if you've bracketed enough.</p>

<p>If you have small dark areas, shadow detail between leaves or on one side of tree trunks, bracket some in the + direction. You might spot meter a shadow, or get close to one to meter "into" it, to figure out how many stops +.</p>

<p>In general, you'll probably have the most luck doing both + and - bracketing, like 5 shots, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2.</p>

[ken_rowland2]

As you noted, the luminance range will determine the number of brackets, but generally speaking +2, 0, -2 will work. The key to using

Nik HDR Efex Pro and getting realistic results is to carefully use the presets and the associated sliders. You can make numerous

minor adjustments that will yield the desired result.

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Thanks for the tips, it is always helpfull when starting out with new technology.</p>

[george_ghio]

<p>As noted you can bracket and get good results, as long as the exposure parameters of the scene fall within the bracketing.</p>

<p>Of course the best results will be obtained if you use your camera's light meter and measure all points of interest from the high lights to the low lights and a few points in between. It is possible that you shutter speed range could cover 1/1000th sec to 1/15th sec in several steps to obtain the result you want. Your camera's bracketing setting will not do this.</p>

[bruced530]

<p>The general agreement is that +2, 0, -2 will work, but that 5 shot brackets like +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 result in "smoother results. The biggest problem being the world and its surroundings don't stop while you take you're bracketed images, as I've found out numerous times, which is also why the 3 bracket images are so popular, there easier for the camera, and they take up the least amount of time.<br>

I'm still trying to find a balance on what the shots look like. I don't like halos and over processed shots, but I do rather like the painterly look that images can get to.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9513372-lg.jpg" alt="" width="533" height="800" /><br>

But I like this image as well, which I don't think looks overprocessed:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9513355-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

For the most natural looking expanded dynamic range effects my choice, after a lot of testing with different programs

and settings were created with Timothy Armes "ENFUSE" plug in for Lightroom. Every other approach ends up

looking like Lady Gaga's stylists had all dropped bad acid and were competing with each other. That's fine if you like that sort of thing but isn't what you asked for.

 

As to wide your brackets should be spaced that depends on the dynamic range of your camera and of the scene.

[AlanKlein]

<p>I have yet to see HDR shots that look natural. The shadow areas are too bright. The pictures just don't work for me. They look fake.</p>

[stp]

<p>Take a look at some of the photos of my favorite PN HDR photographer, Dirk Juergensen. Problem is, you'll have a very difficult time distinguishing his HDR photos from his non-HDR photos.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Guys, you are such a greatbunch of people your willingness to assist peole exploring new territory is to be commended.Thank you very very much,I will take th einformation you have provided and apply t to this newjourney of mine,Ihope i dont let you downwith the results of your fantanstic advice. Hope i can repay the favourewithmy areas of expertice.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Stephen: Yes his HDR is better done than most I've seen with some dodging and burning if I detect correctly as well. He does it with fine touch, subtly. Thanks for pointing Juergensen out to me. I think having the ability to control the light and darks areas well is difficult whether you're using a grad ND or HDR or other Photoshop methods. Most people use these tools like an axe rather than as a scalpel so the results make them look unreal. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Most HDR seems to me a simple way to massacre a perfectly good photo - deep shadows are very often an essential part of a good photo. Many people show an HDR processed image and then show the comparison with the non-HDR version and suggest the HDR version is better - my usual feeling is to wonder why they bothered in the first place. I am afraid I don't care for Bruce's pics either as they still resemble what used to be found on the boxes of chocolate in my youth (not what I regard as a recommendation). But, of course, there is no arguing about taste, so each to their own.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Robin: You gallery has very fine example of shadows and using black effectively. I think they're great. I guess it's the technology like HDR and lightening shadows that's available in Photoshop that get people to use them beyond the photo's requirements. Why not use it if they are available to be used?<br>

But the issue is, who cares about details in a shadow? For the most part, no one's looking there but at the highlights where the main subject is. Black adds contrast and interest. What good is a photo where the stops from light to dark are so few? All you get is a flat picture. The brain doesn't perceive that way. Even if the eye sees the details to some extent, the brain throws that data away and focuses, "sees", on what's important. The picture should satisfy the brain not the eye.</p>

[melmann]

<p>I also use NIK HDR Efex Pro and want to get a more natural look. I'm finding I pull the Tone Compression down (to the left) so I retain more difference between light and dark areas, and set the method to Clean or Natural at about 20-30%. I'll then tweak the Black and White to get a contrast that looks good. My images are looking less HDR-ish to my friends.<br>

As far as range, the earlier comments about adjusting to for the scene are right on. One universal setting won't do - you have to consider the exposure range of your composition and lighting. Advice I've found on blogs with great HDR images recommend more exposures at smaller increments to really capture the details throughout the range. For stationary compositions I'll go to 7 or 9 exposures at 0.3 EV increments above and below mid-range.<br>

Yes, natural things move but to compensate for obvious movements I usually set my camera for 5 images @ 0.7 or 1.0 EV steps and then burst firing (I'm going at 6fps) and shoot off 5 shots. Except for >20 knot winds I usually get trees and clouds close enough to the same location in one second that the ghost removal functions takes care of the small differences.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Mel: I enjoyed looking at your home site photos. The fighting bison was dramatic. Were any of those photos HDR manipulated? I didn't notice any that appeared so on the surface although I believe a couple were adjusted delicately either in post or in the camera with filters. If true, could you point out which ones. I'm interested in using HDR to compensate for what a Graduated ND could do. But from what I've seen from other's use of HDR, I haven't liked what HDR does. Maybe I haven't seen photos where people have used it better, so I'm still looking.</p>

<p>Good luck in you endeavors to become a professional photographer. I'm sure you will be a great one. Alan.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>I have triedafew with thenikHDR but whati didjustto testthe software was to reduce exposre setting on and image x2 stopsandthen increase exposure x 2stops (on the same image, and saving each version) results were prettyaverage, but it worked tosome extent. So i guesit gave me some idea,it was a high contrast scene. Sonext shoot i willtake the advice above and bracket forsceneas per recomendationfrom Mel.</p>