Suggestion to add an HDR category under Practice and Technique

[frans_waterlander]

Why not show us what you do with HDR?

 

I'm on the learning curve, trying to understand what HDR can do for me. I have read Christian Bloch's HDRI Handbook 2.0 from cover to cover and tried to internalize as much as possible, but there are many areas that are still puzzling me. For instance: if you had a camera with a dynamic range of 14 or more EV's, would you even need to make multiple exposures?; should I invest in a $329 Promote Control to expand the 10.3 EV dynamic range of my dated Nikon D70 and get more than +/- 2 stops auto-bracketing or go for the 14 EV dynamic range Nikon D5500 or D5600? What program to buy for merging and tone mapping?; etc.

 

So, no, I don't have any great HDR images to show, but I would welcome more HDR material on this forum to educate myself.

[Moving On]

They don’t have to be “great”.

Post ‘em.

[frans_waterlander]

They don’t have to be “great”.

Post ‘em.

 

I have nothing worth looking at; just some test shot to see if multiple exposures would improve the noise in my D70 images. It did a bit, but I was not impressed.

If you want to see great HDR images, go to uglyhedgehog. Wish I had the expertise demonstrated by many of the HDR images there!

[frans_waterlander]

Hmmmm.

 

That's it? Hmmmm? How is that helping me or others?

[Moving On]

Hmmmm. It seems posting your images is the next step if you want a wider discussion from here. Edited August 22, 2018 by Moving On

[Moving On]

Read it again....

Damn you’re argumentative.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Moving On

[frans_waterlander]

Damn, you’re argumentative.

 

And that's helping how?

[Moving On]

It only helps if you consider it.

 

 

Which you should.

[frans_waterlander]

Hmmmm. It seems posting your images is the next step if you want a wider discussion from here.

 

How about reading my "I'm on the learning curve, trying..." post so you understand where I am coming from and then see if you can contribute?

[Moving On]

“How about reading my "I'm on the learning curve, trying..." post so you understand where I am coming from and then see if you can contribute?”

 

 

I already read it.

I considered it.

I responded to it.

You refused to post a single example.

I don’t like your tone.

Now I’m done with this.

Very short learning curve.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Moving On

[DavidTriplett]

I showed you mine, now show me yours...

[Ed_Ingold]

There's nothing wrong with being on the low end of the learning curve, if you listen, ask questions, and try.

[frans_waterlander]

I showed you mine, now show me yours...

There is nothing to show. All I did so far is play around with multiple images I found on the internet and try them out with a trial copy of Photo Matix Pro 6.0 and once I made 3 shots with my D70 to see if it reduced noise. As I said before, that was relatively disappointing. Maybe you can go back to one of my previous posts to understand where I'm coming from and some of the issues I identified that I'm struggling with.

[frans_waterlander]

That's the whole point of these threads. I know I always learn something when we can ask, share, wonder, and think together.

 

So, knowing some of the issues I struggle with, why don't you share some of your thoughts?

[DavidTriplett]

There's nothing wrong with being on the low end of the learning curve, if you listen, ask questions, and try.

That's the whole point of these threads. I know I always learn something when we can ask, share, wonder, and think together.

[frans_waterlander]

You refused to post a single example.

 

So, in how many different ways do I need to say that I have nothing to show yet? Knowing what some of my concerns are (I stated them previously), why don't you respond to specifically those?

[DavidTriplett]

There is nothing to show. All I did so far is play around with multiple images I found on the internet and try them out with a trial copy of Photo Matix Pro 6.0 and once I made 3 shots with my D70 to see if it reduced noise. As I said before, that was relatively disappointing. Maybe you can go back to one of my previous posts to understand where I'm coming from and some of the issues I identified that I'm struggling with.

OK, then. Why not talk in meaningful terms about the images that Supriyo and I and othrrs posted, what works for you and why, and how you might get there from where you are now? That makes a lot more sense than bickering.

Edited August 22, 2018 by DavidTriplett

[DavidTriplett]

I find we all do much better when we have images to discuss, rather than abstract "what if's".

[Ed_Ingold]

So, knowing some of the issues I struggle with, why don't you share some of your thoughts?

Fair enough.

 

Photomatix is a good program with most of the controls you need for successful HDR processing. I've use it for years, but in the last year find that AuroraHD (now version 2018) has a few advantages, including more intuitive controls and a vast array of templates for various purposes. Both programs allow you to shoot without a tripod, by aligning images and cropping the results. AuroraHD adds to this toolbox with effective algorithms for minimizing ghosting, which occurs when something moves between frames. Both Photomatix and AuroraHD install plug-ins in Lightroom, which can be used to export images and reload them into your portfolio. You can probably do everything using Photoshop, but you can build furniture using hand tools too, at the expense of time and productivity.

 

With the wide dynamic range in modern cameras, I don't find it necessary to use 5-9 frames, spaced at 1 stop, to get smooth results. Three shots at 2 stop intervals does the trick, unless the scene goes from bright sunlight to dark shadows, e.g., interiors, in which you need detail throughout. I select the order, 0, -2, +2, so that the "normal" shot is first. After processing, I stack the images to save space on the screen.

 

Since HDR and action are incompatible, I use aperture-priority, and let the shutter speed float. Most of the time I also use auto-ISO. Again, modern cameras have a very wide range of ISO values which produce excellent images. It's best to use a tripod, which makes alignment and cropping unnecessary. However it's more convenient to shoot by hand if light permits. The losses are minor. Most cameras let. you shoot the entire sequence continuously, just by holding the shutter release. This is the best approach with or without a tripod. It helps to have image stabilization.

 

Keep your sensor clean! HDR is designed to pull detail out of the image, including things you would rather not see ;) That's tru for stitched panoramas too, and photography in general. Dust spotting is easy, especially in Lightroom, but time consuming.

 

In this example, I wanted detail in the foreground, which was very dark, and the fountain, which was in bright sunlight. None of the three exposures, 0+/-2, had everything, but the HDR gave the result I was after.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 25/2.4

Edited August 22, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

[Supriyo]

That’s a lot of great info, Ed. I have almost exclusively used Photoshop for the few HDRs I have made, but these new programs are worth checking out.

[Moving On]

That about covers it.

Great reply Ed.

And well done on the result in the example of conservative use of the application.

Well balanced “As the eye sees it”.

[Ed_Ingold]

If there's a photo you would like to do as a bracketed HDR, but somebody is walking in the scene, you can often use one of the frames and apply tone-mapping. Photomatix probably does this too, but AuroraHD does it very well.

 

I almost always use aperture priority for my shooting. Many lenses show a focus shift when the aperture is changed, but the DOF always changes. That can't help if you are stacking images.

 

In this example, I took the middle frame (-2) because it is the only one showing the fountain well. Digital is unforgiving for overexposure, but it's amazing how much shadow detail you can pull out. This scene has an extreme dynamic range, so tone-mapping alone doesn't have the same warmth and depth as the bracketed HDR. Many times, though, it works well enough to make a keeper.

 

AuroraHD has extensive tools, including selective masking, which can perform miracles if you take the time. This was straight up using a template created by someone with far more expertise than I.

 

[The Shadow]

an alternative to moderation is severity wildness abandon exaggeration which also have their place in photography

 

if you overdo hdr or saturation just because and without the vision or skill to back it upit will miss and just seem off or ugly

 

if you go to extremes with a creative purpose and the recognition that you are doing so and can make it work with the content of ur photo more power to ya

[frans_waterlander]

I hope this helps.

 

This helps a lot, Ed! Your 3 shots and final image are arguably the best I've seen to demonstrate what HDR is capable off. Very well done! If AuroraHD has a trial version, I'll be trying that as well.

 

On the issue of +/- 2 stops bracketing, I'm thinking about how to optimize the process, particularly for cameras with relatively low DR (dynamic range), like my D70 with a DR of only 10.3. For the highlights, I would think that the darkest exposure shot should be such that the highlights are just at the right hand side of the histogram without blowing them out, also called ER or ETTR. Since we are not concerned about noise in the highlights, I would think that there is nothing to be gained by taking a shot with a lower exposure than that ER shot. So, if that is correct than you would want your darkest exposure to be an ER shot, and your middle exposure would be 2 stops brighter than the ER conditions. This would mean: 1) determine the ER conditions (ISO and shutter speed for a given aperture); 2) set shutter speed 2 stops slower; 3) take the three +/-2 stops auto-exposure bracketing shots.

 

I'm not sure why you would use auto white balance; it may or may not change between shots (I simply don't know and this may be camera dependent) and it wouldn't matter anyway when using RAW; I assume you use RAW.

 

Your inputs will be highly appreciated.

[Ed_Ingold]

Auto exposure with a matrix pattern does a good job avoiding blowouts. It is further enhanced in an A9 with a "highlights" option, which keeps the brightes part of the scen in bounds, and in an A7Riii with "face priority". That works particularly well shooting people against a strong backlight.

 

I use auto white balance (AWB) because it usually works. It's certainly not going to change in the time it takes to bracket the exposure. The exception is for portraits and groups, and any time consistency is more important than being spot-on. I use Auto-ISO because the Sony's are relatively noise free from 50 to 25,600. At the high end, you need a flashlight to see the dials on the camera.

 

You are right about staying inside the white limit for the darkest shot. In practice, that will only occur when the sun is in the picture, and you don't care if that blows out as long as you get sun stars and not excessive flare. You can always check the results, and if it doesn't work out, adjust exposure compensation and try again.

 

The makers of AuroraHD just changed their name to Skylum. In any case, a Google search will get you to the right place. Yes, there is a free trial, fully functional.