White Fire Tools

One more of my Interior Abstract Landscapes - please enjoy!

 

Note: When you rate this, please keep in mind that a print of one

of these tonemapped shots is much more pleasing than the monitor can

show. Your monitor does not have the ability to display the dynamic

range inherent in these images - only a print at 300 dpi or higher

can do this process justice... so please, take it easy and if you

want to learn more about this process, JUST ASK. I am happy to

share. There is a reason why new DSLR manufacturers are starting to

incorporate 'expanded dynamic range' into their newest cameras...

Take care - Glenn

I think you did a very good job! I've started to play with HDR a while a go mainly with landscape shots. Its fun! Excellent Job!

can you tell me how to do this?

Thank you both. Isaac, it starts with owning a program like Photomatix - it has a standalone product that can tonemap or a plugin that works with photoshop CS2. To shoot, you need to use your tripod, shoot three exposures (at least), use your cameras autobracketing to shoot one exposure at the correct f stop, the second exposure 2 stops down, the third exposure 2 stops up. Then merge the three photos and play with the settings until you get the look you want. Then do your postwork to 'tighten' the image. Good luck. Glenn

Glenn, I like this shot--sort of a mad professor feel.

 

Can you do this HDR with any camera and photomatrix or does it need to be one with expanded dynamic range?

Steve, you can do this with any camera - most cameras have auto-bracketing and this is used often as a way for a photographer to have backup shots just in case he mis-takes the correct exposure (often happens in tricky lighting situations.) Photomatix is optimized for shooting for 2 stops above and below the correct exposure. In traditional photography you might shoot only 1 stop above and below or perhaps just a third in either direction. If your camera does not have auto-bracketing, if you have a sturdy tripod you can try to manually change the stops. I have talked to photographers who use as many as 7 or 9 shots at different exposures to blend into one - seems to be a pretty good option when shooting into extreme direct light when you want more of the foreground exposed and in subtle gradation - but most of the time 3 shots is enough. HDR is getting a bad name because of those people who throw their shots into the hdr grinder and are wow'ed so much by the cool new effect that they forget that the image is still a photograph and needs to look like one. Take care guys and I am happy to answer emails if you have any more specific questions. Glenn

Glenn, thanks for sharing and explaining the process which many of the posts just skip and let the viewer wonder, "now how in the world can I get such a shot".

Nevertheless its just a wonderful composition regardless of the effects and more importantly it still looks like a photo :-). Congrats !

I like the many details of this photo. The light is spread everywhere evenly. There is balance among all portions of the picture, so made it a big harmony.

thanks for new horizons, education and brilliant idea. cheers

Gorgeous image that is so perfectly exposed. I dont know much abot HDR are are trying to learn more. Thanks for explaining & generosity to share your knowledge.

Glenn, you're right that HDR is getting a bad name, and for good reason. Like you state, people tend to throw their images into the "HDR Grinder" and are wowed by the results. What I fail to understand, and really I'm trying to open a dialogue here not just be critical, is how you see yours as being any different. They're great tools if used correctly and subtly, but what I see here is a kitschy gimmick. There are ways to do it to create an amazingly realistic image with a high dynamic range, where you don't even think or notice that it's been manipulated, only that it's very close to the way that you'd see it with your eyes.

Check the following links for some examples.

(these are not my photos, just examples)

 

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

 

I think that your photos above could be amazing, but the technique your using is way overused.

I just love your technique!

Thank you all again for the comments, and thank you Jefferson for your very politely asked question. I have had alot of fun using the HDR techniques and I am the first to admit that my images range from the 'kitsch' to something a little bit closer to 'reality.' The situations that I have chosen to use this technique have been very, very low light interior scenes which would usually require a professional and expensive light setup to capture correctly. In fact, the antique store where the bulk of my recent images were shot has been visited by photographers with a full complement of lights and still has never been shot to the owner's satisfaction. I can walk into this clutter, set up my tripod, adjust my camera settings, snap a sequence, and leave in under five minutes. I think it is fair to say that nobody has much trouble seeing any of the objects displayed in the shop in the shot above... and that is the point as far as the owner is concerned. I also shoot exterior architecture using this technique too. And yes, they look a lot closer to reality than some of my portfolio shots because I do not get paid by these people to 'play artist' - I shoot for detail, I shoot in questionable lighting situations, and this technique saves me time. I have enjoyed seeing your samples Jefferson and noticed that in two of them the HDR was used on architecture. In my opinion, man-made, metallic, stone, wood surfaces are the most friendly for this technique. For portraits, hdr is questionable. For landscapes, as I have said, it can be useful sometimes but is mostly unnecessary because there are better techniques. I have tried HDR on just about everything. Mostly, I just have a LOT of fun and I have decided to call my work abstract because I like the play of color and light. Jefferson, I am not sure what you mean by 'my photos could be amazing' - maybe if I showed you an original shot from one of these dark corners of the shop you could be amazed at what a mid-range digital camera, a tripod, and tonemapping can do for such a scene... again, the owner asked me to do a job and I used the best/most efficient tool I could find. One last thing, there are many, many images on Photo.net that use classic painting techniques probably with the aid of software like Painter and these score extremely highly. These look alot farther away from a 'photo' than the image above and yet they are acceptable to most. So the old issues pop up again - what is photography? what is art? LOL - open a dialogue? Again?

This is very nice to look at and I can see how it would make a great print on some fine art paper, and would be pretty impressive then.

 

I do feel that this technique is becoming a bit gimmicky as people are starting to overuse it, like they did in the past with awful IR photography, and that "grunge" technique that people use on portraits to try and make them interesting without having to make any effort in composition or set up. It will pass.

 

However, I really like to look at your antique shop photos and it's probably the type of shots for which this technique is perfect, unlike those shots with the super fake sky, and as long as we don't forget that contrast is nice too :) The colors make me think of the CF Payne illustrations on the back of the Reader's Digest :)

I think somewhat the same disscusions went on when color film appeared. I'm learning a great deal from all the different aspects and opinions. Wonderful work Glenn, obviously its very time consuming, and worth every minute.

This image seems successful for the purpose that you intended, at least as explained in your responses. But when I first glimpsed the thumbnail amongst the other thumbnails in the Top Ranked list, I instantly said "bad HDR" to myself. Before I even opened it up larger for a better look, I already knew that HDR had been overused - the effect communicated itself before any other aspect hit me, so I'd have to say that in at least one sense, the image is not successful.

 

Please bear in mind, I am no opponent of the tool and am as compelled by its possibilities as you seem to be. But we need an HDR tool with finer control, which I suppose future versions of PS will include (and which hopefully will soon be sold as a dedicated software product unto itself).

 

One thing I have tried which adds a little more control is to take the "middle exposure" of your bracketing effort, and overlay that image as a separate layer on top of this finished product. Then adjust that layer's opacity until you achieve a result that preserves the details you need but offers a more realistic tonality across the image. Doesn't always work but is helpful sometimes - worth a shot, anyway. Thanks for posting this, I'm glad to see increased HDR discussion out here.

Patrick, above I wrote: "I just have a LOT of fun and I have decided to call my work abstract because I like the play of color and light." When I wrote this I was implying that I was not trying to produce a "realistic" image. I have used this technique you described of adding in an original shot at reduced opacity to get realistic hdrs but again, that was not my purpose here. Today, I am posting a few of my hdrs that I shot with the intent of having a realistic looking image and if you want to find these and add your critique, that would be nice. I would be interested to see by their scores whether you and others consider these good or 'bad' HDR. I certainly do not consider them to be as fun and pleasing to me as the image I produced above. I believe the image above has scored highly because it is "pleasing." I am sure it is the same with photonet artists such as Natalie Shau, Oleg Dou, and Rarindra Prakarsa - each of these produces pleasing images that are not 'realistic.' I am pretty sure if you suggested layering in one of their original shots so the image did not look so much like a painting, or so much like a digital manipulation, or like it had been oversaturated and color dodged that they would probable not agree it was a good idea. When you said that you saw my image and instantly thought "Bad HDR" were you giving your opinion or were you speaking technically that this image displays many of the weaknesses of HDR? As far as I have learned, HDR images can have the following 'errors' - exposure errors (generally washed-out look), strange halos (prominent in areas of high contrast), chromatic aberrations at the edge of the frame (red, purple, blue halos around solid objects like tree branches), pixel artifacts (red or black clusters of pixels usually in extreme shadow areas), oversaturation (especially with cyans in extreme light areas), unrealistic lighting (universally lit images.) As far as I can tell my saturations may be high and the image universally lit - which was the effect I chose...

Hey Glenn, thanks for replying. The fact that you were not trying to create a realistic image and also the fact that you were/are having fun, makes this image a success. (Well, that and your photographer's eye of course - the image was well seen and composed). My point in relaying the initial gut reaction I had was not to diminish your skill or approach, but rather to call out the current shortcomings of HDR. I feel like these shortcomings will definitely be improved over time, but meanwhile I look for these discussions on HDR to expand my own knowledge, primarily by finding "realistic" results and learning how they were achieved. So I will look for your new submissions. I won't be rating any images (I steer clear of that) but will add comments for your consideration. My original comment here ("bad HDR") was meant to convey my disappointment about the HDR tool to date, which unto itself reveals my personal bent (which is not your problem, of course) toward acheiving a greater dynamic range without winding up with a painting-type of image. I have posted a forum submission recently about that very topic and you may be interested to read that exchange as well. But I agree completely with your assessment of the most commonly seen problems with HDR, and personally I would weight that list toward the halos and the fakey light as the most egregious sins of the tool. In this image you have overcome the halos and I know that took a lot of effort. So congrats on that success and again, thanks for posting these examples. What matters most for ANY photograph is what the artist thinks, so your consideration in responding to my different approach is appreciated.

Patrick, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the HDR tools to date. I am looking forward also to the next advancement on that front. We already know that CS2 did a horrible job with it's add-on tonemapper and that is why companies like photomatix jumped in and took advantage. In addition, I mentioned earlier that our monitors do not have the ability to display these images properly - I had a link to a company that builds HDR monitors (the first of their kind) and I would love to see one of those.... I posted an interior called "Cafe Rendezvous" this morning and to my surprise it seems to be doing quite well. If you look at it, I want you to notice first of all that the tonemapping is ALOT more subtle/realistic but also that I have used gradient techniques to recreate a more realistic lighting. It seems so ironic to treat an image with hdr and create a universally lit look and then to go BACK and recreate the light, but that is the road I am exploring right now in some of my images. I can give Rarindra Prakarsa credit for that since I studied his/her techniques quite a while to learn better how to direct the eye with shadow and light. Anyway, I could talk about the techniques all day but I just wanted to thank you for your interest and your frank assessment of what you saw here. It is much appreciated. Glenn