Garwin Falls_Wilton_NH_HDR

[TomM]

[Shadowman]

Very artistic.

[chauncey]

Tom, I'm liking the colors and tones in the second one better...the first seems a little over the top.

[TomM]

thank you for feed back

[Mike Buckley]

If you would combine the overall look of the second one with the composition of the first one, that would be terrific for me.

[ST1]

Tom a nice set of images of what looks to be a cracking bit of scenery. IMO the composition of the first image creates a much stronger image of the two. But... I'm not sure about the HDR treatment if that is what it is.

[TomM]

Thank you all for your comments, they were most helpful. What I am taking away from them is #1 is over processed, but the stronger image. #2 is processed more naturally but not as strong an image as #1. I have heard this from others not related to this site as well. I am going to re-open #1 and see about cutting back on the effects of the HDR software and will re-post.

Thanks again, I will be back with the reprocessed image.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Tom,

How many photos did you take for the HDR composite, and how many stops were there between them?

[NorthernFocus]

What a beautiful spot. I agree with everyone else's comments on the HDR treatment of the first shot. IMO the second shot would be improved if cropped a bit tighter. Maybe same ratio format but cropped down to just barely eliminate the trees on extreme left and right with the vertical reduction all taken from the bottom. Looks like a nice spot to visit at different times of the year for differing foliage and water flows.

[bnnrcn]

I would really like to see your re-edit of #1, very nice composition Tom

[TomM]

Colin, I did 3 images for for the hdr. -1, correct exposure, and +1. Not sure but I would think that would be less than a full stop.

[TomM]

Binnur, check back soon. I will post soon.

Thanks

[Kyle]

I really like 1. Processed as it is it almost looks like a painting. 2 is nice as well but the composition is not as strong.

[Colin Southern]

Colin, I did 3 images for for the hdr. -1, correct exposure, and +1. Not sure but I would think that would be less than a full stop.

Thanks for the info Tom.

There's a couple of things going on here ...

1. Using a 3 frame bracket with 1 stop deltas really doesn't do anything for this kind of scene (which is mostly reflective and easily captured by a single exposure on most modern cameras at or around their lowest ISO) (HDR is a set of techniques for capturing a scene that has a dynamic range that exceeds what the sensor is capable of recording), which brings me to #2 ...

2. I'm guessing that you've thus created this for the "look" rather than as a way to overcome any dynamic range limitations imposed by the sensor? If that's the case then it's not really an HDR image - it's just what we term an ultra tone-mapped image (one where the dynamic range is normal, but the tones captured are shifted in such a way as to produce a different look. Many call this an "HDR look", but that's actually misleading as HDR doesn't have any particular "look".

What you've created is a look that pretty typical from over-use of sliders in programs like Photomatix; it's similar to what some Photoshop filters will create also, but at the end of the day in my opinion anyway, it produces a very unrealistic result (which isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing -- that all depends on what you're after).

I'll give you a couple of examples to illustrate what I mean. (Click for much bigger images)

The first is a true HDR image (5 shots, 2 stops apart); without using HDR techniques the sun behind the thin cloud layer would blow horribly if I exposed for the front of the house (which is in shadow) and if I exposed for the sun then of course the foreground would be (in face WAS) almost completely black. HDR compresses the range in a photorealistic way.



In contrast, this second scene is similar in dynamic range to what you would have seen - and is shot using non-HDR techniques:



My suggestion would be - if you want to get into true HDR - then shoot a minimum of 2 stop deltas ("intervals") - shoot into the light - and try to combine the images so that you still protect the foreground detail - eg:



Hope this helps.

[DanK]

To add to Colin's excellent thread--

you wrote:

-1, correct exposure, and +1. Not sure but I would think that would be less than a full stop.

I you mean what I think you mean, this indicates that you shot one exposure a full stop underexposed and another exposure a full stop overexposed. Colin's suggestion is that if the scene exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor (which seems unlikely, but you can tell from the histogram on the camera), then the usual thing is to expose at intervals of 2 stops. Colin suggests -4, -2, 0, +2, +4. However, I often find that three shots, -2, 0, +2 is ample, and sometimes just two shots. I don't often find that I exceed the dynamic range of the camera by more than 2 to 4 stops. Shooting into the sun would be something else, but with the light above or behind, that usually works. For example, I needed three shots, at intervals of two stops, to get detail in both the shadows and the sky in this:



If you want the tone-mapped look (I dislike it, but it's just taste, and many people do like it), then one shot may be fine, and you need software that will do tone mapping. If all you want to do is extend the dynamic range and want to retain natural colors, you will often do better with exposure fusion (google it), such as Lightroom enfuse, or manually blending images in Photoshop or any other software with layers. The image above uses LR enfuse. I have an HDR version too, but the colors are unnatural.

[Colin Southern]

Just to be really nit-picky ...

Colin's suggestion is that if the scene exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor (which seems unlikely, but you can tell from the histogram on the camera), then the usual thing is to expose at intervals of 2 stops.

The histogram is a good indicator of blown areas, but a poor indicator of low-tone information that's been captured; most in-camera histograms will show only around 5 stops whereas the camera is usually capturing around 12.

Colin suggests -4, -2, 0, +2, +4. However, I often find that three shots, -2, 0, +2 is ample, and sometimes just two shots. I don't often find that I exceed the dynamic range of the camera by more than 2 to 4 stops. Shooting into the sun would be something else, but with the light above or behind, that usually works.

Nope - I didn't suggest a 5 frame bracket - that's just what I used when shooting the house I grew up in for the last time. The actual number of shots required will vary depending on the dynamic range of the scene - the effective dynamic range of the camera (ie ISO dependent) - and also to a degree, the amount of noise that's going to be acceptable. Having just said that though, ...

- 1 stop deltas are, without exception, a waste of time.

- 2 stop deltas are OK - often one can even go to 3.

- Having just talked about the number of bracketed shots required, it pays to keep a couple of things in mind:

1. Digital doesn't cost you anything - so "too many" isn't a problem whereas "too few" certainly is.

2. Camera metering often isn't optimal when shooting for HDR; if in doubt, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4 gives you a LOT of latitude to play with in that some of the frames can be discarded - or one can examine the individual frames on a PC and see just what the true situation is with the data contained.

In real-world terms I usually shoot 5 frames at 2 stop deltas, but often with a 1 stop (give or take) EC dialed in, and I typically end up with 3 to 4 frames that I include in the final composite. But again, you can't have too many as such (then again, it's actually pretty easy for me in that my camera will shoot up to 7 frames in a sequence anyway, so I do tend to get a bit lazy)

[TomM]

This is all very good to think about, however in the photos I posted the shadows were pretty dark and the water was pretty much blown out in the "0" image. By over and under exposing I was able to get detail in each and combine them in the software to a single image.

You are saying going more of a spread would give me more detail in the shadows and highlights? I will try it, thank you.

[Colin Southern]

This is all very good to think about, however in the photos I posted the shadows were pretty dark and the water was pretty much blown out in the "0" image. By over and under exposing I was able to get detail in each and combine them in the software to a single image.

You are saying going more of a spread would give me more detail in the shadows and highlights? I will try it, thank you.

Hi Tom,

The basic issue is that the camera can capture a far far far greater dynamic range than your monitor can display (at base ISO around 12 stops for the camera -v- 5 to 6 for the monitor) - so usually all the info you need is there, but you just can't see it without compressing it.

"Compressing the dynamic range" sounds very technical, but in reality it's just a fancy technical term for "using the fill light slider".

What camera did you use? What ISO? RAW or JPEG?

[TomM]

Colin,

First, thanks for your time on this post.

I have uploaded a single image of waterfall image from above, no HDR. I used the sliders and am showing the shadow detail I was lacking. (or thought I was lacking) I am still not getting as much detail in the highlights in the brightly lit water on the falls as I would like to see. Is this a time to use HDR?

Image info; Nikon D40X, .5 sec, f-29, ISO 200, RAW image

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

First, thanks for your time on this post.

I have uploaded a single image of waterfall image from above, no HDR. I used the sliders and am showing the shadow detail I was lacking. (or thought I was lacking) I am still not getting as much detail in the highlights in the brightly lit water on the falls as I would like to see. Is this a time to use HDR?

Image info; Nikon D40X, .5 sec, f-29, ISO 200, RAW image

Hi Tom,

You're welcome.

Digital is the opposite to what film was in that with Digital, once a highlight is blown, it's blown -- so we need to ensure that we expose for the highlights.

Having just said that, that's easier said than done because of the vagrancies of camera metering and in-camera RAW processing; bottom line is with scenes like this we often don't know what the optimal exposure is -- so bracketing shots is a good way to "hedge your bets" (and I should add that in that circumstance, 1 stop deltas like you shot are fine) (but this is on the assumption your not shooting for an HDR composite).

What would be helpful is if you could flick me the 3 RAW shots that you took - I'll take a look at which contains the right amount of info - process if for you - and post it up here (and flick you the finished file if you like). Mostly when I do this for people it's very much of an eye-opener for them. If you're interested, best way is to just upload the files to something like Google Drive (if you have it) or use a site like sendthatfile.com or yousendit.com, and then PM me the download link.

Here's a similar one of mine that I shot a few years ago to give you an idea: