HDR – Is it for me?

[Colin Southern]

Wouldn't a good HDR processor not be grabbing data from the edges of the histogram but rather the middle stuff that is properly exposed in that shot of the series? I mean, isn't that the whole point? You take the best exposed stuff from a series of shots and put that all together... allowing you to throw away the "junk" that is crammed up at the edges of the histogram?

Hi Bill,

I think we're talking about different things here; I'm talking about a theoretical histogram of the 32bit "composite", not the histogram of the 12/14 bit shots in the bracket of shots that make up the histogram.

Don't forget, HDR is a set of techniques for CAPTURING and to a degree PROCESSING the scene, not for displaying it. The resultant at the end of the workflow is always "normal" dynamic range.

[Danielk62]

Steve,

The picture of the room with the windows, of how many photos is it composed? You could do it with only two shots - one for the windows and one for the room and aferwards work on the pictures in photoshop (merge layers + masks). Check out the tutorial by Gavin Hoey - he explains the procedure of a window shot between minute 3:30 and 4.

In Photomatix, the windows picture will give better results with 'exposure fusion' instead of 'tone mapping'.

Cheers, Dan

[arith]

Steve,

The picture of the room with the windows, of how many photos is it composed? You could do it with only two shots - one for the windows and one for the room and aferwards work on the pictures in photoshop (merge layers + masks). Check out the tutorial by Gavin Hoey - he explains the procedure of a window shot between minute 3:30 and 4.

In Photomatix, the windows picture will give better results with 'exposure fusion' instead of 'tone mapping'.

Cheers, Dan

Yes but two shots is harder Daniel. Three shots are taken on bracketed exposure on high speed, so less than one second to hold the camera still.

Also I do not use Photomatix but Picturenaut. The windows are supposed to ne hazy; I use HDR to give me freedom or flexibility to include or not include.

I think it works but then I'm crazy.

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Adrain,

Sorry I created this conundrum on Friday ans went away for the weekend. I have double processed the same RAW file on occasions to blend exposures for this same purpose but do not see that as the -2, 0, +2 capture of HDR and tone mapping, which I find the unreal representation of many scenes. I can see your work here and appreciate it but do not see this as tru HDR processing.

Looking at Peter's work (Post 13) I have to agree with Colin that does not look real to me and in fact to my eyes is what I was saying, that the elimination of shadow detail compensated by colour saturation only offers a flat 2 dimensional image.

I am not against the technique but could not understand what didn't feel right about such images and it was not until I looked at the basics of compensational elements that I realised what was missing was the control of shadows to bring out form and texture. If you look at Peter's shots I see no modelling nor texture in those images. This is not to say they are not well shot nor is it a poor presentation but these two things that, for me, speak volumes in an image or just not present.

So all this has really been about me finally defining in my mind the limitiation of HDR for my style of work. Yes I do shoot in very bright sunlight (you cannot help that in Australia) but I find I have more than sufficient tools at hand with fill light and recovery sliders plus - and I say only very occassinally - double processing and blending a RAW file.

Bill touched on my thoughts when he said that the 4 points I mentioned had nothing to do with HDR yet everything to do with light. That was my point and I may not have exxpressed it clearly but composition is developed by the use of light and two of the 4 composition elements I menitioned are lost to true HDR processing and I should say by extension tone mapping.

I have found this discussion most enlighening and thank all who have contributed.

[arith]

the -2, 0, +2 capture of HDR and tone mapping,

Sorry Peter but is that supposed to be 0,+2,+4 The first is supposed to be exposed to the right, but not too strongly since blown bits tend to turn pink in Picturenaut.

In this way you are utilising the maximum range and keeping noise down to a minimum; something I'm pritty good at now so that I don't even have to use a noise reduction application most of the time. The only reason I do is to smooth the sky before I start some serious deconvolution.

[Danielk62]

Below are the few things I learned about HDR:
- Always check that there is enough contrast in what you're about to shoot (example darkest part Tv=1/30 and brightest part Tv=1/1000, that is a 5 stop difference)
- Always shoot RAW
- Always use a tripod
- Always shoot a series of pictures: -3EV, -2EV, -1EV, 0EV, +1 EV, +2 EV, +3EV (if possible forget about AEB and do it manually)
- Use Aperture mode (or keep it fixed)
- Use a HDR program to either tone map or do an exposure fusion
- Always use the result of the HDR program in PS and combine it with the 7 original photos to improve the final result (combine layers and masks)
- in PS, use your favorite actions/filters to improve parts of the picture

How do you guys go ahead to produce a good HDR picture?

Dan

[arith]

Tripod is out mostly; too heavy for disabled me. I don't look disabled but I'm not allowed to carry heavy weights.

The negative EV pictures I think must be a waste of time; just bang the exposure to the right, and the you only need 2 frames but three 2EV apart is easier.

Use manual mode and fix the focus.

Use Picturenaut or any free program and then process in the normal way.

All I'm trying to do is extend the EV range to reduce noise and capture detail.

I use 8 stops not eleven, because with my needle on -2 using spot pointing at the darkest place, I don't want to see 1/250 x TV or faster on the brightest spot with my needle on +2, averaged over 7% meaning this could be requiring HDR( some darker some lighter), or ZONE system or just forget it.

[wilsoncs3980]

Whats the purpose of a photograph? I try to take pictures that are pleasing to look at, but what's pleasing is totally subjective. I personally love HDR photos. It's just another tool in the toolbox. Who cares if it looks real or natural. I just wish I knew how to do it. lol....

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Christopher,

I agree. I didn't set out to bag HDR just to say that after a long personal look at it the reason I don't like it is that it substitutes shadow/highlight detail for oversauration of colours. It is a perfectly legitimate tool but I find there is always something missing and generall that is depth in an image because of the way shaodws are missing. I am sure other here will help you develop an understanding of how to so it.

[Lon Howard]

This discussion is of particular interest to me because I have just gotten interested in photography in the last three years, and even though I'm into my 70s now I am still trying to figure out what I like and don't like, and that is continually evolving, as we 'speak.' In a way, the HDR controversy, if one wishes to call it that, is reminiscent of the beginnings of impressionist oil painting (perhaps Richard and I are the only ones here who remember that . I think Monet and Van Gogh took a lot of heat in their time and a majority of serious observers thought it was a passing fad. How wrong they were, eh?

I'm tempted to feel the same about HDR, but like Peter, I'm not about to wag my finger at it just because it doesn't draw me in. I use the phrase "draw me in" here because that is what is missing when I go through Trey Ratcliff's slide show on his Stuck in Customs site. The images are absolutely stunning but for some reason I'm not emotionally drawn into them, as I am to (for example) Colin's. As the images go past, I'm not tempted to stop the slide show to examine any one in detail. It's much like watching a shifting kaleidoscope - it's cool in the beginning but gets to be a bit numbing in a hurry. I would call it a light and contrast show, and in no way, a picture show. I kept asking myself what was the point of these images, and I finally concluded that there wasn't really a point to the images themselves - the point was in the processing, not in the images.

That said, even in the beginning stages of my development, I am still experimenting with HDR, but I usually find myself re-inserting a portion of the shadows if I feel they belong there, etc. Like everyone else, I will find my own way to use it because it can be very useful in the right situation.

[HDR Shooter]

Below are the few things I learned about HDR:
- Always check that there is enough contrast in what you're about to shoot (example darkest part Tv=1/30 and brightest part Tv=1/1000, that is a 5 stop difference)
- Always shoot RAW
- Always use a tripod
- Always shoot a series of pictures: -3EV, -2EV, -1EV, 0EV, +1 EV, +2 EV, +3EV (if possible forget about AEB and do it manually)
- Use Aperture mode (or keep it fixed)
- Use a HDR program to either tone map or do an exposure fusion
- Always use the result of the HDR program in PS and combine it with the 7 original photos to improve the final result (combine layers and masks)
- in PS, use your favorite actions/filters to improve parts of the picture

How do you guys go ahead to produce a good HDR picture?

Dan

[HDR Shooter]

Dan I do it manually in A mode in order to get a higher EV as the bracketing in my camera is only -1EV/0EV/+1EV capable. I also find using a remote shutter release with my tripod comes in handy as alignment is so critical in HDR.
Chris

[PBelarge]

Photography as art creates a lot of emotion in people. Different people have strong emotions which can lead to disputes such as in HDR imaging/art. As Lon mentioned, when the impressionists came along there was quite the stir, similar in a sense to HDR for some. If I take an image and decide to process it in any way shape or form, so be it. It is my decision. There are images some call "famous" and I scratch my head say, "what am I missing here."

Some are calling this a form of compression. I am not sure what that really means. Is this not taking a histogram and expanding it in a sense? I read where one mentions compressing the histogram. I am not technically savy enough to say I know for sure.
Just to mention, my eye/mind/emotion is drawn towards many different styles of photography, but not all. I guess I would make a terrible critic...

[russellsnr]

Hi, OK HDR again. So many discussions on the subject it should have a forum all of it's own
But the question by the OP was "Is it for me"?
Well IMO if you want to see everything in a photograph from highlights to shaddows then the answer must be yes, if however you want to make overcooked images that look absolutely awful then the answer is again yes, but please don't post them on here
If you want natural looking images HDR software is not always the road to go down, if you no what you are doing you can achieve nearly the same results in Lightroom.
And the proof in the pudding is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCYQ8...ure=plpp_video
Again, IMO. HDR done correctly is a very big step forward in photographic manipulation and as such will I am sure be incorpereated in the manufacture of all new cameras so you will not need the software.
Russ

[Colin Southern]

So many discussions on the subject it should have a forum all of it's own

It used to be in a seperate forum, but it was severely under-utilized.

[AlfAllen]

HDR, like everything that preceded it, is on the way to be incorporated into what follows it. It's a stage in the evolution of the art form.