Flirting with HDR

[ucci]

For some time now I have been trying to find out just what is the attraction of this facile floozy. And just when I reckon I have her measure, she turns on a temper tantrum of the unexpected. Even Photomatix Pro can't always keep her in line. Has anyone else had their fingers burned by this terrible tart's flamboyant unpredictability?
These were taken and processed during one of her more tractable times with photomatix pro, using three shots with AEB range of -3, 0 and +3.
For me using HDR for the surreal is unreal. But maybe I have it all wrong and just don't understand what it is supposed to be all about. Anyway, not to worry, I have a nice bottle of red sitting in the pantry, feeling quite lonely, and so.....


[IMG]http://i57.tinypic.com/2nrj0ps.jpg

[/IMG]

[IzzieK]

I prefer the last of the shots you did here in this installment, Ken...though I would position the chair to get a better view of what is behind that bush.

[FrankMi]

Hi Ken, processing HDR can be both rewarding and frustrating until you get a good feel for it. Come to think about it, most photography can be that way at times! There are a number of free HDR lessons and videos that can help you get this bad girl under control. I can give you a few hints to get you started based on the images you are showing here.

For image 1, most HDR tonemapping, particularly with Photomatix Pro, renders foliage as almost an electric green. The easiest way to correct that is to blend back in some of the green foliage from the original normal exposure image.

For image 2, the white halo around the upper right blossom pedal could be coming from image alignment. It is important, particularly when multiple images are in use, to shoot on a tripod, avoid any subject movement, and do an alignment on the images before you give them to Photomatix Pro even though Pro can do it's own alignement.

Image 3 looks pretty good, but like any image of this type, a busy background will detract from the subject. Even though you are bracketing the exposures using Aperture Priority, you want to limit your DoF a bit more than normal.

In image 4, a tonemapped landscape will often have excessive halos where the background meets the sky. This one looks quite good in that respect.

For me, the secret in getting a really good HDR image is to not be able to tell that any tonemapping was involved. Sometimes this means blending the tonemapped result with the original Normal image at somewhere around 50% opacity.

If I have an extreme amount of dynamic range, such as shooting in a dark room with a sunlit exterior seen in the windows, I will shoot EV's of +4, +2, 0, -2 and -4. For most HDRs, +2, 0, and -2 are all that is needed.

Once the images have been merged and tonemapped, it is extremely rare to not need to clean them up in post processing and impossible to get flesh tones to render properly without it.

If you like I can provide you with a few links to HDR training materials. Hope this helps!

[Nicks Pics]

Ken, I do think these have a great range of tones, which is not always easy to get with light colored flowers.

Ken...though I would position the chair to get a better view of what is behind that bush.

Izzie, this suggestion was profound. Perhaps he should cut and drag it over to the right a little in photoshop

[bnnrcn]

Hi Ken, I really like your images . I want to learn HDR processing in the future too and I'm not able to make very helpful comments because I don't know HDR yet,but at least I can say that ' the images don't look bad' IMO Frank's comment is very useful for both of us

[bnnrcn]

Hi Frank, thanks for your useful comment I want to learn HDR too, so I would be happy to know the links about HDR training. I don't have Photomatix but I will buy Nik Software soon. Do you think it is good for HDR too or do you suggest Photomatix ?

Hi Ken, processing HDR can be both rewarding and frustrating until you get a good feel for it. Come to think about it, most photography can be that way at times! There are a number of free HDR lessons and videos that can help you get this bad girl under control. I can give you a few hints to get you started based on the images you are showing here.

For image 1, most HDR tonemapping, particularly with Photomatix Pro, renders foliage as almost an electric green. The easiest way to correct that is to blend back in some of the green foliage from the original normal exposure image.

For image 2, the white halo around the upper right blossom pedal could be coming from image alignment. It is important, particularly when multiple images are in use, to shoot on a tripod, avoid any subject movement, and do an alignment on the images before you give them to Photomatix Pro even though Pro can do it's own alignement.

Image 3 looks pretty good, but like any image of this type, a busy background will detract from the subject. Even though you are bracketing the exposures using Aperture Priority, you want to limit your DoF a bit more than normal.

In image 4, a tonemapped landscape will often have excessive halos where the background meets the sky. This on looks quite good in that respect.

For me, the secret in getting a really good HDR image is to not be able to tell that any tonemapping was involved. Sometimes this means blending the tonemapped result with the original Normal image at somewhere around 50% opacity.

If I have an extreme amount of dynamic range, such as shooting in a dark room with a sunlit exterior seen in the windows, I will shoot EV's of +4, +2, 0, -2 and -4. For most HDRs, +2, 0, and -2 are all that is needed.

Once the images have been merged and tonemapped, it is extremely rare to not need to clean them up in post processing and impossible to get flesh tones to render properly without it.

If you like I can provide you with a few links to HDR training materials. Hope this helps!

[John 2]

HDR is a subject that seems to evoke a whole range of emotions, some favourable and some less so to the point of being vitriolic. To me, it comes in two forms. It is a useful tool to process an otherwise difficult tonal range or it can be used in it's own right to produce images with a graphic impact. In the former it should be undetectable and I have used it with varying success, generally by creating two or more secondary images from the original RAW file. The success of the latter IMHO is very much subject dependent. I've seen some great examples but I have seen some that should never have been attempted. So what does suit this as a treatment I its own right? I'm b*****d if I know. I haven't produces a decent one yet but of the images above, I would think that flowers aren't the most effective subject but the last one has potensial because of the stronger lines in the furniture. Having said all that, have a look at this site. He's a local Pro photographer that seems to have discovered what it takes. Not all the images are HDR and so you will have to dig a bit. There is a dedicated HDR section under Galleries and for some of the images there is an option at the bottom, to view the original image and the range of images used to produce the final version

http://www.chromasia.com/

[dje]

For some time now I have been trying to find out just what is the attraction of this facile floozy. And just when I reckon I have her measure, she turns on a temper tantrum of the unexpected. Even Photomatix Pro can't always keep her in line. Has anyone else had their fingers burned by this terrible tart's flamboyant unpredictability?

Ken can I respectfully suggest that at your age, you should not even be thinking about floozies and just concentrate on reading the paper, making cups of tea and generally doing what you are told around the house.

The images all look fine to me - if you hadn't mentioned HDR I wouldn't have even thought of it. Actually, to me, that is a good test of sensible application of the technique.

I'm not sure that these shots really needed HDR because it seems to me that they wouldn't have had a particularly large range of tonal values (except perhaps for shadow areas in the flowers, depending on what the lighting was like).

Anyway, keep going with it old son, you are off to a good start.

Dave

[Shadowman]

Hi Ken, I really like your images . I want to learn HDR processing in the future too and I'm not able to make very helpful comments because I don't know HDR yet,but at least I can say that ' the images don't look bad' IMO Frank's comment is very useful for both of us

Binnur,

Try the Photomatix website, there are tutorials and galleries available.

http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/index.html

[dabhand]

Hi Ken, I really like your images . I want to learn HDR processing in the future too and I'm not able to make very helpful comments because I don't know HDR yet,but at least I can say that ' the images don't look bad' IMO Frank's comment is very useful for both of us

Binnur - two sites which I think you may find useful when you want to go further with HDR:

http://everydayhdr.com/ - check the tutorials section especially
http://farbspiel-photo.com/ - the 'cookbook' section

Forgot to add - both have a substantial YouTube presence.

steve

[FrankMi]

Ken,

this colonial farmhouse is an example of an obvious HDR image.

Why? Not because of the gaudy green foliage or halos on the edges of light and dark areas, or excessive saturation but rather because it is obvious that you can't get the detail in the shadows inside an unlit building (particularly inside a fireplace) and still see what is outside the open door unless the exposure range of the scene is compressed to fit within what can be displayed in an image.

On the other hand, it still shouldn't look like it has been processed in a pressure cooker. So the test is, does it look reasonably natural?



Here is the link I used when I started playing with HDR images.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

There are several additional links available from this web page including this one.

[Nicola]

Thanks Ken for starting this thread, I'm really walking the same way about HDR
Thanks to all for the very useful feedbacks
N

[bnnrcn]

Yes, thank you Ken for starting this thread and thanks everybody for sharing the useful info

[ucci]

Ken can I respectfully suggest that at your age, you should not even be thinking about floozies and just concentrate on reading the paper, making cups of tea and generally doing what you are told around the house.

Sadly Dave that is the norm for me now. Slippers, tea and reruns on the telly. But sometimes the devil takes me and I am revolting! Doesn't take long. A brisk word from Glenise, shoved under a cold shower and I am soon back toeing line! LOL
Ucci

[ucci]

Deepest thanks to all who responded and for the excellent advice and links posted in reply. Very much appreciated. Sorry it is a blanket thank you but so many responded it would seem to be impractical to respond to each individual post especially as most people have declared me a long winded bore as resulted in comments which seem to have been of value to others as well.
Once agin, thank you s]all. I am now off to pursue some of the links on HDR posted.

[DanK]

I think the starting point should be John's comment: you might use HDR to deal with an image with more dynamic range than your camera can handle, or because you like the effects tone mapping provides.

Re the first of these purposes: the first three of your images look to me like the dynamic range is reasonable, hence no need to fuss with HDR.

If you do have too great a dynamic range, there is an alternative to HDR that avoids all the weird effects of tone mapping. It's called exposure fusion. All it does is combine properly exposed pixels from a series of images, without tone mapping. You can do this manually, or you can have it done automatically, e.g., by a lightroom plugin called Lightroom Enfuse. For a comparison of Exposure Fusion and HDR, check out this.

Speaking just for myself: since I first tried LR Enfuse a few years ago, I have virtually never used HDR software. I did play around a bit with the Nik software because it came with the package, but I doubt I will use it much, if at all. I find the unnatural colors and contrasts that are often produced by HDR really unappealing, and I much prefer the natural appearance usually provide by exposure fusion. Fusion is also extremely simple. But to each her or his own tastes.