Dabbling with HDR

[Johann Schutte]

Canon 70d, Canon EF15mm prime

[pnodrog]

Your title nearly put me off viewing. Overdone or poorly done HDR often looks awful. However it is not the case with your dabbles.

Very well done and good use of the technique.

[JBW]

2 and 3 have a marvelous softness/detail balance. However the strange left wall of number 1 doesn't agree with me.

Brian

[IzzieK]

It doesn't look HDR at all to me either...because it is not overcooked? Yes. That is it...these are not atrocious at all. The iridescent light in #2 is a nice touch too.

[Shadowman]

Very nice, the first has a dizzying effect however.

[gregj1763]

Had I not seen the title I wouldn't have picked them as HDR images, very nicely done. #2 is my pick of them, very serene image.

[chauncey]

Johann, IMHO your PP is stellar, of that there is no question.

You might want to consider working the scenes a bit more to come up with better composition...
#3, were you to step a couple paces camera left and pan right to get the arc of the driveway...maybe?

[Johann Schutte]

Thank you all for commenting. I am new to all of this (HDR), having avoided it for a few years. I find it to be very much a random slider dragging exercise at the moment, with every tweak substantially influencing every other setting in unexpected ways, certainly with less predictability than lessay tweaking a single exposure in raw. I just haven't developed a feel/frame of reference for it yet (maybe I'm being too optimistic) and spent a disproportionate amount of time getting HDR not to look like HDR.

The window pic would probably be better cropped into portrait. The compositional criticism re the fountain is valid. I will reshoot it at some point.

[Kris V]

I wouldn't call it 'dabbling'.
Contrary to the others, I really like #1 the best.
But all 3 of them are just great!

[Rebel]

Nice shots, love #1

[Manfred M]

I'll have to agree with the others about how tastefully you've done these. I really like your first one and this is definitely a prime candidate for the HDRI approach; the bright window and shadows have been recovered quite nicely.

Your second image is also nicely done, but I find that it has the problem of a lot of HDRI work; low contrast. Here I find that the software missed and gave you a very flat looking image, yet in a night shot, we would expect the opposite; something more contrasty and with a bit more "pop". That's a nice way of saying your black point and white points are off. If it were my image I'd adjust those and get rid of that characteristic flatness that seems to be the default coming out of Photomatix. I'm not sure if this is really an image that might not do better without HDRI; the only highlights are specular highlights.



This shows the changes I'm referring to.




Your third image, arguably is not even a particularly good candidate for HDRI work; the only issues you will have with the lights from the lamps. Again; a very flat image that needs the black and white point adjustment.

[Johann Schutte]

@Manfred. Thank you. This helps. Based on what you said, I was prompted to do a search and found the following link:

http://thehdrimage.com/measuring-exp...dynamic-range/

Excellent guide. Clarifies a number of issues for me.

[Manfred M]

Johann - I would suggest that the article (which is about 3 years old) takes a very conservative view of how much dynamic range a camera can capture; a 4-stop range? I'd expect any of my cameras to captures that (and much more) without any issues.

Most decent modern cameras are capable of capturing around 12-stops (and more) of dynamic range, at base ISO. Even cameras that rolled out 12 years ago (Nikon D2H for example, were capable of capturing 10 stops). A Nikon D810 is the highest rated camera for dynamic range that is currently available and at 14.8 stops. One wonders why the author of the article things 4-stops is a good place to start (look at http://www.dxomark.com/ for results for individual camera models).

The real issue is that our display technology is not capable of displaying that much. I've been told that its around 4 - 5 stops for a print and 7 or 8 stops on a decent computer screen. So the real issue is often pulling the appropriate data out of the capture to display it. Human vision is apparently around 20 stops, but to get that range, there has to be enough time spent in dark and light environments for the eyes to acclimatize.

I find that a lot of people are going for the HDRI "look", and based on what I have seen on the net, there are enough people that seem to think that funky colours can make up for poor composition and poor technique. If you do a bit of digging, there are an awful lot of "one shot" images out there that tout being HDRI.

[Johann Schutte]

@GD

Thanks once again for the informative response. I had a look at the DXO site.

What has become clear is that (a) I need to discern whether the target justifies HDR or not (and probably be more conservative in my decision than I have been), and (b) I need to be more calculated in determining midpoint and required increments.

[Manfred M]

@GD

Thanks once again for the informative response. I had a look at the DXO site.

What has become clear is that (a) I need to discern whether the target justifies HDR or not (and probably be more conservative in my decision than I have been), and (b) I need to be more calculated in determining midpoint and required increments.

I think you might be reading a bit too much into my comments.

I was trying to point out that HDRI is not technically necessary for a great many images. Being technically not necessary does not preclude its use for artistic reasons (i.e. you like the "look" of HDRI).

Low contrast is a well know side effect of the process; after all the difference between highlights and shadow detail are what gives you contrast, so by remixing this distribution of light and dark through the use of HDRI software, the outcome is reduced contrast. It then becomes the responsibility of the photographer as to how he or she wants to present the image. In my opinion (and one that is shared by many other photographers), a proper white point and black point (for images that contain white and black) gives a more pleasing looking image. Most people find that an appropriate amount of contrast improves an image; too little contrast and too much contrast can have a negative impact on an image.

[Loose Canon]

It might be worth noting that a shot with correct white and black points and appropriate contrast will also naturally render a sharper looking image.

Very nice stuff Johann. Well done.

[rpcrowe]

IMO, these are what HDR "SHOULD" look like!

[JBW]

[QUOTE=Johann Schutte;523053]Canon 70d, Canon EF15mm prime



Seriously like the way you have corrected this shot.

[bnnrcn]

I like all of them, especially #2