Bryce Canyon Hoodoos

[Ramblinman]

I used Photomatix 4 to merge 3 raw files to create this image and selected the Grunge tone mapping option.

I tried several of the other presets, but the grunge option brought out the tiniest detail in the picture and looks very surreal.

[Shadowman]

I used Photomatix 4 to merge 3 raw files to create this image and selected the Grunge tone mapping option.

I tried several of the other presets, but the grunge option brought out the tiniest detail in the picture and looks very surreal.

Does Photomatix require multiple images? Most programs allow you to do HDR with one RAW image. Picturenaut requires three but FDRTools only requires one RAW.

[Ramblinman]

I havent tried using 1 raw file yet. I have used the HDR automation in Photoshop, but more often than not, the images look very flat.

[David]

John - Photomatix works with one image if you want it to. If the dynamic range of the scene is greater than that which your camera can capture in one exposure then more than one exposure is necessary (typically 0 and +/- 2 stops). Tone-mapping then brings out shadow and highlight detail that otherwise may be lost. In this case we don't know if the dynamic range of Paul's camera was being exceeded in this shot. I suspect not. That immediately leads into the endless arguments about whether HDR is being used properly. If you expose correctly in the first place and wave some woffle dust supplied by Photoshop over the RAW file then the perfect image will emerge. That's fine if you want to go that way, but in Paul's example he wishes to create something different (else he wouldn't use the grunge preset) and Photomatix is the tool he uses. That's also fine by me. Use the tool that is needed for the job. Actually, having been to Bryce Canyon the colours and textures brought out in this image are not really OTT. Depending on the light, Bryce Canyon looks just like the photo!

Cheers

David

[Shadowman]

John - Photomatix works with one image if you want it to. If the dynamic range of the scene is greater than that which your camera can capture in one exposure then more than one exposure is necessary (typically 0 and +/- 2 stops). Tone-mapping then brings out shadow and highlight detail that otherwise may be lost. In this case we don't know if the dynamic range of Paul's camera was being exceeded in this shot. I suspect not. That immediately leads into the endless arguments about whether HDR is being used properly. If you expose correctly in the first place and wave some woffle dust supplied by Photoshop over the RAW file then the perfect image will emerge. That's fine if you want to go that way, but in Paul's example he wishes to create something different (else he wouldn't use the grunge preset) and Photomatix is the tool he uses. That's also fine by me. Use the tool that is needed for the job. Actually, having been to Bryce Canyon the colours and textures brought out in this image are not really OTT. Depending on the light, Bryce Canyon looks just like the photo!

Cheers

David

David,

Just started reading David Nightingale's Practical HDR and he describes two types of post-processing called Photo-realistic and Hyper-Real HDR images. Based on your description Paul's Bryce Canyon would fall under the Photo-Realistic category. I've tried my hand at a few HDR images but haven't really been to happy with them. My Nikon D60 won't do bracketed exposures so if I use Picturenaut I have to create multiple exposures from one RAW file because the software requires at least three images. FDRTools gives me the option of using one or multiple images. My Nikon P90 allows me to bracket exposures but only +/-1.

[David]

John - I'm not really up on Nikon cameras, but I suppose I would have to use a tripod and manually change the exposure setting, keeping Av the same but varying Tv. In my experience, I've tried various ranges from a single exposure where the software does the adding and subtracting of exposure (what I think you are doing) to +/- 3 stops at one stop intervals (7 stops in total). Overall, +/- 2 stops seems to be sufficient, but Nightingale's book, which I find very good, really goes to town on over-exposures - have a look at the histograms he has! I've had one go with his technique, but not very successfully as there really wasn't enough light to give the kind of dynamic range he clearly had. When I find time I'm going back to his method - but time is difficult at the moment.

I've used FDR Tools quite a lot but find it a bit quirky. I once asked the (German?) author, having paid for the full version, a question and received what I thought was a curt reply (or maybe he's called Kurt!!!) so I'm not so keen on it just now.

David

Update: I've just posted some interior shots in the next thread, these being "real" HDR tone-mapped images with a very wide range, about 13 stops. I didn't want to hog Paul's thread with them.

[russellsnr]

David:- Hi, Relative new to the forum but IMO HDR software is many cases is being used wrongly, it seems to drift away from what it is supposed to do in the first place bring out highlights and shaddows in a photograph, I feel many people go OTT with it and it spoils many a photograph as I say JMO.
I see you state that you feel FDRTools gives about the best true photograph results, I did purchase this but must say find it a bit difficult to work with but I suppose practice makes perfect. Do you have any examples of why you state that it is the better for more realistic photographic examples as this is what I am looking to achive and not the OTT HDR's.
Many Thanks
Russ

[Shadowman]

John - Overall, +/- 2 stops seems to be sufficient, but Nightingale's book, which I find very good, really goes to town on over-exposures - have a look at the histograms he has! I've had one go with his technique, but not very successfully as there really wasn't enough light to give the kind of dynamic range he clearly had. When I find time I'm going back to his method - but time is difficult at the moment.

Dave,

The author typically uses +/-7 stops and I believe this plus an image already filled with maximum contrast gives him the ability to fully take advantage of HDR.

I've used FDR Tools quite a lot but find it a bit quirky. I once asked the (German?) author, having paid for the full version, a question and received what I thought was a curt reply (or maybe he's called Kurt!!!) so I'm not so keen on it just now.

Image alignment is the most problematic part of using FDR, otherwise my free version has limited tonemapping options.

[David]

Hi Russell - I prefer Picturenaut for realistic images - see the thread on interior shots.

David