HDR - Just now learning

[Joe_Lorenzini]

This isn't a drastic example as I'm not trying to produce anything like I've seen posted here on the forum (there are some superb examples to be found here).

What I'm trying to do is to see if HDR (High Dynamic Range) can improve simple photos. With this in mind I've been bracketing shots for the last year and will post anything I think is worth looking at.

First up and appropriate since I'm getting tired of the endless days of 90+ degree temperatures, is a shot of Izzy's. If anyone can tell me where Izzy's is (without using Google - and that doesn't mean going to Yahoo) they earn the big bonus (old "News Radio" episode).

First off, with HDR - I've learned that you really must take 3-5 separate (preferably bracketed) exposures. 3's good, 5 is better. You may be able to do it using a single RAW file but you'll never find me recommending it.

So here are the 4 images I started with:


Here's the output file I ended up with:


There was more to generating the final HDR file than I thought there would be but the results are fantastic. To look at the final image you wouldn't guess it was an HDR file (which is kinda the way I want it) but the advantages are a cleaner, more realistic image.

Feel free to jump in with your opinion, questions, comments and corrections.

_/oe

PS. Printed in a large format, the quality and detail is impressive.

[boxofrocks]

Did you do this in CS3? I've had mixed results using it for HDR.

I did one that turned out pretty good--not nearly as sexy as yours. It was a warehouse with lots of dark corners. I have no idea where the originals are.

I have a lot to learn about using this tool effectively, but I understand Photomatix does a better job than CSx

[mjdmike]

That's great Joe, and a very good example of HDR, without looking like HDR. Excellent job on this.

What program are you using, and what steps did you take?

[boxofrocks]

Joe,

Is that result pretty much "straight" form the HDR app, or did you have to do some masking on areas like the sign?

[Roy]

It looks great to me Joe. Did you do it all in PS?

[Joe_Lorenzini]

I shot the 4 exposures in RAW format. Converted the RAW files using the same exact settings for all 4 frames. I used Nikon Capture to do the conversion but could have easily used Photoshop or Lightroom.

I then used Photomatix to combine the 4 images together using the "Highlights & Shadows - Adjust" setting. What that does is combine the images together and then open up a dialog you can use to adjust the highlights and shadow areas.

After that I brought it into Photoshop where I tweaked it a bit more, added a little saturation, cropped it and framed it.

The initial images were taken using a tripod. This was a tremendous advantage time-wise as the program did not have to align the images. Also it was 8 degrees out at the time and I couldn't have kept the camera still if I'd wanted to...

_/oe

[Angelo]

Excellent work. I've got to learn this...

[Patti]

OK, I'll bite. Where is Izzy's?

Joe, I like the effect you got here. You got the dynamic range without it looking like an over-processed HDR image. Nice job.

patti

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by Patti

OK, I'll bite. Where is Izzy's?
patti

Crested Butte, CO

[Cybastean]

Really nice work. I've done HDRs with and without a tripod, and using the tripod is always better. Regardless of how still I hold the camera, if Photomatix or PS has to align images, it is never perfect, leaving slightly blurred outlines which are maddening. Tripods aside, one thing I've sometimes found useful is to save the HDR as a tiff then take it back to Lightroom where there are some nice hue/saturation/luminance and sharpening tools. Then I export to PS for the finishing touches.

[RDM]

Based on my experiences with HDR it depends on the scene in order to indicate how many shots you'll need to take. If you have extreme shadows (aka-darkness) and extreme highlights (the sun) then more is better.

The whole point of HDR is to fill in details in areas that can not be captured due to the dynamic range limitations of the camera, nothing more. The end result that you see coming out of Photomatix and/or CS2 or CS3 are "technically" NOT HDR anymore. They've been tone mapped to display the range you couldn't get in that singular shot.

As for people who say you can do HDR with a singular shot, from what I understand it isn't possible. You're working with a fixed dynamic range, which is not HDR. Technically you can cheat a bit by manually adjusting the exposure of the same shot to "produce" 3-5 differently exposed shots and then HDR them. However, you're still working within the confines of the dynamic range that the original picture was taken. That is not HDR.

That's my 2c.

... ps... very nice capture!

[jeffkohn]

Excellent work Joe. The result is very natural looking, and doesn't have that artificial look that so many tone-mapped HDR's have. I

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by RDM

Based on my experiences with HDR it depends on the scene in order to indicate how many shots you'll need to take. If you have extreme shadows (aka-darkness) and extreme highlights (the sun) then more is better.

The whole point of HDR is to fill in details in areas that can not be captured due to the dynamic range limitations of the camera, nothing more. The end result that you see coming out of Photomatix and/or CS2 or CS3 are "technically" NOT HDR anymore. They've been tone mapped to display the range you couldn't get in that singular shot.

As for people who say you can do HDR with a singular shot, from what I understand it isn't possible. You're working with a fixed dynamic range, which is not HDR. Technically you can cheat a bit by manually adjusting the exposure of the same shot to "produce" 3-5 differently exposed shots and then HDR them. However, you're still working within the confines of the dynamic range that the original picture was taken. That is not HDR.

That's my 2c.

... ps... very nice capture!

Well said! Thanks for adding this information.

And even though I understand your comment about tone mapping, what could be considered "true" HDR? I'm not sure I understand that part.

_/oe

[RDM]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

Well said! Thanks for adding this information.

And even though I understand your comment about tone mapping, what could be considered "true" HDR? I'm not sure I understand that part.

_/oe

An example of true hdr would be the product that photomatix spits out prior to tone mapping. Your monitor is not capable of displaying that much information which is why it looks like poopoo after the initial blend. In fact, the average consumer monitor can't display HDR. That's were tone mapping comes in to save the day.

Unfortunately the acronym HDR itself has been mislabeled to the point of no repair. It's now an accepted thing to call tone mapped images HDR. Ahhh well.

[rickthestick]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

If anyone can tell me where Izzy's is (without using Google - and that doesn't mean going to Yahoo) they earn the big bonus (old "News Radio" episode).

I don't know where Izzy's is so I guess I get the shaft. I can't believe I'm pulling out "News Radio" references. I love it.

I love the finished product. I'm just starting to dabble into HDR. I love the amazing effects possible from the surreal almost hand painted qualities to realistic shots like yours that so closely resemble what the human eye sees. Well done.