Starting to dabble in HDR photography

[bstrickler]

After seeing some of your guys' work in HDR, I thought I'd try my hand at it, and boy is it fun!

Here's my first 2 pics, with minimal work (Tone Compressing and Detail Enhancing via Photomatix Pro). 1st one has some Photoshop work done, to bring out the colors more, but I think I made the green too vivid. Looks almost blown out, to me.:

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs51/i/20...bstrickler.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs50/i/20...bstrickler.jpg


Both of those were taken with a 4.0 Megapixel Fuji S5100, with JPG EI bracketing (it can't do it in RAW). Not bad for an old camera, eh?

I am getting addicted to the HDR stuff now, because of how amazing it looks, and how different the results can be, just by playing with a few settings.

~Brian

[Tekno_Cowboy]

Neat stuff. I'm going to have to try out the AEB on my Canon XSi.

[UnknownVT]

Here are some links that might be useful -

HDR Tutorials Roundup

and

HDR on the cheap - HDR freeware roundup

Gizmo's - Best Free High Dynamic Range (HDR) Software

Top 4 Freeware HDR Solutions

Photomatix seems to be very popular for HDR software -
there is a freeware basic version.

[Tekno_Cowboy]

Thanks for the links, but I run Linux.

I've already found a script-fu plugin for Gimp, and a couple of other methods.

I'm going to Wyoming in a few weeks, and this should really come in handy with the landscape shots.

[LEDobsession]

After seeing some of your guys' work in HDR, I thought I'd try my hand at it, and boy is it fun!

Here's my first 2 pics, with minimal work (Tone Compressing and Detail Enhancing via Photomatix Pro). 1st one has some Photoshop work done, to bring out the colors more, but I think I made the green too vivid. Looks almost blown out, to me.:

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs51/i/20...bstrickler.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs50/i/20...bstrickler.jpg


Both of those were taken with a 4.0 Megapixel Fuji S5100, with JPG EI bracketing (it can't do it in RAW). Not bad for an old camera, eh?

I am getting addicted to the HDR stuff now, because of how amazing it looks, and how different the results can be, just by playing with a few settings.

~Brian

Nice shots! Not bad for an old camera indeed! I like your second a little bit more. I agree with your idea of the green on the first one. Photomatix Pro is what I use and I thoroughly enjoy the results. I think I tend to do less light smoothing for that unreal look but the more light smoothing seems to be more life-like and realistic.

Anyways, welcome to the addiction! Some photogs I know shoot only in HDR now. It really is a blast, isn't it?

[DoctaDink]

I've not done a whole lot with HDR, but, I find that I can get a more realistic "HDR-ish" image using layers. I superimpose an image with well exposed highlights over the image exposed for the shadows (good shadow details), and then erase away the blocked shadows to reveal the underlying shadow detail. Sometimes I do it vis vice versa. You have to be careful with areas of hard contrast, such as an horizon, hair againts sky, etc. as the erased line can be apparent. I tend to use a soft brush, and low opacity settings.

[blasterman]

Docta,

Easier just to select the higlight areas in one image, select inverse, copy, and paste it on the other image with a tad of feather. I do this now and then.

HDR is a cool tool, but the reality here is that HDR images are actually the product of the tonal mapping that occurs afterwards. If you just create a HDR image from several exposures and don't tonal map it the result will be grey, muddy, and uninteresting.

The 'look' that people rave (or whine) about in regards to HDR shots doesn't really have anything to do with HDR. It's just the funky tonal mapping that the software does afterwards. Sometimes it's fun to drag tonal range all the way from deep shadows to details in puffy clouds, but I dare say 85% of the time the HDR step isn't required, especially if it's a low contrast scene to begin with. Some software allows you to tonal map without messing with HDR.

This scene for example was simply tonal mapped from a single exposure. Over-cast day, so HDR wasn't necessary.

[LEDobsession]

HDR is a cool tool, but the reality here is that HDR images are actually the product of the tonal mapping that occurs afterwards. If you just create a HDR image from several exposures and don't tonal map it the result will be grey, muddy, and uninteresting.

The 'look' that people rave (or whine) about in regards to HDR shots doesn't really have anything to do with HDR. It's just the funky tonal mapping that the software does afterwards. Sometimes it's fun to drag tonal range all the way from deep shadows to details in puffy clouds, but I dare say 85% of the time the HDR step isn't required, especially if it's a low contrast scene to begin with. Some software allows you to tonal map without messing with HDR.

Tone mapping really is the stuff that makes what we're looking for in an HDR image. The simple HDR without tone mapping is quite boring. When I first tried HDR imaging, I did it on Photoshop (CS3 on Mac) and was not impressed by the result. Soon after I bought Photomatix Pro and thats when I got what I wanted. What did you use to tone map just a single exposure? From what I've tried, Photomatix wont allow tone mapping of just a single exposure.

[blasterman]

Qtpsfgui.

It's hardly easy to work with though.

[DoctaDink]

Docta,

Easier just to select the higlight areas in one image, select inverse, copy, and paste it on the other image with a tad of feather. I do this now and then.

HDR is a cool tool, but the reality here is that HDR images are actually the product of the tonal mapping that occurs afterwards. If you just create a HDR image from several exposures and don't tonal map it the result will be grey, muddy, and uninteresting.

The 'look' that people rave (or whine) about in regards to HDR shots doesn't really have anything to do with HDR. It's just the funky tonal mapping that the software does afterwards. Sometimes it's fun to drag tonal range all the way from deep shadows to details in puffy clouds, but I dare say 85% of the time the HDR step isn't required, especially if it's a low contrast scene to begin with. Some software allows you to tonal map without messing with HDR.

This scene for example was simply tonal mapped from a single exposure. Over-cast day, so HDR wasn't necessary.

Thanks for the suggestions.
I think its the "funky tonal mapping" that produces the cartoonish effect that I'm usually not interested in. I just want to expand the effective or apparent lattitude of the image, to retain both highlight and shadow details without loosing snap and contrast. In my hands ("ham handed", albeit) the inverse image technique just softens and dulls the image. Your image really is lovely, but not exactly the effect I'm usually after, when taking naturalistic images.
That being said, I often like painterly or artsy effects ( see some of my posted images), and do use all sorts of techniques and filters.

[blasterman]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Most HDRs are overly done. I haven't dropped acid since I was a freshmen in college and have no wish to go back :-)

IMHO, mine is a very subtle tone map. Just enough to bring out contrast, and that's as far as I go.

[EV_007]

I've seen some amazing HDR processed images, but have seen far more that look too HDR looking as well. Over processed, posterized, catoon looking with wild tones and the tell tail halo that screams HDR attempt seem to be the norm.

Images with wide dynamic range that doesn't look HDR-y are my favorite "HDR" images... if that makes any sense.

[fyrstormer]

I was going to say, the pics posted here just look like they have the contrast and saturation cranked up -- which is an oversimplification, but it's the easiest way to explain what I think I'm seeing here.

So, what is HDR if it isn't the thing that makes these pretty Thomas-Kinkade-esque landscape photos look the way they do?

[jch79]

So, what is HDR if it isn't the thing that makes these pretty Thomas-Kinkade-esque landscape photos look the way they do?

For me, it's a really useful tool for a (sometimes necessary) minimal setup with a (sometimes forced) quick shooting timeframe. I can't believe I used to get by with single-exposure photographs! And for that matter, on film! (I do NOT miss the old days, that's for sure!)

Here's a couple of shots I took yesterday... nothing amazing, but hopefully they illustrate the point that HDR can be used to really capture a scene and convey it the way a human eye sees it, not how a single camera frame does, and not what a human eye "on acid" would see it, as blasterman said above.





While this office wasn't necessarily dark, it would've been a challenge to light - especially given there were employees working here, waiting to use the conference room, and walking back and forth past the sitting area.

john

[DoctaDink]

John,
Now that's what I'm talking about! That is what HDR was meant for.

[EV_007]

Agreed, that is very good. It doesn't look HDR, yet HDR methods were used. This is what I had in mind when Photoshop supported HDR.

[DoctaDink]

John,
Those are some cool spaces. Is it an architectural firm?

[Vesper]

That looks like Seattle out the window.

[LEDobsession]

John, I think that those 2 pics you have are wonderful examples of how HDR is really effective. In particular, I really like the second one . Using only one exposure of that conference room, the room itself could have been exposed properly but the windows would be overexposed, or the windows could have been exposed properly and the room would have been underexposed. Nice shots!


I think that the overly-done HDRs can be fun too. Sure, the eye wouldn't see them that way unless there was acid helping, but think of photoshopping. How many pictures do we find from there that are completely unrealistic, yet somehow still pleasing to the eye? Low light smoothing in HDR tonal mapping is kinda the same way. You know its been processed and tampered with to the max, but it can still be something that people look at and say, "Wow". Then again, some think its atrocious, so to each his own, I guess.

[jch79]

Thanks guys!

@DoctaDink - it's actually a consulting company... but their space was awesome.

@Vesper - if you notice the cross bracing of the building in the right window, that's the John Hancock Center... located here in sunny Chicago.

@LEDobsession - I can certainly appreciate the crazy things that HDR can do to scenes. It's obviously not appropriate for what I do, but I think we're seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as what's to come.

john

[fyrstormer]

Well, for some reason I'll probably never understand, I actually bothered to look up HDR this time (I've heard of it about five times now), and then I played a bit with my little Canon Exilim camera. (I can't adjust the F-stop, but I can adjust the ISO, white balance, and EV, so that's close enough.) Unfortunately my camera only allows a ±2EV adjustment, but it's enough that I was able to take a picture of the bookcase in my living room without flash and with a table lamp turned on right next to it, and the HDR image still came out much clearer than the originals. Good stuff; now if only there were a way to hit the trigger once and have the camera take three pictures in quick succession with -2, 0 and +2 EV settings.

From the five minutes I spent playing with it, it looks like Picturenaut is the easiest program to pick up and run with; it also avoided inverting the brightness of the spill around the table lamp, which Photomatix messed up on.

However, now I have a question: HDR images occupy a color space that completely encloses CIE RGB, and presumably at least mostly encloses CIE CMYK -- but CIE RGB and CIE CMYK are different from each other, so if I print an HDR image compressed to fit into the CIE RGB color space, I won't get all the colors I could be getting. Are there any programs that can take uncompressed HDR images and compress them to fit CIE CMYK and then send them to the printer? I bet Photoshop can do that, but it would be awesome if there were something a little less expensive and a little more free I could use.

[DoctaDink]

Thanks guys!

@DoctaDink - it's actually a consulting company... but their space was awesome.

@Vesper - if you notice the cross bracing of the building in the right window, that's the John Hancock Center... located here in sunny Chicago.

@LEDobsession - I can certainly appreciate the crazy things that HDR can do to scenes. It's obviously not appropriate for what I do, but I think we're seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as what's to come.

john

Yes, those are some very nice spaces. By any chance, was it designed by VOA? It looks like their style.

[jch79]

Yes, those are some very nice spaces. By any chance, was it designed by VOA? It looks like their style.

I'm not sure who designed the space - I wasn't taking the photos for the architect. But VOA's stuff is always really cool. I sometimes wish I had gone to school for architecture... but taking pictures of it is just fine by me.

@fyrstormer - I know Photoshop can handle 64bit images, but most of my stuff is for on-screen, so I don't worry too much about printing. Any time I make prints from HDR images on my wide-format printer, they look fine - no weird banding issues or anything. The whole 32-bit/64-bit thing is too much to think about for me.

john

[UnknownVT]

Well, for some reason I'll probably never understand, I actually bothered to look up HDR this time (I've heard of it about five times now), and then I played a bit with my little Canon Exilim camera.

"Canon Exilim" ? Casio makes an Exilim - is that what you meant?
(Canons are PowerShots)

However, now I have a question: HDR images occupy a color space that completely encloses CIE RGB, and presumably at least mostly encloses CIE CMYK -- but CIE RGB and CIE CMYK are different from each other, so if I print an HDR image compressed to fit into the CIE RGB color space, I won't get all the colors I could be getting. Are there any programs that can take uncompressed HDR images and compress them to fit CIE CMYK and then send them to the printer? I bet Photoshop can do that, but it would be awesome if there were something a little less expensive and a little more free I could use.

I think you might be making way too much of this, most people just work in RGB (actually sRGB) and print from that. Hardly any hobbyists use CMYK (normally used by commercial printers).

However if you are looking for a powerful versatile and Free photo editor - then try the GIMP - it also has a wealth of plug-ins - it probably can do the color space conversions - but beware color space conversion is normally fraught with dangers for color fussy/critical applications - this normally means using anything other than the usual sRGB, one should start with the original image in the wanted/correct color space -
and I'll bet a "Canon Exilim" does not have that option.......

[fyrstormer]

"Canon Exilim" ? Casio makes an Exilim - is that what you meant?
(Canons are PowerShots)

Heh...oops. Yes, I meant Casio. Canon makes my printer.

I think you might be making way too much of this, most people just work in RGB (actually sRGB) and print from that. Hardly any hobbyists use CMYK (normally used by commercial printers).

I probably am making too much of it, but I prefer to know what is possible and then decide how much effort I'm willing to invest, rather than limiting myself according to my "station". Anyway, everyone who's ever printed something in color has used CMYK, because those are the colors of ink that all color printers use. (unless you start off working in CMYK, the printer driver will cross-convert from RGB to CMYK for you.) I would prefer to down-convert straight from whatever color space is used in an HDR image to CMYK instead of passing through RGB and losing some of the colors as a result, but that all depends on whether any software exists that can do that.

I'll bet a "Canon Exilim" does not have that option.......

As far as I know, no digital camera can change the color space that an image occupies, because the color space is defined by the sensitivity of the photoreceptors on the image sensor -- unless you can change out the image sensor, you're stuck with the same color space at all times. Film cameras can do that, of course, because each brand and type of film is sensitive to different colors -- but when you scan the negatives, you're still downconverting to the color space allowed by the scanner's image sensor. There's no escape, unfortunately.

[UnknownVT]

I probably am making too much of it, but I prefer to know what is possible and then decide how much effort I'm willing to invest, rather than limiting myself according to my "station". Anyway, everyone who's ever printed something in color has used CMYK, because those are the colors of ink that all color printers use. (unless you start off working in CMYK, the printer driver will cross-convert from RGB to CMYK for you.) I would prefer to down-convert straight from whatever color space is used in an HDR image to CMYK instead of passing through RGB and losing some of the colors as a result, but that all depends on whether any software exists that can do that.

A lot of photo editors can take regular RGB and split into CMYK -
but it might not be quite as expected.

.....and if you manage to get a real CMYK file - good luck in trying to get it printed at any of the regular photo printers - like Ritz Camera, WalMart, Walgreens etc - they are set up for regular RGB files......

As far as I know, no digital camera can change the color space that an image occupies, because the color space is defined by the sensitivity of the photoreceptors on the image sensor -- unless you can change out the image sensor, you're stuck with the same color space at all times. Film cameras can do that, of course, because each brand and type of film is sensitive to different colors -- but when you scan the negatives, you're still downconverting to the color space allowed by the scanner's image sensor. There's no escape, unfortunately.

I understand that any camera with RAW files can let you define the working color space for its output file -
I think what you meant was that the color gamut is fixed on any digicam since that is limited to its sensor -
Color space is normally associated with the file produced and the working "color space".

It's one thing to want to understand color spaces and their color gamut - but I really do think you are making all this unnecessarily complicated
and are possibly going to get unexpected/unintended results.

[jch79]

Yup - all of the printing RIP software and drivers do a great job of converting RGB images (which are much easier to work with on the computer, IMHO), into CMYK.

[blasterman]

If you've seen the latest printers none of them are a pure CMYK. They have multiple tones and dilutions of ink, so I'm not sure if true 'CMYK' even exists with desktop printers.

In any case, even if it did, it would be native to the print engine and even if you could aquire in pure CMYK it would still have to be translated.Use to be a lot more straightforward when you shot simple plates.

Trying to remember my color science, but I thought LAB gave the best translation to CMYK without degenerate mappings.

[qwertyydude]

The canon ip4600 is real CMYK. Unlike most other printers canon has the finest 1 pico liter print head which eliminates the need for photo cyan and photo magenta which are really just watered down versions of the full strength ink. They're used to make lighter shades of the color because the shading would look grainy if you tried to use dark colors to make light shades. I know my canon ip4600 creates photos that are better than printing at walmart or costco and is cheaper since I refill mine.

[Tekno_Cowboy]

I don't know about costco, but walmart's photo service quality is pretty horrible at the local store. For some reason I can have 6 copies of the same photo, and they'll all look different.

I mostly use target's service now, as the Kodak system they use gives me consistent high-quality results.