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/2009/280/5/c/Agua_Caliente_Park_HDR_by_bstrickler.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs50/i/2009/281/9/f/Darkened_Agua_Caliente_HDR_by_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. :naughty:

 

[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. :thumbsup:

 

[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/2009/280/5/c/Agua_Caliente_Park_HDR_by_bstrickler.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs50/i/2009/281/9/f/Darkened_Agua_Caliente_HDR_by_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? :thumbsup:

 

[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! oo: (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. :laughing:

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.

:thumbsup: 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! :thumbsup:


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! :wave:

@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.

:thumbsup: john