I've recently become addicted to HDR processing. I am enjoying working with new photos such as this one,
and re-processing older photos that were rejected for some reason or another. Through it all, I am finding that some of my previously rejected photos are really cool in HDR. Here are a couple I'd rejected earlier, but love in HDR.
Now for my questions:
1) Do you use the same photo and simply reprocess it for the different exposures? Or do you take a photo of the same subject three times with different exposures?
2) How do you determine what photos would look good in HDR (I have found a few that didn't look much different or didn't look good at all)?
3) Do you prefer the more natural look or a highly edited look?
4) What program do you use for HDR (I've been using Photomatix Light but am considering upgrading to Photomatix Pro)?
5) What tips can you give that will make me (and others) better at HDR?
1) When I do it, I use 3 different exposures (usually). Sometimes there will be too much movement for processing, so I will tone map a single raw image; which is only pseudo hdr.
2)Tough call. Normally nice skies do it. Rust looks good. Graffiti looks good.
3)I prefer more natural, but occasionally will do more overdone. The examples you've provided are too overdone for my taste, but different strokes for different folks.
4)Photomatix Pro. Lots of options. I find it easier and better than CS5. I've also used a plugin for photoshop called ReDynamix, which does pseudo-hdr, and it produces good results if you use it minimally.
1) For the most part, I will use three different separate exposures.
2) Sometimes the the camera's dynamic range cannot handle that of the scene's - resulting in loss of detail. When I do want to bring out these details, I will use HDR.
3) Personally, I prefer a more natural look. When someone asks me, "Is that HDR?", I'll consider my HDR shot a failure. But this is just me :-)
4) I use Photomatix Pro
5) When directly facing the sun, the standard three separate exposures will not cut it. It results in banding. You'll need at least five.
I agree with @musicguy1982 for answer #1, I do the same and for the same reasons. Although If there is movement but I really want to use the bracketed shots then I will play with the ghosting and see if that fixes it.
2) Normally buildings, landscape, skylines and machines (i.e. planes, trucks, ect) I will HDR.
3) I like HDR to sharpen and brighten my shots, make them more dramatic or enhance a certain feature like a reflection or texture.
4) I use Photomatix Pro and love it. But a HDR program doesn't do it all so I will use Picnik or Picasa to get my desired effects after I HDR process a shot. I am learning how to use Photoshop to mask my HDR and bracket shots together to get rid of the "halo effect" some HDR processing seems to create around a subject, however I haven't mastered that yet.
To see some amazing HDR and learn tons about it you should visit Try Ratcliff, he is amazing and is where I learned (still learning) how to HDR. http://www.stuckincustoms.com/
P.S. if you buy the Photomatix Pro he has a discount code :)
i like all the options on photomatix pro ... i set my camera to take 3 shots in a row one stop under/overexposed one normal which except in low light situations seems to reduce the shadowing effect as i really do not like carrying a tripod on my outdoor excursions. i find the best hdr shots are the ones that capture what most photographs cannot --- the full spectrum of highlights and shadow.
also @dejongdd -- i think the reason most of us are drawn to the first shot is that compositionally it's a much stronger shot than the other two. i think that is something to always keep in mind when shooting in hdr is to make sure that you are choosing strong images/scenes to begin with that incorporate all the aspects that make for a strong image such as composition- design/color/ shapes/ texture/ perspective
Ok, I have taken your suggestions to heart and am trying for a more realistic look (although I do think the more "painting-like" look is kind of fun for some photos). Here is a tree I've processed with pseudo HDR (see Daniel Sutter @musicguy1982 comment) to see if I could enhance the details of the tree. I think this one works well and the detail of the tree's trunk stands out so much more than the original.
Here is the original:
And here is the same photo in HDR
What are your thoughts? There isn't a great deal of difference, but a few subtle differences make the 2nd one a better photo. I'm open to any and all suggestions.
2. HDR doesn't work on all photos. To really be worthwhile the scene needs to have a lot of dynamic range (hence why it's called HDR). People get in the habit of applying it to any old image when there's little that HDR processing can really add.
3. Natural 90% of the time. There are some situations where you can create a really neat over-the-top effect, but they usually come across as amateurish more often than not.
4. Photomatix.
5. My only tip is to avoid doing HDR just for the sake of doing it. It's a fun type of photography to work on, but I see so many people get hung up on it and try to HDR every image, good or bad, and usually the end result isn't really any better than the original. So it pays to learn how to do it, but more importantly you should learn when to use it.
3.
These two I took yesterday and the day before and I used just one image. I was really pleased with the results
this was with 3
I'm finding using less intense colour and luminosity tends to make the shots look more "real". When I compare these to the originals they are not so different - mainly what has been helped is the horrible great skies!!
It's getting to be quite popular! I love using it and have done so for years. I do try to get it to just enlarge the dynamic range and enhance colours however, I am not a fan of 'the HDR look' in its own right.
1) Do I use the same photo? Very often yes, if there is a lot of movement in the shot, triple of bracketted shots wont align properly. Singles also have their own character.
2) What shots will look good. I use it for landscapes, but I've had success with buildings and things metallic.
3) Do you prefer the more natural look or a highly edited look? I don't like the highly edited look. However I found that I got used to seeing perfectly good photos that missed the actual drama of the real scene - I try to use HDR to put that drama in where the limitations of a standard camera's dynamic range fail.
FACTS: The human eye see a scene using 16 -20 stops of exposure. The average DSLR delivers only 6-8 a point and shoot less than that. HDR puts another 2 stops our way.
4) What program do you use for HDR (I've been using Photomatix Light but am considering upgrading to Photomatix Pro)? I seem to be the odd one out here, I use Dynamic-Photo HDR. I do own full copies of Photomatix and EasyHDR and FHDR!! You can tell I'm addicted. I started with Photomatix and got so frustrated with it's styles not looking the way I wanted. Dynamic-Photo HDR suits my taste better and also allows me to cope manually with ghosting of moving objects.
5) What tips can you give that will make me (and others) better at HDR?
A feature that I haven't seen mentioned in the comments above is that you MUST be either on M (manual) or A (aperture priority) anything else will allow the camera to adjust the aperture hence the DoF. The HDR program will not be able to align properly.
@musicguy1982 hey...i am so new to this and this is something that i really want to do and know absolutely nothing about. i will read the entire thread but wanted to ask you is there a certain setting that does 1 photo 3 ways...i assume HDR is all about mixing 3 differently exposed photos into 1 photo....or do you literally have to meter your camera and if so...how would you do this. sorry...i am really a newbie..
@robinwarner You can do it manually in aperture mode by adjusting your EV to +1 and -1 or in manual mode by going up one and down one stop for shutter speed. My camera does bracketing where it does that automatically. Some of the higher end cameras will bracket up to 9 shots. Mine only does 3. You'll have to check your manual to see if you have it.
A good HDR photo, doesnt look "HDR"...there is nothing worse than an over processed HDR image imo. Something to keep in mind, ie dont do it for the sole purpose of creating a HDR image...Digital camera's have a lower dynamic range than film camera's and indeed the naked eye, that is why some photographers seek to use this processing, certainly not to make a scene look unnatural.
Well this discussion prompted me to make today's photo an HDR one. For me, this is about the extent of the processing I typically do. Just enough to really enhance the range in part of a photo (in this case the sky) while not drawing attention to the fact that it's HDR.
@robinwarner Then you have to process it. I don't really like the way photoshop does hdr. I use photomatix. You can download a trial which is fully functional but adds a watermark to see if you like it. http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html
And then if you like it you can buy it. There are probably freeware hdr processors out there too, but I'm not familiar with any.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
can i tag a question on ? ... hehe .... anyone know a good paint shop pro tutorial for this ?
2)Tough call. Normally nice skies do it. Rust looks good. Graffiti looks good.
3)I prefer more natural, but occasionally will do more overdone. The examples you've provided are too overdone for my taste, but different strokes for different folks.
4)Photomatix Pro. Lots of options. I find it easier and better than CS5. I've also used a plugin for photoshop called ReDynamix, which does pseudo-hdr, and it produces good results if you use it minimally.
5)Don't overdo it. Use a tripod.
True HDR
I'm obviously not an expert.
1) For the most part, I will use three different separate exposures.
2) Sometimes the the camera's dynamic range cannot handle that of the scene's - resulting in loss of detail. When I do want to bring out these details, I will use HDR.
3) Personally, I prefer a more natural look. When someone asks me, "Is that HDR?", I'll consider my HDR shot a failure. But this is just me :-)
4) I use Photomatix Pro
5) When directly facing the sun, the standard three separate exposures will not cut it. It results in banding. You'll need at least five.
2) Normally buildings, landscape, skylines and machines (i.e. planes, trucks, ect) I will HDR.
3) I like HDR to sharpen and brighten my shots, make them more dramatic or enhance a certain feature like a reflection or texture.
4) I use Photomatix Pro and love it. But a HDR program doesn't do it all so I will use Picnik or Picasa to get my desired effects after I HDR process a shot. I am learning how to use Photoshop to mask my HDR and bracket shots together to get rid of the "halo effect" some HDR processing seems to create around a subject, however I haven't mastered that yet.
To see some amazing HDR and learn tons about it you should visit Try Ratcliff, he is amazing and is where I learned (still learning) how to HDR. http://www.stuckincustoms.com/
P.S. if you buy the Photomatix Pro he has a discount code :)
also @dejongdd -- i think the reason most of us are drawn to the first shot is that compositionally it's a much stronger shot than the other two. i think that is something to always keep in mind when shooting in hdr is to make sure that you are choosing strong images/scenes to begin with that incorporate all the aspects that make for a strong image such as composition- design/color/ shapes/ texture/ perspective
Here is the original:
And here is the same photo in HDR
What are your thoughts? There isn't a great deal of difference, but a few subtle differences make the 2nd one a better photo. I'm open to any and all suggestions.
2. HDR doesn't work on all photos. To really be worthwhile the scene needs to have a lot of dynamic range (hence why it's called HDR). People get in the habit of applying it to any old image when there's little that HDR processing can really add.
3. Natural 90% of the time. There are some situations where you can create a really neat over-the-top effect, but they usually come across as amateurish more often than not.
4. Photomatix.
5. My only tip is to avoid doing HDR just for the sake of doing it. It's a fun type of photography to work on, but I see so many people get hung up on it and try to HDR every image, good or bad, and usually the end result isn't really any better than the original. So it pays to learn how to do it, but more importantly you should learn when to use it.
3.
this was with 3
I'm finding using less intense colour and luminosity tends to make the shots look more "real". When I compare these to the originals they are not so different - mainly what has been helped is the horrible great skies!!
1) Do I use the same photo? Very often yes, if there is a lot of movement in the shot, triple of bracketted shots wont align properly. Singles also have their own character.
2) What shots will look good. I use it for landscapes, but I've had success with buildings and things metallic.
3) Do you prefer the more natural look or a highly edited look? I don't like the highly edited look. However I found that I got used to seeing perfectly good photos that missed the actual drama of the real scene - I try to use HDR to put that drama in where the limitations of a standard camera's dynamic range fail.
FACTS: The human eye see a scene using 16 -20 stops of exposure. The average DSLR delivers only 6-8 a point and shoot less than that. HDR puts another 2 stops our way.
4) What program do you use for HDR (I've been using Photomatix Light but am considering upgrading to Photomatix Pro)? I seem to be the odd one out here, I use Dynamic-Photo HDR. I do own full copies of Photomatix and EasyHDR and FHDR!! You can tell I'm addicted. I started with Photomatix and got so frustrated with it's styles not looking the way I wanted. Dynamic-Photo HDR suits my taste better and also allows me to cope manually with ghosting of moving objects.
5) What tips can you give that will make me (and others) better at HDR?
A feature that I haven't seen mentioned in the comments above is that you MUST be either on M (manual) or A (aperture priority) anything else will allow the camera to adjust the aperture hence the DoF. The HDR program will not be able to align properly.
Enjoy.!
And then if you like it you can buy it. There are probably freeware hdr processors out there too, but I'm not familiar with any.