High Dynamic Range

canon400d

I have been looking at a tutorial on HDR in this months magazine of PhotoPlus. I downloaded the trial software for Photomatix as Canon suggested. Because the weather has been so bad I took three shots indoors at normal, under and over exposed. I followed the tutorial which was easy but the end product image was not too good at all. The normal exposure I took was much better. I then went and ran the same three exposures through the HDR format on CS3 and the end product was better but not perfect. Can anyone please give me some advice on this. Is HDR mainly used for landscape shots? It did not say this in the PhotoPlus magazine it just said the smart way to create perfect exposures.
Regards
Bob

dlplumer

1. Use a tripod

2. After you merge in Photomatix you have to put the finishing touches on it in whatever your PP of choice is. I use Aperture. You use PS.

3. You have to play with the tone mapping to get the settings that will produce the most desirable results for your eye.

I'm sure others here will give you more and better advice.

Dan

anonymouscuban

I've been playing around with HDR as well. The first few I did came out horrible; very grainy and lots of noise.

I then invested in a nice tripod. That improved the images a bit. What really helped was learning how to use all the sliders during the tone mapping process. BTW, use the Detail Enhancer tools instead of the other option... not sure that's an option with the demo. Also, as Bob mentioned, do some touch up work in PP. With some images I will create a layer mask of one of the exposures to fix noise and such.

Google HDR Workflow in Photomatix and you should be able to find some good info on how to make adjustments during the tone mapping process.

HTH,

Alex

canon400d

anonymouscuban wrote:

I've been playing around with HDR as well. The first few I did came out horrible; very grainy and lots of noise.

I then invested in a nice tripod. That improved the images a bit. What really helped was learning how to use all the sliders during the tone mapping process. BTW, use the Detail Enhancer tools instead of the other option... not sure that's an option with the demo. Also, as Bob mentioned, do some touch up work in PP. With some images I will create a layer mask of one of the exposures to fix noise and such.

Google HDR Workflow in Photomatix and you should be able to find some good info on how to make adjustments during the tone mapping process.

HTH,

Alex

Thanks Dan and Alex for looking and advising and will certainly have a look what you have said. I find the results on CS3 are better than Photomatix and with CS3 it does it all for you. The problem I have come up against in CS3 is I am unable to save the final image. I change it from 32bit to 8bit but it returns to 32bit and I am unable to get it into a Jpg.
Regards
Bob

anonymouscuban

I've never tried HDR in CS3. I may check it out. However, I read a good book on the HDR process and the author compares the same HDR image done in Photomatix, CS3 and another HDR program and he feels Photomatix produces the best resutls. I would agree, at least based on the sample images in his book.

As for converting to 8-bit or JPEG, I have the same probably when I try to convert the TIFF created by Photomatix. I can't figure out how to convert from TIFF to JPEG. Instead, I use Lightroom which makes the conversion a breeze.

Not sure if you have LR but that's the way to go.

Alex

kdog

anonymouscuban wrote:

As for converting to 8-bit or JPEG, I have the same probably when I try to convert the TIFF created by Photomatix. I can't figure out how to convert from TIFF to JPEG.

So you're opening the TIFF in CS3 for processing. Correct? After your post processing is done, do this:

1) Image->Mode->8 Bit
2) File->Save As... (Select JPG in the Format dropdown)

Regards,
-joel

canon400d

kdog wrote:

So you're opening the TIFF in CS3 for processing. Correct? After your post processing is done, do this:

1) Image->Mode->8 Bit
2) File->Save As... (Select JPG in the Format dropdown)

Regards,
-joel

Thanks Alex and Joel, I have LR so I will give it a whirl. I have tried Image-Mode and 8 Bit Joel but by the time I get to Save As the drop down list does not show Jpg which I am always used to as it has automatically returned to 32 Bit created by Photomatix.
Regards
Bob

Izzy Garavito

I've been shooting HDR for a while (I'll post up a couple of pics) and have found that, sometimes, no-HDR is better. It really depends on the shot. for example:

If it's windy and you're shooting a landscape or anything that moves with the wind (not including water) you might get a lot of 'ghosting' in the final HDR image. you may or may not be able to work around it by masking the HDR image with the original etc. etc.

If I can capture the whole scene's dynamic range without 3 exposures then I'd skip HDR--a lot of the time the originals look better and sharper

If the dynamic range is so high that you need to expose for the sky, the middle ground, and the shadows with three different shots then use HDR--in this case HDR seems to work very well and you can get some very dramatic images. you'll bring out details in the shadows and also keep some in the high-exposure areas.

I've found that, depending on what you're trying to do, photomatix and CS3 will give you different results.
Photomatix will give you the 'HDR' look (especially when you play with microcontrast and micro smoothing.
CS3 will give you a more 'realistic' image, only with a higher dynamic range than you could have gotten off-camera.

Sometimes you can get more dramatic results with Photomatix than from CS3, yet CS3 seems to render more true images.












check out the flickr HDR pages--they have a few tutorials and a ton of example images


you should use a tripod unless your shutter speed is high enough, then photomatix or cs3 will correct for it. the image of the cross was taken without a tripod but it was mid-day and the 40D is pretty quick.

Cheers,

Izzy

dlplumer

These are fabulous Izzy I especially like the 2nd one.

anonymouscuban

Izzy... these shots are pretty awesome. I agree, some go over board on the HDR from what I have seen on the Net.

Did you use Photomatix or CS3 for these shots.

BTW, I picked this book up a few weeks ago and it does a great job of explaining HDR and workflow in Photomatix.

Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography

Izzy Garavito

Hey thanks guys! I'll admit, though--these all seem HDRy (have that HDR-feel/look). In my opinion, the best HDRs are ones that look natural, showing people what they would have seen had they been there. I was going for the HDR look for these images (it was a project) so I'm happy with them.

Thanks again!

for the cross one i used CS3--notice how it looks less HDR-like than the bridge

for the Bridge one i used Photomatix

for the Capitol building I used CS3, and it looks pretty much like it did when ii was standing there.

If you're shooting HDRs, clouds and thunderstorms are almost necessary--imagine those pics without clouds? pretty boring.

merging all the images together can cause problems, though. in the bridge photograph, the powerlines are screwed up. Hard to notice but it's there.


In a few images I have I've had to do a combination of HDR and masking to get the best result. So it's a good tool to have in your arsenal and a lot of fun to see some of the results you can get!

Take some and post some up here

Izzy Garavito

anonymouscuban wrote:

Izzy... these shots are pretty awesome. I agree, some go over board on the HDR from what I have seen on the Net.

Did you use Photomatix or CS3 for these shots.

BTW, I picked this book up a few weeks ago and it does a great job of explaining HDR and workflow in Photomatix.

Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography

Dude, let me know how you like that book. I've seen it several times at the book store and leafed through it. it has some killer photos. I'll pick it up if you like it

dlplumer

Izzy Garavito wrote:

Hey thanks guys! I'll admit, though--these all seem HDRy (have that HDR-feel/look). In my opinion, the best HDRs are ones that look natural, showing people what they would have seen had they been there. I was going for the HDR look for these images (it was a project) so I'm happy with them.

Thanks again!

for the cross one i used CS3--notice how it looks less HDR-like than the bridge

for the Bridge one i used Photomatix

for the Capitol building I used CS3, and it looks pretty much like it did when ii was standing there.

If you're shooting HDRs, clouds and thunderstorms are almost necessary--imagine those pics without clouds? pretty boring.

merging all the images together can cause problems, though. in the bridge photograph, the powerlines are screwed up. Hard to notice but it's there.


In a few images I have I've had to do a combination of HDR and masking to get the best result. So it's a good tool to have in your arsenal and a lot of fun to see some of the results you can get!

Take some and post some up here

Ryan Armbrust

Here are a few of my HDR images. All taken with a Nikon D300. 9 exposures all 1 stop apart and merged with photomatix Pro.

I really love this as a way of shooting.

anonymouscuban

Izzy Garavito wrote:

Dude, let me know how you like that book. I've seen it several times at the book store and leafed through it. it has some killer photos. I'll pick it up if you like it

Izzy,

I love the book. It's a great reference book. It goes into really good detail on how to shoot bracketed images, what types of shots work well for HDR, and step-by-step workflow in Photomatix. I often go back to the book when processing images for help on overcoming ghosting, noise, etc.

I highly recommend it.

Alex

canon400d

anonymouscuban wrote:

Izzy,

I love the book. It's a great reference book. It goes into really good detail on how to shoot bracketed images, what types of shots work well for HDR, and step-by-step workflow in Photomatix. I often go back to the book when processing images for help on overcoming ghosting, noise, etc.

I highly recommend it.

Alex

Thanks for the advice guys. I would totally agree that the final outcome in CS3 is certainly more realistic than Photomatix. It is probably me at the end of the day as a number of people swear by Photomatix. The images on here are absolutely brilliant and thanks once again for your help.
Regards
Bob

al'be:do

Izzy Garavito wrote:

Hey thanks guys! I'll admit, though--these all seem HDRy (have that HDR-feel/look). In my opinion, the best HDRs are ones that look natural, showing people what they would have seen had they been there. I was going for the HDR look for these images (it was a project) so I'm happy with them.

Unfortunately most tone mapping algorithms (proposed by Fattal, Pattanaik, Dorsey et al) do not produce very satisfying results - in respect to realistic appearance on the screen.

The most natural results I know are produced with the iCAM06 image appearance model. This is specially designed for mimicking the color and overall image appearance of HDR scenes as they would be seen by an observer "being there". It uses data like lightness adaptation, "per pixel" whitepoint adaptation, and many more things that are experienced by a human observer. At the moment iCAM06 is the best general purpose operator.

I only know an implementation for Matlab and it works very fine, but I'm not sure if there's any HDR software that uses this tone mapping operator.

You can get more info about iCAM06 from the Munsell Color Science Lab, with download links for papers and the Matlab code:

http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/icam06/

Maybe one of you wants to implement a Photoshop plugin

By the way, it's often crucial to know the absolute lighting data (for example in lumens etc.) to produce the best results - with any mapping operator - as long as the implementation allows to use the data.

DI-Joe

One of the things you're going to find when doing HDR photography is you will get major criticism for "abusing" HDR. Technically speaking HDR photography is suppose to help compress the range of contrast to what the human eye sees.

So it's supposed to look natural like this beautiful image below:


processed in photomatix(not my image)

However, it does come to a matter of taste in using HDR and I for one enjoy using it both to correct photos like the one above(where I don't even mention that it was HDR unless someone asks) and to create works of digital art such as my automotive photos.

One side effect of HDR is that it will make shiny things REALLY shiny. Which in one of my niche fields is very good such as with my automotive photographs where I deliberately make the shots look other-worldly.(all shot hand-held mind you):











Additionally it can be rather impactful to landscapes and buildings if you really want to go for that overly artistic look like another one of my HDR shots:



But keep in mind, HDR isn't easy, it's not as much an automated process as the nay sayers will say it is.

I don't particularly like to give up my formula but I will say that it takes a lot of trial and error and the biggest hint I can give anyone, especially when using photomatix, is to ignore the preview and pay attention only to the histogram. This means you need to learn about histograms if you don't know.

Also don't be afraid to process and correct images further AFTER you create your 16 bit HDR.

Lastly, the more exposures in your HDR, the more noise you'll have even if you shot at ISO50 on a 1DS MKIII, the noise is exponential and utilities like Noiseware Pro or Noise Ninja won't be able to follow the learned sensor profile on HDR's. If you shot at higher iso's then you should consider pre-processing the images in photoshop, removing the noise then saving them as 16 bit tiff's WITH EXIF, unless you know the stops that you bracketed at. If you don't include the EXIF info, then photomatix doesn't know how to deal with the images.

canon400d

al'be:do wrote:

Unfortunately most tone mapping algorithms (proposed by Fattal, Pattanaik, Dorsey et al) do not produce very satisfying results - in respect to realistic appearance on the screen.

The most natural results I know are produced with the iCAM06 image appearance model. This is specially designed for mimicking the color and overall image appearance of HDR scenes as they would be seen by an observer "being there". It uses data like lightness adaptation, "per pixel" whitepoint adaptation, and many more things that are experienced by a human observer. At the moment iCAM06 is the best general purpose operator.

I only know an implementation for Matlab and it works very fine, but I'm not sure if there's any HDR software that uses this tone mapping operator.

You can get more info about iCAM06 from the Munsell Color Science Lab, with download links for papers and the Matlab code:

http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/icam06/

Thanks ever so much for all the advice you have given me and I will certainly take it all on board.
Regards
Bob

Maybe one of you wants to implement a Photoshop plugin

By the way, it's often crucial to know the absolute lighting data (for example in lumens etc.) to produce the best results - with any mapping operator - as long as the implementation allows to use the data.

Thanks ever so much for all the advice you have given me and I will certainly take it all on board.
Regards
Bob

canon400d

DI-Joe wrote:

One of the things you're going to find when doing HDR photography is you will get major criticism for "abusing" HDR. Technically speaking HDR photography is suppose to help compress the range of contrast to what the human eye sees.

So it's supposed to look natural like this beautiful image below:


processed in photomatix(not my image)

However, it does come to a matter of taste in using HDR and I for one enjoy using it both to correct photos like the one above(where I don't even mention that it was HDR unless someone asks) and to create works of digital art such as my automotive photos.

One side effect of HDR is that it will make shiny things REALLY shiny. Which in one of my niche fields is very good such as with my automotive photographs where I deliberately make the shots look other-worldly.(all shot hand-held mind you):











Additionally it can be rather impactful to landscapes and buildings if you really want to go for that overly artistic look like another one of my HDR shots:



But keep in mind, HDR isn't easy, it's not as much an automated process as the nay sayers will say it is.

I don't particularly like to give up my formula but I will say that it takes a lot of trial and error and the biggest hint I can give anyone, especially when using photomatix, is to ignore the preview and pay attention only to the histogram. This means you need to learn about histograms if you don't know.

Also don't be afraid to process and correct images further AFTER you create your 16 bit HDR.

Lastly, the more exposures in your HDR, the more noise you'll have even if you shot at ISO50 on a 1DS MKIII, the noise is exponential and utilities like Noiseware Pro or Noise Ninja won't be able to follow the learned sensor profile on HDR's. If you shot at higher iso's then you should consider pre-processing the images in photoshop, removing the noise then saving them as 16 bit tiff's WITH EXIF, unless you know the stops that you bracketed at. If you don't include the EXIF info, then photomatix doesn't know how to deal with the images.

Those are wonderful shots and thanks once again for assisting me in HDR.
Regards
Bob

dlplumer

Excellent capture in my view, and an excellent tutorial

F220

HDR Book
I bought the HDR book that was mentioned in an earlier post and then went on to go with Photomatix for the HDR software. After playing awhile on some fall photos, I came up with my favorite...

dlplumer

Good job

kdog

Hey Dan, not to hijack this thread, but it is sort of on topic...

Did you ever resolve your sky banding issues with Photomatix? The last I remember, you were going to try importing your RAW images directly into Photomatix. Wondering if you had any better luck that way.

Cheers,
-joel

dlplumer

kdog wrote:

Hey Dan, not to hijack this thread, but it is sort of on topic...

Did you ever resolve your sky banding issues with Photomatix? The last I remember, you were going to try importing your RAW images directly into Photomatix. Wondering if you had any better luck that way.

Cheers,
-joel

Good memory Joel, and thanks for asking. I did try importing directly and it did not seem to make a difference. I think it is a matter of finding the right combination of slider adjustments. I also notice that with clouds in the sky, it is not an issue. I haven't shot any HDR yet with my new 50D, and I am anxious to try it.

Dan

OhEddie

Well, I've been hearing a lot about HDR these days so I thought I might as well give it a try.

My first attempt at HDR photography is a shot of an old out-house in Catoosa County GA.

I still have much to learn, but I am pleased with the experience so far.
Shot with a D300. I took 9 steps EV for each, but ended up only using 5 shots for the merge in Photomatix. I then tweaked a little more in PSE.

The first shot was taken in the morning shade, before the sun got over the ridge.



This next one, of the same subject was taken the next evening as the
sun went down.

dlplumer

Super shots Eddie

cal_gecko

HDR is something I've been using more and more lately as well, and it does take a fair amount of practice to avoid excessive "halo" effects, grain, and oversaturation when you don't want it. Personally, I've been very happy with Photomatix. I also enjoy automotive photography, and have found that HDR can really enhance the appearance of textures as well as how 'shiny' an object may be. Typically, I'll try to use a tripod and remote to shoot my bracketed photos.. but there are times when it's not convenient to do so, and I'll do them hand-held. There are other times when I'll just take a RAW image and do a "pseudo-HDR" image. Here are some of the ones I've done that I'm proud of. The first ones (Blue and Black Bugatti, and the Orange Porsche) were both single-image RAW "Pseudo-HDR" conversions done in Photomatix. The rest are bracketed images that were converted in Photomatix.

canon400d

cal_gecko wrote:

HDR is something I've been using more and more lately as well, and it does take a fair amount of practice to avoid excessive "halo" effects, grain, and oversaturation when you don't want it. Personally, I've been very happy with Photomatix. I also enjoy automotive photography, and have found that HDR can really enhance the appearance of textures as well as how 'shiny' an object may be. Typically, I'll try to use a tripod and remote to shoot my bracketed photos.. but there are times when it's not convenient to do so, and I'll do them hand-held. There are other times when I'll just take a RAW image and do a "pseudo-HDR" image. Here are some of the ones I've done that I'm proud of. The first ones (Blue and Black Bugatti, and the Orange Porsche) were both single-image RAW "Pseudo-HDR" conversions done in Photomatix. The rest are bracketed images that were converted in Photomatix.

Those shots are crystal clear. None of mine are anywhere near which I have done on Photomatix. I can't even get a good result by finalising them on CS3.
Regards
Bob

dlplumer

Cal, I love your photos. Would you be willing to share your workflow and HDR recipe for those of us still struggling.

OhEddie

dlplumer wrote:

Super shots Eddie

Thanks Dan. There are a lot of outstanding shots in this thread. This technique could become my new fav. It kinda changes all the rules I've learned about photography.