HDR Question

rsparts

OK so I recently downloaded Photomatix and have been trying to get some decent results with images I had in my iphoto. I can't seem to get the stunning results I've been seeing from other photographer so I'm here to ask what I'm doing wrong. I play with all the tools and sliders but I can't get that HDR look. I did manage to get it right on one of my pictures but not so much for any of my others.

Here are some examples.

I seem to have gotten it right on this one



so what am I doing wrong? All my other photos are looking more like this



Ultimately I'd like to get to this point

*NOT MY IMAGE*

** Mod edit....we do not allow posting of others images. I have inserted the URL. tks Gus

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh235/rsparts/random/creative1.jpg

can anyone help me?

Art Scott

My understanding of HDR is that one must shoot for HDR....meaning that one must bracket shots of the subject to capture the full dynamic range of the subjec and then let a software like Photomatix assemble the final product.....other wise it is PSUEDO HDR......which I read a bit about on the Photomatix site.....it comes close but is not exactly the same......
Of course this is just my understanding and I could be very incorrect.....

rsparts

Art Scott wrote:

My understanding of HDR is that one must shoot for HDR....meaning that one must bracket shots of the subject to capture the full dynamic range of the subjec and then let a software like Photomatix assemble the final product.....other wise it is PSUEDO HDR......which I read a bit about on the Photomatix site.....it comes close but is not exactly the same......
Of course this is just my understanding and I could be very incorrect.....

Yes it's true that you CAN bracket for HDR but you can also change the exposure on the same image 3 times. So for example if I have an image I pulled from iphoto, I duplicate it twice so there are 3 images and then give them each a different exposure. In the case of the boots, I used -1, 0, and +1

Art Scott

rsparts wrote:

Yes it's true that you CAN bracket for HDR but you can also change the exposure on the same image 3 times. So for example if I have an image I pulled from iphoto, I duplicate it twice so there are 3 images and then give them each a different exposure. In the case of the boots, I used -1, 0, and +1

But is that TRULY the same as if it were actually captured by the camera that way.....I know in theory it probably should be......but sometimes it just doesn't work as well...due to the fact that the dynamics you are starting with are not the full range......but as I said before I could very easily be wrong and have been hoping that some of the Photomatix Gurus here would be coming in and letting their knowledge flow forth.

Mike Lane

First off, I've never used photomatix, so I don't know anything about it. Any hdr that I do is done in photoshop.

Art's right, in order to get extra detail from a photo, the detail must be there in the first place. Going into iphoto and processing a jpg 3 times isn't going to do much for you.

Raw files on the other hand are generally 14bit (I think - whereas jpgs are 8 bit) so that means, properly exposed, you can pull more information from the highs and lows by processing the raw file several times. It seems to me that would be the pseudo hrd that art was talking about.

But yeah, if you really want to get the most detail in every part of the image, you'll need to expose each of the various details independently by doing multiple exposures.

In the image you say you got right, I think the issue is that there really isn't that much dynamic range in the first place. You could maybe have gotten to a similar point with some creative layer blending and masking. In the other image, you can see the sky and the hubcaps behind the girl are completely blown out. There wasn't any data there to begin with (though the bg is well out of focus so you may not get too much there anyhow). I don't think that 2nd image is particularly well suited for hdr in the first place.

My suggestion is to keep looking for the right situation to use hdr. That, IMO, is more important than learning actually HOW to do an hdr. Here are some images to inspire you: http://www.smugmug.com/search/index.mg?searchWords=hdr&searchType=global#photos

rsparts

Mike Lane wrote:

First off, I've never used photomatix, so I don't know anything about it. Any hdr that I do is done in photoshop.

Art's right, in order to get extra detail from a photo, the detail must be there in the first place. Going into iphoto and processing a jpg 3 times isn't going to do much for you.

Raw files on the other hand are generally 14bit (I think - whereas jpgs are 8 bit) so that means, properly exposed, you can pull more information from the highs and lows by processing the raw file several times. It seems to me that would be the pseudo hrd that art was talking about.

But yeah, if you really want to get the most detail in every part of the image, you'll need to expose each of the various details independently by doing multiple exposures.

In the image you say you got right, I think the issue is that there really isn't that much dynamic range in the first place. You could maybe have gotten to a similar point with some creative layer blending and masking. In the other image, you can see the sky and the hubcaps behind the girl are completely blown out. There wasn't any data there to begin with (though the bg is well out of focus so you may not get too much there anyhow). I don't think that 2nd image is particularly well suited for hdr in the first place.

My suggestion is to keep looking for the right situation to use hdr. That, IMO, is more important than learning actually HOW to do an hdr. Here are some images to inspire you: http://www.smugmug.com/search/index.mg?searchWords=hdr&searchType=global#photos

Thanks. I was thinking that I should probably shoot for HDR but I wasn't sure if I could fudge it with photos I already had. So I guess what you're saying is that a real HDR is shot using multiple exposures and that the details in the original photo is a big key in making an HDR photo look like an HDR photo...yes?

Art Scott

rsparts wrote:

Thanks. I was thinking that I should probably shoot for HDR but I wasn't sure if I could fudge it with photos I already had. So I guess what you're saying is that a real HDR is shot using multiple exposures and that the details in the original photo is a big key in making an HDR photo look like an HDR photo...yes?

ME THINKS YOU HAVE IT NOW!!!!!

No just 3 or 4 or 5 shots but make sure to expose the first perfectly and all others are supposed to capture the other dynamics above and below the perfect exposure from my understanding of the technique.....so this actually require shooting in Manual mode or at least that is where I would be doing it from.....I suppose you can set you cam to bracket so many minus and so many plus exposures and call it good....... maybe .........

rsparts

Art Scott wrote:

ME THINKS YOU HAVE IT NOW!!!!!

No just 3 or 4 or 5 shots but make sure to expose the first perfectly and all others are supposed to capture the other dynamics above and below the perfect exposure from my understanding of the technique.....so this actually require shooting in Manual mode or at least that is where I would be doing it from.....I suppose you can set you cam to bracket so many minus and so many plus exposures and call it good....... maybe .........

From what I understand, you are correct. I've been bracketing my camera for 3F and 1.0 stops since I started this thread. I appreciate all the info given on this topic but I encourage anyone else with info to speak up - I love learning new things

jogle

rsparts wrote:

From what I understand, you are correct. I've been bracketing my camera for 3F and 1.0 stops since I started this thread. I appreciate all the info given on this topic but I encourage anyone else with info to speak up - I love learning new things

If you are looking for dramatic results you should bracket more then one stop each way. At decent ISO's you normally have about 3 or 4 stops of latitude in your images so by setting your bracketed exposure to 2 stops up and down you expand that to about 8 stops. (your eye is about 11 stops depending on how you measure it)

In the shot of the dancers the sky would have been at least 4 stops brighter then the shadowed areas of the dancers. One trick you can use to make your HDR's more believable is to watch your lighting and luminance values. Look at the dresses of the dancers, they are almost clipped (luminance of 1) but look at where that light is coming from, in the sky, the clouds that should be much brighter are much darker. HDR can be used to bring out lots of extra detail without getting your lighting sources vs what they light backwards.

rsparts

jogle wrote:

If you are looking for dramatic results you should bracket more then one stop each way. At decent ISO's you normally have about 3 or 4 stops of latitude in your images so by setting your bracketed exposure to 2 stops up and down you expand that to about 8 stops. (your eye is about 11 stops depending on how you measure it)

In the shot of the dancers the sky would have been at least 4 stops brighter then the shadowed areas of the dancers. One trick you can use to make your HDR's more believable is to watch your lighting and luminance values. Look at the dresses of the dancers, they are almost clipped (luminance of 1) but look at where that light is coming from, in the sky, the clouds that should be much brighter are much darker. HDR can be used to bring out lots of extra detail without getting your lighting sources vs what they light backwards.

Ah ok now I see - so I tried changing my stops to a higher number but apparently 1.0 is as high as my D300 will go?!

I know this thing should be able to go higher than that. I mean I could manually adjust it between shots to be -3.0, 0 , and +3.0 but what if I'm shooting a person? I've been reading the heck out of my manual but I can't figure out if I can adjust it higher - any insight?

Mike Lane

rsparts wrote:

Ah ok now I see - so I tried changing my stops to a higher number but apparently 1.0 is as high as my D300 will go?!

I know this thing should be able to go higher than that. I mean I could manually adjust it between shots to be -3.0, 0 , and +3.0 but what if I'm shooting a person? I've been reading the heck out of my manual but I can't figure out if I can adjust it higher - any insight?

Wait, what do you mean by changing your stops and 1.0 is as high as your D300 will go?

Richard

I shoot Canon, so I don't know what Nikon offers in exposure bracketing. If you are saying that the camera's autobracketing function only allows a range from -1 to +1 EC, then you could try setting a dark base exposure, take the three shots, then reset the base to two or three stops brighter and repeat the process. You would obviously need to use a tripod.

rsparts

Richard wrote:

I shoot Canon, so I don't know what Nikon offers in exposure bracketing. If you are saying that the camera's autobracketing function only allows a range from -1 to +1 EC, then you could try setting a dark base exposure, take the three shots, then reset the base to two or three stops brighter and repeat the process. You would obviously need to use a tripod.

Sorry...the exposure increment is 1 to 0.3

jogle

rsparts wrote:

Ah ok now I see - so I tried changing my stops to a higher number but apparently 1.0 is as high as my D300 will go?!

I know this thing should be able to go higher than that. I mean I could manually adjust it between shots to be -3.0, 0 , and +3.0 but what if I'm shooting a person? I've been reading the heck out of my manual but I can't figure out if I can adjust it higher - any insight?

I'ts a pity you can't bracket more then one stop between exposures, one area where the mid range Nikons have always had it over the Canons is in the bracketing. On the Canons (except the 1 series) you are stuck with one or 3 exposures, where the Nikons go all the way up to 9 exposures.
Some googling found this on the spec sheet of the Nikon D300 "[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]2 to 9 exposures in increments of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, or 1 EV"


[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Art Scott

To Expand Upon This Subject......
There are 2 ways of bracketing.....1: by aperture..........2: by shutter speed......

What is the correct way of bracketing for HDR?

jogle

Always by shutter speed.


When the aperture changes, not only does the depth of field change, but other lens characteristics like contrast and colour change a little bit too.

You want the different stops of your hdr to look totally the same except for the brightness.

Mike Lane

Art Scott wrote:

There are 2 ways of bracketing.....1: by aperture..........2: by shutter speed......

What is the correct way of bracketing for HDR?

Bracketing with shutter speed is the best for HDR since it will only change your exposure. Bracketing with aperture is best for getting stacked images to increase dof.

Art Scott

A GREAT MANY THANKS TO YOU BOTH.....JOGLE and MIKE LANEbowthumbthumb.....this was a part of the techique that needed to be brought forward for any newb that was interested in the correct making of a HDR.......myself included.