Options

HDR - Frustrated

rspartsrsparts Registered Users Posts: 217 Major grins
edited August 1, 2008 in Technique
I'm having a very hard time getting this right. I use Auto Bracketing on my camera to get 3 different photos at 3 different exposures - usually -3, 0, +3. I then load them into Photomatix and press "Generate HDR Image" but all I ever get is a crappy looking, usually overexposed, image that looks nothing at all like what I want. So I try tone mapping only to end up with the same crappy effect even after playing with a bunch of the different sliders and whatnot. I always end up with a feeling of frustration that I can't shake. What am I doing wrong??? bagh! It can't be this hard. I have read and read but I just don't get it.
www.phillipsphotography.org

Comments

  • Options
    bendruckerphotobendruckerphoto Registered Users Posts: 579 Major grins
    edited July 4, 2008
    Would you mind posting some samples? Post your final result, even if you don't like it? Even better, could you give us the original RAW files to play with?
    New Jersey Portrait and Event Photographer: Ben Drucker Photography // Find me on: Twitter // Facebook // LinkedIn

    Save $5 on a new Smugmug Membership
    Host your website for just $3.45/mo with JustHost - Rated best web host of 2010

    See my profile for a gear list & more
  • Options
    TrevlanTrevlan Registered Users Posts: 649 Major grins
    edited July 9, 2008
    rsparts wrote:
    I'm having a very hard time getting this right. I use Auto Bracketing on my camera to get 3 different photos at 3 different exposures - usually -3, 0, +3. I then load them into Photomatix and press "Generate HDR Image" but all I ever get is a crappy looking, usually overexposed, image that looks nothing at all like what I want. So I try tone mapping only to end up with the same crappy effect even after playing with a bunch of the different sliders and whatnot. I always end up with a feeling of frustration that I can't shake. What am I doing wrong??? bagh! It can't be this hard. I have read and read but I just don't get it.

    I'm not expert when it comes to HDR post proccessing, but I have taken a few damn good HDR pictures. This is my latest, and I don't know if there is a thread to post HDR pictures. I take atleast 5 pictures to get more tonal distinction. Let me know what you think of this Picture. Is this what you are trying to do?

    (Side note: Shot for the 5 Speed Kings. Queens, NY.)

    5skhdr1zz8.jpg
    Frank Martinez
    Nikon Shooter
    It's all about the moment...
  • Options
    KennySKennyS Registered Users Posts: 85 Big grins
    edited July 9, 2008
    Photomatix is crap. I abandoned it about a year ago. I now use Dynamic Photo HDR for all my HDR rendering. It's much cheaper, more simple to use, and you have much more options when rendering.

    Here's a few done using Dynamic Photo

    302490073_CkkSi-L.jpg
    302513071_Etskf-L.jpg
    302522157_FocmJ-L.jpg
    302543234_83R48-L.jpg
    302559342_A3Ypq-L.jpg
    302563414_4LQbw-L.jpg
    http://www.sopicturethis.net
  • Options
    TrevlanTrevlan Registered Users Posts: 649 Major grins
    edited July 9, 2008
    Dynamic Photo looks really nice. I'll have to download a trial. Is it a stand alone app or a photohop add on?
    Frank Martinez
    Nikon Shooter
    It's all about the moment...
  • Options
    KennySKennyS Registered Users Posts: 85 Big grins
    edited July 9, 2008
    Trevlan wrote:
    Dynamic Photo looks really nice. I'll have to download a trial. Is it a stand alone app or a photoshop add on?
    I believe it's only stand-alone. For $55, it simply can't be beat.
    http://www.sopicturethis.net
  • Options
    TrevlanTrevlan Registered Users Posts: 649 Major grins
    edited July 9, 2008
    KennyS wrote:
    I believe it's only stand-alone. For $55, it simply can't be beat.

    Those are amazing pics by the way Kenny.clap.gif
    Frank Martinez
    Nikon Shooter
    It's all about the moment...
  • Options
    KennySKennyS Registered Users Posts: 85 Big grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    Thanks, these were shot over at the American Airpower Museum on Memorial Day weekend at dusk at -2, 0, +2 on a D100. PP was done using Dynamic Photo HDR, and used CS3 only to tone down any excessive noise.
    http://www.sopicturethis.net
  • Options
    geospatial_junkiegeospatial_junkie Registered Users Posts: 707 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    Kenny,

    I find overexposure in Photomatix can be controlled through the black and white point sliders somewhat. It depends on the look you are going for!!!!

    The first question I would ask is are you getting the complete tonality of the image in your exposures? +3, 0, and -3 should get you pretty close in most instances, however, you may need more in some cases. Try shooting in manual mode and change exposure values via shutterspeed and see if you get the same result. Find the correct exposure and keep underexposing until you have very little light left in the scene and then do the same at the other end. The underexposed image should be ALMOST completely dark and the overexposed image should be ALMOST washed out. I also take more that 3 shots (usually about 5 or more).

    I posted this on my blog about my experiences with HDR (http://willpridham.blogspot.com/2008/07/high-dynamic-range-rural-landscape.html). I usually do exposure blends on landscapes, but recently I've begun experimenting with HDR and all its wonders!!!

    By the way, I think many of your photos look terrific! Some are a little on the unrealistic side, but that's ok too! I can appreciate digital art. I love your plane photos!
    "They've done studies you know. Sixty-percent of the time, it works every time."

    My Website
    My Photo Blog
    Twitter Feed
  • Options
    KennySKennyS Registered Users Posts: 85 Big grins
    edited July 11, 2008
    I wish I could have stayed at each plane to take more exposures, but this was an invitational event I attended, and I was working around 20 other New York photographers (with a dying battery). My mindset was to have courtesy the whole time as there were many classic birds to be shot. If I had more time, I certainly would have taken more frames. As for the realism, I appreciate the comments! HDR is a touchy subject with a lot of shooters, and it's nice to see someone look past the process and appreciate the image!
    http://www.sopicturethis.net
  • Options
    jkcashinjkcashin Registered Users Posts: 68 Big grins
    edited July 11, 2008
    Anyone know of any way to do this in Gimp?.... i.e., manually?

    Jamie

    PS: Great work everyone!

    EDIT: Never mind... search is your friend!
  • Options
    geospatial_junkiegeospatial_junkie Registered Users Posts: 707 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2008
    Kenny,

    What I've learned long ago is this... I shouldn't really care what other shooters think with respect to techniques used. There are too many chefs in the kitchen nowadays...

    Its the same as the fly fishing being the purist sport argument... It's narrow-minded. Quite frankly, if photographers want to shut the HDR method out of his/her toolshed that's their perogative. Not very smart in my opinion... but their perogative non-the-less.

    Push the envelope so that your images are unique and different than other photographers. I know a wedding photog here who uses tonemapping in his WEDDING photos. The photographer is internationally known and gives lectures on shooting weddings... Sometimes his skies look a little unnatural, but that is what the client wants.

    HDR is like portrait photography. Nowadays, the rules of portrait photography are very lax compared to 10 years ago (i.e. never show the back of a woman's hands, no split profiles, etc...). Why can't HDR break the rules too?

    Great pics!
    "They've done studies you know. Sixty-percent of the time, it works every time."

    My Website
    My Photo Blog
    Twitter Feed
  • Options
    8zil8zil Registered Users Posts: 63 Big grins
    edited July 31, 2008
    I use dynamic photo HDR and like others have said, is mostly about what you want to acomplish.... of course having a good tonal range between all the expositions helps a lot ( a picture that shows the darkest well and then ranging to one that show the lightest part well as well) shooting RAW also makes it way easier during the tonemaping.... here is my hdr gallery:



    http://www.flickr.com/photos/8zil/sets/72157600133747151/
    www.flickr.com/photos/8zil
    www.huitzilpedrero.com
  • Options
    evorywareevoryware Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited July 31, 2008
    All these New York photographers that I've never met. :cry
    Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358

    dak.smugmug.com
  • Options
    Awais YaqubAwais Yaqub Registered Users Posts: 10,572 Major grins
    edited July 31, 2008
    Results look crappy without tone Mapping. I hope this will solve your problem
    Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal

    My Gallery
  • Options
    BaldyBaldy Registered Users, Super Moderators Posts: 2,853 moderator
    edited August 1, 2008
    KennyS wrote:
    302513071_Etskf-L.jpg]
    Yeah, really excellent, Kenny... clap.gifclap.gifclap.gif
    My Smug Mug
Sign In or Register to comment.