HDR suggestions wanted, and free to play

...did so many other things that; well, belows the result. :)

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6990/hdrtnzo4.jpg

I hope you don't take offence. It's interesting to see the variations you come up with, but way too often you're quite heavy-handed with contrast masking and it invariably kills the image. By that, I mean that the colours/tones and contrast often end up looking quite uninviting to me and probably to lots of other people. Of course it comes down to personal preference, but some things are more likely to have wider appeal than others. I'm just suggesting that you use contrast masking in a much more subtle way in your workflow and I think many of your images will be greatly improved as a result. Your sample here is a good example, although the very low contrast effect with odd colours may be due as much to your HDR technique as to contrast masking, although it seems to me to have that strong contrast masked look to it.

It was actually your mention of contrast masking that put me onto it in the first place, so thanks for that, but I really think it needs to be used much more judiciously.

Please don't stop with our creative approach to add to the variety of what's produced, but for those images that you want to present as being more serious, I think contrast masking should be kept under control.

BTW, is Lyle your first name, or are JK your initials? I (and my twin brother) used to play a tenor horn in a brass band when I was in school. Some good memories, but I've moved on to other things.

--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10
 
Andrew,

I am here to learn. I not sure about some of your comments, so see my responses and questions below.
Sadly this thread has nothing to do with HDR other than a misuse of
"merge to HDR" as a way of triggering tonemapping options.
I thought I was doing HDR using the tone mapping from the following site:

http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-manipulation/layered-hdr-tone-mapping.html

Also, I am not sure what is the misuse of "merge to HDR". Do you mean that I have to have three differently exposed photographs rather than extracting from a single RAW?
Most of the processing you have seen has been done on a LDR images.
Doesn't mean the techniques are not useful though.
Is LDR the same as layered HDR? Or is it something else?
You can't post a 32bit HDR image in this forum unless you link to a
site that has an embeded HDR viewer.
You are correct. Sorry that I was not more precise. It was a converted 8-bit JPG from the 32-bit HDR.
What you have is methods of making the DR captured by one RAW shot
more visible and by breaking tonal hierarchy the image more
interesting.
This relates to the HDR --> LDR step in HDRI for photography and has
uses in post processing the LDR image from a HDR workflow but is not
HDR imaging by definition.
OK, you are right. My understanding is that RAW has more DR, and that can be exploited. I should say that in my initial effort a few weeks ago, I did have three photographs taken at different EVs. My goal is to learn some techniques, and it was easier to use the more recent photograph in RAW and extract three different files. I guess I should say that it is a pseudo or faux HDR. But my understanding is that the three extracted files can be treated in terms of processing the same way as three separate photographs, although the results could be very different. Again, I used the three as an exercise.

Not sure what is HRDI. Tried looking it up on the web, but found other definitions.
Sorry if I seem picky or critical but anyone reading this thread
could be completely mislead as to what HDRI is and what it is not.
No apology needed. Again, I am here to learn, and I appreciate you comments to help me clarify my concepts and terms.
And one bigger so you can see the quality of the shadow detail
compared to a single shot (and at the same time having outside and
inside exposed.
http://www.photoluminaire.co.uk/photos/midland_hdr_medium1.jpg

Andrew
 
PCD1:
Sorry, but I don't really think I can! It's very much a "one thing
leads to another" type of explanation, so that no summary is really
possible. If you're interested in HDR, I really do suggest investing
in this book. Unfortunately it's just been published, so it's not
likely to be in the library yet...
OK, will place it on my list of purchases, and buying will depend on my budget.
I'm no expert, but I don't THINK your understanding is quite on the
mark (at least not as you explained it). HDR is a greatly EXPANDED
tonal range, and when a true HDR is created, your computer/monitor
has to run some type of internal range compression in order to
display a halfway-normal image. The problem is that you have no
control over this logic, so what you see may not be anything like
you're expecting or hoping for. When you convert a true HDR (32-bit)
down to 16- or 8-bit, using tone mapping - YOU are taking control of
how the tonal range is displayed for the output device (monitor or
printer). It's sort of similar to the old jpeg vs RAW argument... A
jpeg is a good enough picture, but you're ceding all control over the
outcome to the camera's internal processing logic, whereas in RAW,
you get to make those decisions for yourself.
Thanks for pointing out my confusion with the concept. I got a better understanding of a 32-bit HDR now. It has the ability to record a huge dynamic range from three shoots beyond what can be captured in a single shoot with current sensor technology. (Fujifilm S3 and S5 seem to be able to capture a broader range because of its dual pixel array.) However, it is my understanding that going down to 8-bit or 16-bit file, it is necessary to select what parts of the larger range needs to be converted and saved. I am still not very good at making the adjustment.

It is also my understanding that devices have a limited ability to display DR.
Yes, definitely. One RAW image processed 3 different ways and
blended does NOT make a HDR. Never, ever... You need a minimum of 3
separate exposures, and quite possibly 5 or even more, for a true
HDR. HDR is all based on how many stops of light the camera can
capture - most digital can only get 5 or 6, I believe. No matter how
you process the RAWs, you will never gain actual pixel information,
or additional stops of light - you might make tones lighter or
darker, but you still have ONLY 5 or 6 stops worth of informaiton.
When you take multiple separate exposures, EACH ONE has those 5 or 6
stops worth of information, and while there will be some overlap
between the pictures, the ones at the ends of the range will have
light/dark information that the middle one does not. Say you need 8
stops of dynamic range 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... The -2 exposure will pick
up stops 1-4. The middle exposure (0) will pick up 3-7, and the +2
will pick up 5-8 (just as a general illustration). You can make a
quite decent looking "faux HDR" with multiple variations on a single
RAW image, but it is not a true HDR.
OK understood that it is faux HRD.
Yes, looks very natural.
Thanks!

Go out, play, take some pictures using the -2,0,+2 bracketing, and
then have some fun, and post back with your latest results.
 
...thought I would open it up in CS2. Did all the adjustments as I could in 32 bit mode and dropped to 16 bit for some additional S/H and Saturation work, and then dropped to 8-bit and enhanced further with AAA filter (including some selective sharpening using AAA Fotofix filter). :)

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/9177/hdrky3.jpg



Image hosted free thanks to ImageShack ( http://www.imageshack.us ).

--

 
Thats not a HDR method, its an alternative DRI method (no matter how many people want to call it HDR).
Also, I am not sure what is the misuse of "merge to HDR". Do you mean
that I have to have three differently exposed photographs rather than
extracting from a single RAW?
Yes, merge to HDR was designed to use multiple exposures, otherwise its pretty pointless.
Most of the processing you have seen has been done on a LDR images.
Doesn't mean the techniques are not useful though.
Is LDR the same as layered HDR? Or is it something else?
What you see on that link is not "layered HDR".
Even though it uses 3 differently exposed images there is no HDR image there.

A HDR image would have very different properties, for example its response to motion blur.

A LDR image has a range of brightnesses from black to "paper white", even if the scene it represents has a much high range.

A HDR has a range of brightness much higher than this which is why you'd need a special display to show the image or why you have to tonemap to a LDR image so you can display it on a normal display or print it.
You can't post a 32bit HDR image in this forum unless you link to a
site that has an embeded HDR viewer.
You are correct. Sorry that I was not more precise. It was a
converted 8-bit JPG from the 32-bit HDR.
Thats the problem, everything and its dog is getting called HDR. Contrast masking, exposure faking, tonemapping single images etc. Its a lost battle against the viral nature of internet tutorials.
What you have is methods of making the DR captured by one RAW shot
more visible and by breaking tonal hierarchy the image more
interesting.
This relates to the HDR --> LDR step in HDRI for photography and has
uses in post processing the LDR image from a HDR workflow but is not
HDR imaging by definition.
OK, you are right. My understanding is that RAW has more DR, and that
can be exploited. I should say that in my initial effort a few weeks
ago, I did have three photographs taken at different EVs. My goal is
to learn some techniques, and it was easier to use the more recent
photograph in RAW and extract three different files. I guess I should
say that it is a pseudo or faux HDR. But my understanding is that the
three extracted files can be treated in terms of processing the same
way as three separate photographs, although the results could be very
different. Again, I used the three as an exercise.
I'd call your link DRI because it does actually increase the dynamic range because 3 real exposures were used. Using a single image is just extracting the dynamic image that was there in the original RAW by post processing. Single image tonemapping if you are tonemap it, contrast masking if you use layers and a mask.

If you do get a 32bit floating point intermediate HDR file from merging three exports form a single RAW file it does start to look like HDR but it isn't, the contrast ratio of this is not high enough to be HDR. I guess fake HDR is not a bad name for it.
Not sure what is HRDI. Tried looking it up on the web, but found
other definitions.
HDRI is High Dynamic Range Imaging. The first mistake most people are make is to assume it is something created for photography. Then they think anything to do with "capturing high dynamic range" = HDR. It does not. You can't use the layer blended example you posted in a 3D application for HDR lighting effects. Its a completely different beast.

The reason using single images and processing them this way has become popular is because it creates an interesting effect by breaking tonal hierarchy and increasing microcontrast. The two combine to make details right across the tonal range very visible. Same reason lucisart is popular, same reason shadow/highlights was such a hit.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#hdri

http://projects.ict.usc.edu/graphics/HDRShop/main-pages/intro.html

Cheers,
Andrew
 
It is not free, the trial version places stamps all over your image, it even says it in thier documentation: "The trial is fully functional and never expires, but applies a watermark to images produced with one of the two Tone Mapping methods and four of the six exposure blending modes."

There is another program called Dynamic Photo HDR that is about 1/3 the price, I have tried both and use Photomatix.
 
HDR=High Dynamic Range photography
to do hdr-

if you put camera into full auto matrix metering, take first shot note fstop and shutter speed. put camera into full manual, see if camera still has the matrix fstop and shutter speed. if yes, then using shutter speed go up 2-4 shutter speeds 1 fstop worth of shutter speed at a time. the back to matrix shutter speed and go down same number of shutter speeds.

christian bloch in his hdri handbook did a test of 1 fstop bracketing vs 2fstop bracketing. there was an obvious image quality falloff using the 2fstop bracketing.
this is on a tripod with cable release.

no, you should not use 1 raw shot and convert 1 stop up and down, because their is not enough dynamic range in the 1 raw shot. dynamic range is why we are doing this, hdr is trying to get all it can.

the group of shots can be raw or jpeg. if jpeg they can be used as is. if raw remember that you HAVE to batch process all 5-9(?) shots. this is because the pp has to be all the same on every pic. you cannot, for example make any attempt to get the shadow details of the group of raw pics, because that would require different amounts of pp, and you cannot do that with hdr. the pp for all shots has to be identical.

for me i just shoot them in jpeg and use them from the camera, that way they are all identical because the camera jpeg settings are the same for every shot. i also put my hand streched in front of the lens and take a check shot and when done take a ending shot with hand. this tells me where the hdr group is on my memory card when i transfer to the pc.

the only important item is to bracket using shutter speeds only. if fstops are used it changes dof between shots. and shoot enough shots, 5-9(?) is the optimum. the only other thought is to shoot a scene that deserves the the hdr technique, too many people are shooting hdr because it is new or different or whatever. many people are using hdr software on scenes that do not have enough dynamic range; they end up with images that have been enhanced by hdr software, they are not hdr images. the dynamic range was not in the scene to begin with. the scene for hdr should have a very wide dynamic range. this can be checked with a spotmeter on different areas. NOTE: use of auto bracketing on a camera may not work unless you know the bracketing is using the shutter speeds to bracket. in any event, you really need 5-9(?) shots for hdr; this is more than the auto bracket fcn on almost all cameras. and the bracketing has to be both sides of the middle shot. make you use enough brackets to cover the previously checked dynamic range. it does little good to bracket for a 10stop dynamic range when the scene has 14stops.

and the scene should have no movement, if so the item will blur in the hdr image.

do not adjust the focus. set the focus on infinity or use a hyperfocalsetup for focus.

do not adjust the white balance for individual shots. go with awb or 1 setting and do not change it.

remember, hdr was created and meant for scene that have a dynamic range that exceeds the dynamic range of the camera sensor, about 5-6stops. hdr with the required software allows the user to capture a scene that has very high dynamic range.

I currently use Dynamic-Photo HDR and recommend it. Less than ½ the price of photomatrix and it has 6 different looks, (the photomatrix look is included, and each of the 6 looks can be fine tuned. Get Dynamic-Photo hdr here- http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html ; also included is a program that is part of DP hdr that can make a fake hdr look image from a jpeg.
 
Larry,

Very nice. I like the sky and reflections in the windows. Clearly,
Photomatrix has the capability of producing great images, as
demonstrated by you and others. I think I will have to try the trial
version when I find time.
I have Photomatix and I haven't tried Dynamic Photo HDR yet, but it's reported to have advantages over Photomatix for aligning images, plus it's much cheaper, so worth a look too.
http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/gallery.html
Here's a copy I experimented with using Photomatrix Trial version,
just wanted to see how it displays.
Larry
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10
 
...thought I would open it up in CS2. Did all the adjustments as I
could in 32 bit mode and dropped to 16 bit for some additional S/H
and Saturation work, and then dropped to 8-bit and enhanced further
with AAA filter (including some selective sharpening using AAA
Fotofix filter). :)

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/9177/hdrky3.jpg

To me, this one looks like the colours are too red and the contrast is quite low and washed out looking through much of the image. To some extent, it's the same kind of impression I get from contrast masking with what it can do to colours and tones if you're not careful.

As another take, I did an edit of your edit to create a more contrasty scene with slightly more muted colours and still with plenty of detail to make it look more realistic to my eye.

Yours.



My edit of yours.



What I did:
dup layer
change layer blend to multiply

layer advanced blending, this layer, black slider to 0/50, white slider to 150/255
opacity 80%
hue/sat adj layer, sat -10%

--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10
 
Thanks Gary for the info. I'm just getting into PS and like HDR both the natural and sometimes surreal looks.

I read your post yesterday and went home last night and bought and downloaded that software you recommended. Awesome!!! i was getting frustrated with PS because I know you can do HDR in there, but the steps aren't really clearly laid out, so it's a lot more trial and error. In about 10 min of messing with the new software, Dynamic Photo HDR, I was able to produce a really cool HDR image that really frustrated me in PS and I just had to go in another direction with PS. Anyone reading this, I would have to say that software, for only $30USD was well worth it. I am psyched and will be going out to get some good HDR-oriented pics now that I now I can process them, tone-map them and make them look the way I was hoping.

You seem extremely knowledgeable about HDR and I really appreciate your advice on both the software and technique.

thanks for helping a noob out.

Bodhi
 
Gary,

Thanks for the great advice. Will have to find some time to practice. The point about varying the shutter speed is something that makes great sense.

I also will try Dynamic-Photo HDR. The photographs on the site looks great.

I do have a question. Doesn't JPG reduce the tonal range compared to RAW? If I read some of the reviews at Dpreview, RAW has a wider EV range.
 
to the both of you above. glad the info helped you.

do you loose dr with jpeg? answer: no not in hdr. if that you grant that a jpeg is good for 6stop of dr and raw is good for 8stops. then when you bracket just increase the number of brackets by 1. the jpoeg now equals the raw in dr. there is not limit as to how many barckets you can shoot for hdr. if you think that the raw covers the dr in 9 shots(cenetr and 4 each way) then simply shoot 11shots(center and 5 each way) for jopeg and you have just covered the same dr.

since you cannot use the big advantage raw has in recovering the highlites and shadows, be cause each raw shot would have different recovery amounts you would have to batch process the raw shots to make then processed the same. so if you doing that, i just shoot jpeg since the camera always processes them the same.

{i assume that your dslr is setup and adjusted to shoot jpeg. and it did not just come out of the box. it me 2-3 hrs to adjust my dslr. i do shoot jpoeg ALL THE TIME. below i will in another reply include my how to on setting up the dslr to shoot jpegs. also my how to on panoramas.}

this all assumes that you have adjusted the camera to shoot jpeg and not just using the outofbox settings or making one from the raw. if you are making the jpeg from the raw then you are still usinmg the outofbox settings. to properly adjust the dslr for jpeg you need a calibrated monitor.

my background-i shoot film/slides for 32yrs. then switched to digital. with slides you had to get right oin the field or you threw out the slide. along with the film developing and mounting costs. even back then you were talking $20 a roll. when the wife and i went on our driving vacations were shot 600-900 slides. that is $600-900 in photo costs per vacation. you had to get better or you went broke. before switching to digital i got 90-95% correct in exposure and wb. and with slides i did no cropping; you couldn't anyway. i did not crop, i simply composed it right in the camera. now in digital iam getting 95% crrect in exposure and wb and i rarely crop. i crop only where it is unavoidable, like moon shots and similar.

if you shoot jpeg as i do, you have got to do it from a properly adjusted dslr camera. this does not mean using the outofbox settings or jpeg from raw and calling that your jpeg. i mean shooting jpegs from the word go. this means that you have to get it right in the field because there is a much smaller ability to pp in the pc. and you have to shoot from a properly adjusted dslr using a calibrated monitor. it took me about 2-3hrs to adjust my dslr for jpeg.

below in next replys are my how to on adjusting a dslr for jpeg. and when adjusted leave the adjustments alone. you are going for accuracy not if you like it. if the color need more in your view that is what the pp adjustments are for. but you have got to get it right in the camera first.

also below is my how to on panoramas.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top