First attempt at HDR

mmelgar said:

I downloaded the free trial version of photomatix and decided to try
it out today before buying it. I love the final product even if the
image is a bit surreal. C&C welcome.



--



http://www.liquidartgallery.com

Mike

'For every complex problem there is a solution that is
obvious, simple..and wrong'

Click to expand...

The surreal/artistic look is intentional with the 'Generate HDR image' option in Photomatix. To acheive realism - try the 'exposure blend image' option - this mode is intended to help you produce the scene as you saw it without any exaggerated effects.

The following illustrate the difference.

The first is a 'generate HDR image' - the second an 'exposure blend image' with slight tweaking in PS.





Adrian.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackdaw123/

Thanks adriane. I didn't realize there was alternater way to generate an image with photomatix, but I see what you mean. I'll have to play around with that.
--



http://www.liquidartgallery.com

Mike

'For every complex problem there is a solution that is
obvious, simple..and wrong'

I just noticed this, but it seems like you lose all the details in the shadows with the second image. You're giving up some of what HDR is supposed to be all about.
--



http://www.liquidartgallery.com

Mike

'For every complex problem there is a solution that is
obvious, simple..and wrong'

mmelgar said:

I just noticed this, but it seems like you lose all the details in
the shadows with the second image. You're giving up some of what HDR
is supposed to be all about.
--



http://www.liquidartgallery.com

Mike

'For every complex problem there is a solution that is
obvious, simple..and wrong'

Click to expand...

Hi Mike-

HDR as I understand is intended to replicate (more or less) what you saw - not what you would ordinarily be unable to see in the shadows.

The second image is very much closer to how the the scene looked to the naked eye. Adding information by overexposing shadows can lead to a washed out 'flat' look - although not in the first sunset example due to the high contrast and the exuberance of Photomatix's 'creative' side. For an image to look natural there has to be some contrast - even shadows without detail. You can get away with showing shadow detail to some extent in sunset shots because contrast is so high in any case - but in less contrasty conditions it can be over done.

The advantage of HDR software for me was to avoid blown out skies while capturing realistic foreground detail. The attached image is another exp blend that allowed capture of detail in the middle distance without blowing out some of the sky. The idea was to avoid alerting the viewer to the fact that it is a HDR image - by 'jarring' their senses - if you see what I mean. That's not to say of course that HDR cannot be implemented in challenging ways as art forms - depends on what you want I guess.

BTW the 'Exp blend image' option is very easy to use - fewer parameters to play with!! - and you will see instantly I'm sure - a beneficial difference to the images you want to present as 'naturally' as possible. It would be very interesting if you could combine your images one more time in 'exp blend' and re-post.



Adrian.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackdaw123/

Sorry Adrian, I wasn't very clear. HDR is supposed to improve the dynamic range of the photo to more closely match the much greater dynamic range of the human eye. That means you should be able to see detail in a bright sky and shadow areas at the same time. The dynamic range of the human eye is not infinite obviously and therfor if this technique is taken to extremes it will look unnatural.

The dynamic range in the photo I took ( being able to see good detail in the clouds and at the same time being able to see a good level of detail on the shadowed porch) is very close to what my eye saw. Ill have to experiment doing it the other way in Photomatrix, but if I lost any of the shadow detail the final image would not be accurate. Your location had different lighting conditions so maybe each approach is best under different conditions.
--



http://www.liquidartgallery.com

Mike

'For every complex problem there is a solution that is
obvious, simple..and wrong'

--

The first one I is the finished image from layering and layer masking. The 2nd one is a screen shot of the PSD file showing the layering and 3rd one is the original as shot from raw. From the single raw I used 0, -1 and -2 and with some curves in -2 to make the sky even more dramatic. I exposed the original for the foreground.

This was one heck of a lot of work, too much to consider trying again with the amount of detail in the picture. There are many visible mistakes in mine, not really worthy showing. Several people from facebook liked it but they don't really understand the difference in high quality photography. Like I said, I earned a great respect for Photomatix in doing this project.

The last one is a different shot of the same location on a different day with 3 raws +1, 0 and -1.5 on a tripod. Photomatix does some things very well but the HDR image from them is nosier and shows some vertical banding. As can be noted, I did some cloning on the mine to remove houses and power lines. Not on the second one tho because of the watermarking.

Such a welcome distraction from the endless "what lens should I take...?", "what kind of toy should I spend more than I really should on?", etc.

Instead of wanting to BUY something, I'm left wanting to TRY something.

Thanks, mmelgar.

BTW, great image. It is indeed what I'd expect to see with my own eyes.

sparkey2 said:

--
The first one I is the finished image from layering and layer
masking. The 2nd one is a screen shot of the PSD file showing the
layering and 3rd one is the original as shot from raw. From the
single raw I used 0, -1 and -2 and with some curves in -2 to make the
sky even more dramatic. I exposed the original for the foreground.

This was one heck of a lot of work, too much to consider trying again
with the amount of detail in the picture. There are many visible
mistakes in mine, not really worthy showing. Several people from
facebook liked it but they don't really understand the difference in
high quality photography. Like I said, I earned a great respect for
Photomatix in doing this project.

The last one is a different shot of the same location on a different
day with 3 raws +1, 0 and -1.5 on a tripod. Photomatix does some
things very well but the HDR image from them is nosier and shows some
vertical banding. As can be noted, I did some cloning on the mine to
remove houses and power lines. Not on the second one tho because of
the watermarking.

Click to expand...

--

Thanks for posting. A good and relatively easier way to do HDR manually is to use luminosity based masking. These are good as they are self feathering so it much less work. You can always tweak the masks to shift the transparency characteristics.

I've re done the image in Photmatrix that I posted earlier of the Valley of the Rocks and by using the Merge option it actually came out pretty close to what the final result was of the first image minus the slight changes I made in Photoshop to make it look more 'real'.

I'm going to experiment a bit more this weekend with this program using some sunset pics on our local beaches!

mmelgar said:

Sorry Adrian, I wasn't very clear. HDR is supposed to improve the
dynamic range of the photo to more closely match the much greater
dynamic range of the human eye. That means you should be able to see
detail in a bright sky and shadow areas at the same time. The dynamic
range of the human eye is not infinite obviously and therfor if this
technique is taken to extremes it will look unnatural.

The dynamic range in the photo I took ( being able to see good detail
in the clouds and at the same time being able to see a good level of
detail on the shadowed porch) is very close to what my eye saw. Ill
have to experiment doing it the other way in Photomatrix, but if I
lost any of the shadow detail the final image would not be accurate.
Your location had different lighting conditions so maybe each
approach is best under different conditions.
--



http://www.liquidartgallery.com

Mike

'For every complex problem there is a solution that is
obvious, simple..and wrong'

Click to expand...

Hi Mike -

Thing is though the human eye (+brain) as you will know cannot see detail in shadow and highlights at the same time - it's impossible. The eye is constantly adjusting its exposure via the iris as it scans a scene - the brain combining the information into an image that we 'see'. Try switching quickly from dark to light or vice versa so see the result. Or look into a sunset and see 'naturally' a silhouette of the land on the horizon or look through a darkish woodland scene on a sunny day and 'naturally' see glimpses of a blown out sky.

The camera on the other hand has to take several exposures and combine them to provide an approximation of what our brain saw (not what our eyes saw).

Photomatix's own tutorial describes the exposure blending option in comparison with the Generate HDR option as:- "Exposure Blending is another way to process your bracketed photos. It is simpler than HDR tone mapping, and produce more natural-looking results. Additionally, blending exposures has the advantage of reducing noise".

With the 'Generate HDR option' colours are boosted to provide an artistic look - so even if you manage to get the tonal balance right (which you seem to have done very well) you will still be left with an unnatural 'impressionist' look.

You are right regarding your images' tonal range - if that is what you 'saw' then that's fine. And also spot on when you say "The dynamic range of the human eye is not infinite obviously and therfor if this technique is taken to extremes it will look unnatural".

Adrian.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackdaw123/

Telemarkjunkie said:

I've re done the image in Photmatrix that I posted earlier of the
Valley of the Rocks and by using the Merge option it actually came
out pretty close to what the final result was of the first image
minus the slight changes I made in Photoshop to make it look more
'real'.

I'm going to experiment a bit more this weekend with this program
using some sunset pics on our local beaches!

Click to expand...

Hi Telemarkjunkie

Thanks for the 'thanks' - and yes I'm sure practise is key to succeeding with this.

When I first tried Photomatix I didn't read the tutorial and dived straight into using the 'generate HDR image' - the results were very disappointing - with in particular very obvious colour distortions. I also found though that even with the 'exposure blend image' option that the right selection of source images makes a difference to the eventual tonal range - including frames of heavily over exposed shadow areas can drive the final image back towards the 'unreal'.

These days I take as many frames as it takes at 1 stop difference to reveal detail in shadows and also darken the highlights and mix and match in photomatix to get the best tonal balance - sometimes only selecting 3 frames. This covers exposure in most cases but I am discovering that the frames at the extreme end of overexposure are unnecessary and end up being discarded - while heavy underexposure of a very bright sky can be useful.

Good luck - looking forward to seeing the results of your next HDR shoot.

Regards,

Adrian.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackdaw123/