Reading mode: Light Dark

A better HDR solution

Go to last post
K

kylerpiercings

New member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
So I'm determined to make 2016 My year to really excel. Professionally I shoot a lot of architecture and real estate, given that the two are for two totally different clients I have two totally deferent techniques.

My question here is about HDR techniques and software, for real estate since I'm limited to about an hour time wise, I just don't have the time to set up lighting and get everything finished so I use HDR and Photomatix, however I am not 100% pleased with the results. I've seen photography from other companies who also use HDR and a lot of the photos are really phenomenal, and I've reached out to them with no luck (assuming because I am a local competitor).

Is there something I am missing? Some secret I don't know of?

My basic approach is to take bracketed photos in two stop increments starting with the darkest exposure (for the highlghts, making sure there is no clipping) and moving to the brightest exposure (making sure there is no shadow clipping) and running that through photomatix.

No matter what preset I use, the highlights tend to look super washed out and clipped. I just don't get it.
 
I own a pro version of SNS-HDR and used to be an advocate. It has come along a lot in the last year with upgrades (betas) even in the last couple of weeks.

I have never tried Photomatrix but a quick look at their web site did not show me one image I would want to try to sell to a client. Even their most 'realistic' look like crude HDR to me.

I did a series of bracketed shots last week in a bright contrasty sunlit situation. I upgraded my SNS-HDR and gave it a whirl.

I then tried working on the normal exposure files of my bracket triple using Qimage Ultimate. I got just as much from my highlights and shadows as SNS-HDR gave me and the shots are far more realistic.

I am, of course, working from RAW files. JPGs are useless for this type of work.

I repeatedly plug Qimage Ultimate on here. Most people don't even want to give it a free try as it is not a Lightroom plugin - and they think it is predominantly a printing program. I am not expecting this post to produce converts but I would be depriving you of a possible HDR system if I did not mention it.

Tony
 
I've used Photomatix with good results. The whole key to it is in tuning down the artificiality. If you can use the effect from about 5% to about 40%, you will be a lot happier than if you keep everything automatically at 100%.
 
I use Photomatix and get totally realistic results. The key is to use tone mapping that is more realistic and less agressive. You might also try using non-HDR methods. I'm thinking of image stacking where you turn on lights, take a shot, turn on different lights, take a shot. Move a lamp to file in shadows..take a shot. Then you have total control in post to blend the different lighting. Works indoor and outdoor (night shots) if you can control the lighting.
 
kylerpiercings said:
My basic approach is to take bracketed photos in two stop increments starting with the darkest exposure (for the highlghts, making sure there is no clipping) and moving to the brightest exposure (making sure there is no shadow clipping) and running that through photomatix.
No matter what preset I use, the highlights tend to look super washed out and clipped. I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
I had the same problem. No matter what package I used I found that they all seemed to do the same thing. Instead of selecting the highlights from the lowest exposure (which was specifically exposed for highlights) and the shadows from the brightest exposure, they all seem to blend everything together so the highlights were an average.

The solution to the problem I found was Photomatix - it has a selection tool/wand that allows you to draw around an area of the image. You can then select that area and tell it which exposure to use for that area. This means you can select a window(s) and have Photomatix use that area of the image from your darkest exposure, thus having a perfectly exposed window.
 
Try enfuse or the 32 bit plugin from the people who make photomatix. Instead of tonemapped images, these two programs deliver a single file with ALL the information of 5 bracketed files combined. Then just edit as a regular file in Lightroom. Results are very realistic.

Good luck
 
Almost every time I hear of someone with this type of issue it almost always is a result of being too aggressive with the sliders. Back off a bit and see what you get.

I use Photomatix and even then there are still times when I can't get a 'realistic' result. Then I resort to using the HDRed file and layers of the original brackets to select the appropriate highlights and shadows I need/want.

Keep in mind that not every photo is the same. So while a preset can offer a good starting point it's not always a good ending point.

Just as a side note. I don't do real estate photos. But we have been recently shopping for a new home. Don't dismiss the HDRed look too quickly. I've noticed that those properties with the HDRed portfolio seem to attract the biggest viewings. May be coincidence but!!!! But maybe the agents and photographer don't like HDR but what about the buyers?

regards
 
Your bracketting isn't giving you a good start. The darkest exposure needs to be one with unclipped highlights and darker is not useful, you have that correct. The brightest exposure can be much brighter than simply not clipping the shadows. You can get ultra clean shadows by exposing them at least as bright as midtones in the brightest exposure.

Andrew
 
TonyGamble said:
I own a pro version of SNS-HDR and used to be an advocate. It has come along a lot in the last year with upgrades (betas) even in the last couple of weeks.

I have never tried Photomatrix but a quick look at their web site did not show me one image I would want to try to sell to a client. Even their most 'realistic' look like crude HDR to me.

I did a series of bracketed shots last week in a bright contrasty sunlit situation. I upgraded my SNS-HDR and gave it a whirl.

I then tried working on the normal exposure files of my bracket triple using Qimage Ultimate. I got just as much from my highlights and shadows as SNS-HDR gave me and the shots are far more realistic.

I am, of course, working from RAW files. JPGs are useless for this type of work.

I repeatedly plug Qimage Ultimate on here. Most people don't even want to give it a free try as it is not a Lightroom plugin - and they think it is predominantly a printing program. I am not expecting this post to produce converts but I would be depriving you of a possible HDR system if I did not mention it.

Tony
Click to expand...
The last update to SNS-HDR I'm aware of is from over three years ago. Can you please provide a link to the recent updates? Thanks.

-Tim
 
TonyGamble said:
I repeatedly plug Qimage Ultimate on here. Most people don't even want to give it a free try as it is not a Lightroom plugin - and they think it is predominantly a printing program. I am not expecting this post to produce converts but I would be depriving you of a possible HDR system if I did not mention it.
Click to expand...
Sadly, Qimage is only for Windows.

---
The way to make a friend is to act like one.
jacquescornell.photography

Landscape & Wedding Photographer - Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell Photography - landscape, travel, portrait and art reproduction
jacquescornell.photography
happening.photos

Happening Photos - Event Photography in New York City

Event Photography in New York City and Around the World - conferences, sales meetings, fundraisers and more.
happening.photos
 
TonyGamble said:
I own a pro version of SNS-HDR and used to be an advocate. It has come along a lot in the last year with upgrades (betas) even in the last couple of weeks.

I have never tried Photomatrix but a quick look at their web site did not show me one image I would want to try to sell to a client. Even their most 'realistic' look like crude HDR to me.

I did a series of bracketed shots last week in a bright contrasty sunlit situation. I upgraded my SNS-HDR and gave it a whirl.

I then tried working on the normal exposure files of my bracket triple using Qimage Ultimate. I got just as much from my highlights and shadows as SNS-HDR gave me and the shots are far more realistic.

I am, of course, working from RAW files. JPGs are useless for this type of work.

I repeatedly plug Qimage Ultimate on here. Most people don't even want to give it a free try as it is not a Lightroom plugin - and they think it is predominantly a printing program. I am not expecting this post to produce converts but I would be depriving you of a possible HDR system if I did not mention it.

Tony
Click to expand...
I use QImage as a printing program and haven't explored all its other features. But it has grown and their forum is very helpful.

regards
 
Last edited:
kylerpiercings said:
So I'm determined to make 2016 My year to really excel. Professionally I shoot a lot of architecture and real estate, given that the two are for two totally different clients I have two totally deferent techniques.
My question here is about HDR techniques and software, for real estate since I'm limited to about an hour time wise, I just don't have the time to set up lighting and get everything finished so I use HDR and Photomatix, however I am not 100% pleased with the results. I've seen photography from other companies who also use HDR and a lot of the photos are really phenomenal, and I've reached out to them with no luck (assuming because I am a local competitor).
Is there something I am missing? Some secret I don't know of?
My basic approach is to take bracketed photos in two stop increments starting with the darkest exposure (for the highlghts, making sure there is no clipping) and moving to the brightest exposure (making sure there is no shadow clipping) and running that through photomatix.
No matter what preset I use, the highlights tend to look super washed out and clipped. I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
I'm slowly easing into the local Real Estate Photography, and am using Lightroom combined with the Enfuse plugin. Similar to HDR brackets, but produces a more balanced result, at least I think so. Most HDR I have seen, the colors appear very pronounced, almost unrealistically so.

Enfuse is easy to use and integrates very well with my Lightroom workflow.
 
I've read that one of the disadvantages of Photomatix is that it only works with 16 bit files while the LR plugin is 32 bit and lets you save the HDR file as an uncompressed 32 bit file.
 
Krusty79 said:
I've read that one of the disadvantages of Photomatix is that it only works with 16 bit files while the LR plugin is 32 bit and lets you save the HDR file as an uncompressed 32 bit file.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/greg79
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you are understanding the 32 v 16 bit bit!

Photomatix gives you a 32 bit file. You can save that 32 bit file.

In reality everything we work with has to be 16 bit simply because our equipment is not capable of 'seeing' the 32bits. Even in LR.

Do a Google and you'll find all about it. Including LR use of Photomatix. Here's just one example. http://everydayhdr.com/32-bit-hdr-processing-with-photomatix-pro/

and here http://thehdrimage.com/32-bit-hdr-myths-and-methods/

regards

--
I thought I made a mistake once. But I was wrong!
https://500px.com/brucetreloar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126753097@N02/
 
Last edited:
AFAIU, LR doesn't instinctively know what to do with that much information, but you can manipulate the image to use all of its dynamic range.
 
Brucet is correct. Photomatix can input 16/8 bit raw images from a camera, but it can also input 32 bit files as can LR or PS. Photomatix can output 32 bit files also but as was said before a 32 bit file it too big to display. That's why all HDR processes have tone mapping to allow these large files to be modified so they will fit into either 16 or 8 bit files so they can be edited or displayed. No printer or computer screen can display a 32 bit file.
 
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps the author of the article I read did not know Photomatix could work with 32 bit images or I may have not understood it correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top