HDR tips for newbie?

C

Cuh5

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys, I've just discovered the HDR feature in Photoshop and it should work great for the pics I'm trying to take (jungle temples with very dark shadows, very bright skies, and generally can't get a "correct" exposure throughout the photos).

I did my first practice HDR shot last night, nine photos at 1EV intervals, starting at -4. It worked a treat, and I got an amazing image that had everything correctly exposed, from the brightly lit porch to the dark building on the other side of the road.

Can I check that I'm doing everything right?

  • At least three photos, ideally seven or nine
  • 1 EV intervals
  • Use a tripod
  • Use self time to stop shake (I don't have a remote)
  • Middle photo should be at correctly metered exposure (0EV?)
  • Shoot in raw and combine using Merge to HDR feature in Photoshop.
 
Hi, You can shoot as many frames as you wish but it really depends on the light at the time and the scene. In most cases 3 to 5 exposures should be enough and not always 1 ev again depending on the light you can go 2 ev but that comes with experience.
There are a lot of HDR photos on the web that IMO are way over cooked HDR is not or was not meant to be like this it is as you say to bring out the shadow and highlight detail to make a photo look as realistic as possible.
Have a look on you tube for video tuts or look at http://www.everydayhdr.com/ and http://thehdrimage.com/
There is of course the obligatory www.stuckincustoms.com
But IMO Trey does not produce many realistic photographs.
Russ
 
Sounds about right, generally if you can do it with three exposures it's not a scene for HDR. I'll go up to 12 or 14 exposures for a scene with an extreme dynamic range.

Remember to cover everything between almost blacked out (no blown highlights anywhere) and almost whited out (no blocked shadows anywhere) in your sequence of exposures.

Once you've done the tone mapping, try overlaying on of the darker exposures as a layer with a low transparency to put some shadows and dimensionality back.
 
Last edited:
When I do it I use the same photo and alter the exposure in Lightroom then use Photomatix. If anything moves in the shot that you have no control over, like the wind blows a branch, then it could look odd. Also you dont need a tripod and can hdr any shot. Nothing wrong with how you're doing it, and you probably get a better level of control with PS as you sometimes get a bit of "halo-ing" around objects in Photomatix
 
When I used to shoot HDR's with my old D80 I would shoot 3 exposures at 2ev difference (-2ev, 0ev, +2ev) and then fire the RAW files into Photomatix. There I would use the default tonemapping settings and Save As a 16 Bit TIFF file. I would then fire that 16 Bit TIFF into Ps to polish off. A finished example...

2866269374_dc69b4b0dd.jpg


Now though, I very rarely shoot HDRs
 
Last edited:
Digifrog said:
When I used to shoot HDR's with my old D80 I would shoot 3 exposures at 2ev difference (-2ev, 0ev, +2ev) and then fire the RAW files into Photomatix. There I would use the default tonemapping settings and Save As a 16 Bit TIFF file. I would then fire that 16 Bit TIFF into Ps to polish off. A finished example...

2866269374_dc69b4b0dd.jpg


Now though, I very rarely shoot HDRs
Click to expand...

WHY NOT?
 
matt666 said:
When I do it I use the same photo and alter the exposure in Lightroom then use Photomatix. If anything moves in the shot that you have no control over, like the wind blows a branch, then it could look odd. Also you dont need a tripod and can hdr any shot. Nothing wrong with how you're doing it, and you probably get a better level of control with PS as you sometimes get a bit of "halo-ing" around objects in Photomatix
Click to expand...

You can tone map a single exposure, but it won't be HDR. A lot of people think it is, but that's because HDR is a widely misunderstood concept.
 
Alastair said:
You can tone map a single exposure, but it won't be HDR. A lot of people think it is, but that's because HDR is a widely misunderstood concept.
Click to expand...

If you have a camera with 20 stops dynamic range and a display methid to match, you don't even need to tone map.
 
st599 said:
If you have a camera with 20 stops dynamic range and a display methid to match, you don't even need to tone map.
Click to expand...

There's a couple claim close to that dynamic range (Red Dragon, AMP HDR), but they're not every day consumer cameras.

In theory, there could be a single sensor solution to HDR. But it's not relevant at this point in time to the average reader of this forum. For now, tone-mapping of single exposures can a useful processing technique. But to claim it's HDR would be misleading.
 
Guys,

I did a few shots out in the field today in HDR. I photographed a temple in a field and it worked well, except that the image looked flat.

I then photographed a temple in the jungle. The finished HDR image came out with grey areas, wierd colours and steps in colours. I then moved the tripod over a metre to get a slightly different view and did the same routine again. The second HDR came out good (well flat again). The only difference was that there were people walking around in the 7 shots in the first try. Could that have thrown the HDR out? There was no avoiding people at the time. Tomorrow I'll head out at 4:30am to avoid the tourists.
 
Cuh5 said:
Guys,

I did a few shots out in the field today in HDR. I photographed a temple in a field and it worked well, except that the image looked flat.

I then photographed a temple in the jungle. The finished HDR image came out with grey areas, wierd colours and steps in colours. I then moved the tripod over a metre to get a slightly different view and did the same routine again. The second HDR came out good (well flat again). The only difference was that there were people walking around in the 7 shots in the first try. Could that have thrown the HDR out? There was no avoiding people at the time. Tomorrow I'll head out at 4:30am to avoid the tourists.
Click to expand...

What version of Photoshop are you using? The HDR in Photoshop has been updated a lot over the last two versions.
Remember also that Photoshop is what it says "to manipulate photographs among it's other attributes" IMO you are better off with an HDR software made for the job there are many out there and among them some free offerings. Also again IMO don't get blinkered with Photomatix software it is like Photoshop in the respect that it is what you see pushed out there to the consumer. SNS-HDR, NIK software,Oleneo are among many other options but it is your choice so try the many free 30 day trials to see what you feel you like.
Show us some of your photos as there maybe other attributes that are causing you problems are many here will freely give good advice.
Russ
 
In my opinion Photomatix is the best and will produce very realistic images. There are plenty of tutorials about that will also show you how to get the best out of both Photomatix and PS Merge to HDR.
 
Last edited:
Cuh5 said:
Guys,

I did a few shots out in the field today in HDR. I photographed a temple in a field and it worked well, except that the image looked flat.

I then photographed a temple in the jungle. The finished HDR image came out with grey areas, wierd colours and steps in colours. I then moved the tripod over a metre to get a slightly different view and did the same routine again. The second HDR came out good (well flat again). The only difference was that there were people walking around in the 7 shots in the first try. Could that have thrown the HDR out? There was no avoiding people at the time. Tomorrow I'll head out at 4:30am to avoid the tourists.
Click to expand...

HDR will look flat initially if you're doing it right, that's why I suggested adding a shadow layer at low opacity.
 
Guys, thanks for all the advise. I'm a bit embarrassed to put up photos yet, but I'll psyche myself up to it eventually :) They did come out ok though.

I tried Photomatix (sorry Russell, I'd downloaded it before I saw your post). Photomatix seems to give better results than Photoshop CS6 did. I guess because of the tone mapping (still don't understand what tone mapping is despite reading a few posts on it).

My photos don't seem nearly as sharp as other peoples (I'm using Nikon D5100 with Nikkor 18-200 lens). So at some point I really should post up some examples to see if you can tell me what I'm doing wrong.
 
If I hdr an image, which admittedly is not often as I normally don't like the effect preferring to manually blend then I usually use SNS-HDR whixh is a fantastic bit of software.

I own CS6 and Photomatix but find SNS to give more realistic results.

The website is in Polish but the Forum is in English and the developer is pro active and will engage in discussion, The site is here if anyone is interested http://www.sns-hdr.com/
 
I was put onto SNS-HDR by a work colleague and must admit it does produce very good results, having used Photomatix solely before.

Don't over HDR, some shots look like a child has gone to work on them.
 
I've been doing lots of HDR shots but only been using thee exposures. I read somewhere that anymore is just a waste as the information contained in just one shot is enough if you know what your doing in Lightroom. I use three because it gives me good range from photomatix pro and some touch ups in Lightroom to Polish it off. Never experimented with anymore shots so could someone explain the benefits and if there are any disadvantages.
 
oblivion said:
I've been doing lots of HDR shots but only been using thee exposures. I read somewhere that anymore is just a waste as the information contained in just one shot is enough if you know what your doing in Lightroom. I use three because it gives me good range from photomatix pro and some touch ups in Lightroom to Polish it off. Never experimented with anymore shots so could someone explain the benefits and if there are any disadvantages.
Click to expand...

Ive found 5 better than 3 but it all depends on the dynamic range in the shot.

Im not a fan on 90% of hdrs as they look awful. Less is more when it comes to hdr, I couldnt stress that enough
 
barratt1988 said:
Ive found 5 better than 3 but it all depends on the dynamic range in the shot.

Im not a fan on 90% of hdrs as they look awful. Less is more when it comes to hdr, I couldnt stress that enough
Click to expand...

I tried using a single RAW shot to process a HDR image and the result wasn't very good. The image was noisy and odd looking. But I've only just started so I don't know.

I took 9 shots for my HDR images. But I actually found I got a better result when I only used 4 or 5 of them in Photomatix.

I'm going to experiment some more with it.
 
oblivion said:
I've been doing lots of HDR shots but only been using thee exposures. I read somewhere that anymore is just a waste as the information contained in just one shot is enough if you know what your doing in Lightroom. I use three because it gives me good range from photomatix pro and some touch ups in Lightroom to Polish it off. Never experimented with anymore shots so could someone explain the benefits and if there are any disadvantages.
Click to expand...

You could get an even wider dynamic range. Say you expose so that you have a 33% overlap between images, you could get an image with nearly 2.5 times the dynamic range of your single image.

However:
  • you'd need a file format and colour space that could handle the output image, and
  • you'd need some form of display that could display the resulting image.
 
st599 said:
If you have a camera with 20 stops dynamic range and a display methid to match, you don't even need to tone map.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, you do. If you have 20 stops of dynamic range then your RAW image will be 20 bits deep (Other than possibly at the research end I doubt very much that such a camera exists yet). For display you'll need to remap (tonemap) that into 8 bits.
 
Tonemapping and HDR should not be confused as one of the same thing here. Tonemapping isn't HDR per se, more just a method of achieving an HDR image and not the only method in the toolbox to achieve this goal. The DRI technique, filters, DRI+tonemapping etc. are all methods towards contributing an image that is in essence displaying HDR.

For myself, I like the look of HDR in some subjects and not others. Some say they look better natural and look garish overdone. I would disagree with the latter as again it's about aesthetic and what YOU are trying to achieve in an image aesthetically.

I took this one a few years back and many would say it's overdone. However it was the look I was aiming for.

5847734389_25817d22bc_z.jpg


To answer Russell above, the reason I rarely do HDR's anymore? It's because for me my preferred subject matter doesn't really marry well with the tonemapping process. I still like it if I'm doing interior architecture or the odd cityscape but for the most part I achieve an image with a H.D.R. by way of filters and a spot of DRI.
 
Cuh5 said:
Guys, I've just discovered the HDR feature in Photoshop and it should work great for the pics I'm trying to take (jungle temples with very dark shadows, very bright skies, and generally can't get a "correct" exposure throughout the photos).

I did my first practice HDR shot last night, nine photos at 1EV intervals, starting at -4. It worked a treat, and I got an amazing image that had everything correctly exposed, from the brightly lit porch to the dark building on the other side of the road.

Can I check that I'm doing everything right?

  • At least three photos, ideally seven or nine
  • 1 EV intervals
  • Use a tripod
  • Use self time to stop shake (I don't have a remote)
  • Middle photo should be at correctly metered exposure (0EV?)
  • Shoot in raw and combine using Merge to HDR feature in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

A couple of thoughts:

When shooting scenes with wide EV ranges you don't always need to use HDR methods, often it's enough just to shoot some bracket shots and use masks to blend highlight and shadow areas of the scene later. It gives you a different kind of control and often the results are more natural. The shot at the head of this blog is an example where the sky and the foreground, including the subject, were composited using layers.

How many shots depends upon the luminance range of the scene and what your bracketing step is. If it's within the range of your sensor's capabilities you may need only one. To find out what the EV range is in a scene, spot meter the brightest and brightest areas you're interested in rendering and take the difference between them. For example, if you read 1/50@22 to 1/2000@22 the difference is 5 stops, the EV range is 5 and is well within your sensor range.

1 EV intervals is almost certainly closer than you need but that said, I'm usually more concerned with the range of the bracket than the bracket step, so long as the step doesn't get too wide. You're looking to cover as much as you can of the dynamic range of the scene and you'd be surprised how wide you can make the gaps without detriment.

By all means use a tripod if you're concerned about shake but Photoshop is pretty good at auto-aligning shots, as long as you're reasonably still hand held is usually good enough.

"Correctly metered" is very subjective. It's more important that you have exposures in enough range to capture all the highlight and shadow that you need. Since you're exposing for a range that's outside your sensor's capabilities there is no "correctly" metered exposure, just a range of exposures that are optimal for a given luminance range within the scene.
 
kimaldis said:
Strictly speaking, you do. If you have 20 stops of dynamic range then your RAW image will be 20 bits deep (Other than possibly at the research end I doubt very much that such a camera exists yet). For display you'll need to remap (tonemap) that into 8 bits.
Click to expand...

Read what I said again.

If your camera and display have 20 stops then you don't need to tone map. I do agree that HDR displays are few and far between.
 
kimaldis said:
Strictly speaking, you do. If you have 20 stops of dynamic range then your RAW image will be 20 bits deep (Other than possibly at the research end I doubt very much that such a camera exists yet). For display you'll need to remap (tonemap) that into 8 bits.
Click to expand...

5d mk 3 and d800 dynamic ranges are no higher than 13. Id rather blend that hdr though.
 
There was an excellent piece on Kelby.tv yesterday about his rules for HDR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top