[Closed] HDR Photography

You've got the base exposure wrong.

The camera doesn't have to be in manual mode - set it in on of the semi-manual modes like aperture or shutter priority (depending on subject) and switch on [b]auto-bracketing[/b]. This will take 3 consecutive shots - one at the measured exposure value, one at +1 EV and one at -1 EV (you should be able to set the +/- values as well.)

Oh, you'll need some software like Photomatix to do the HDR stuff (image blending, tone mapping)

Doesn't need to be in manual mode guv'ner... just use auto exposure and use the bracket function (which I assume you're already doing if it's snapping 3 pics...). You then use software to combine the 3 images and you get a much wider dynamic range than is possible with a single shot (HDR = High Dynamic Range). Personally I don't like it, but if it floats your boat... 😀

too slow... what stuartie-c said...

Is anyone else under-impressed with HDR?

I'm sure lots of shots are using it well (i.e. subtly IMO) so you don't notice it, but these shots showing (e.g.) amazing detail on foreground, tree-bark, same on clouds behind etc....look overprocessed and are ten-penny IMO. But then the whole over-processing thing that the mags seem to be propogating these days (well they've got to fill the pages with something) just doesn't interest me.

Sounds like you're using the indoor exposure settings for the outdoor shots, hence very over-exposed.

Agree - most HDR stuff just looks naff, unless it's done to subtly boost highlights and shadows.

Doesn't have to be 3 images either... you can combine as many exposures as you want can't you?

Aye S_C. I don't buy many photo mags but a lot of the stuff they print leaves me cold. I am interested in photography but this really puts me off joining a club etc.

You should not use as many exposures as you want, rather enough exposures to capture the full dynamic range of your subject.

Yep - most HDR stuff just looks naff

i hate the overprocessed HDR look and have never used it for a job or been asked by clients for that 'brightly coloured flickr look'. i do use bracketeer for shooting interiors for keeping highlights from blowing in windows etc and it does a superb job of blending.
it's a front end GUI for enfuse so very easy to use.
even areas of white wall with areas of bright sunlight and shadows are blended seamlessly. if you have any registration errors you can load the images as a stack in cs align the layers in difference mode and then export as tiffs to be merged in bracketeer. you can even include layer masks on the tiffs if there is something you don't want to include from a particular file.
it cost next to nothing and has saved me hours of retouch time so worth every penny.

MrSmith... you sound like a pro? Whereabouts are you based?

Rude Boys Londons famous streets of London town.

Don't suppose you're in the market for an assistant? Or know someone who is? 😀

The current issue of whatever photo mag it was that I was reading recently (so many titles now!) said to keep the camera on Aperture Priority, that way the depth of field stays the same and the shutter speed will vary to take into account whatever exposure compensation you've dialled in on the auto bracketing thingy.

I don't really like HDR either, it usually looks massively overprocessed.

Don't suppose you're in the market for an assistant? Or know someone who is?

unfortunately not, i'm sorted for help. try the AOP.

for Windows I've located Hugin for image alignment and [url= http://software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI/ ]enfuseGUI[/url] for blending

I can't tell you how well they work yet but will report back

[url= http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/ ]Good HDR Tutorial[/url]

unfortunately not, i'm sorted for help. try the AOP

HDR can look wonderful, can look aweful. However its a personal taste thing. I've done a few shots in HDR that have made people gasp and ask how I got such an amazing looking photo, yet I've also done some that I've simply scrapped half way through processing as it looked naff from the start. But having said that, even some of the more extreme versions can look amazing if done well. As with everything, its down to how well you execute it.

Agreed. Depending on the subject sometimes the over processed look can work. I use HDR quite a bit and its possible to make HDR look quite natural by not going over board on the processing. Another thing that can help a natural look is to blend back the original "correctly" exposed image with the HDR image.

Also if your camera takes RAW files then you don't need to bracket. Just process the same RAW image three times at -1, 0, +1 stop exposure.

uponthedowns - the 3-from-one method isnt HDR, you're not gaining any extra high or lowlight detail from what was originally taken, just correctly manipulating the available tones into your image. All you're doing is manually selecting the tones that get put into the gamut and their spread in there, rather than recovering extra detail. For HDR you NEED different exposures. I'll do you an example if you dont believe me 😀

i hate obvious hdr pictures. i say pictures as i don't think you can classify them as photos with all that post processing. it looks unreal to have everything exposed corectly, though if that's what you like then great.

Of course nothing substitutes a good composition and a thoughtfully considered subject matter - all this HDR guff - isn't it just a fancy 'Photoshop' effect really?

Few of my old HDR's

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Trick is not to make it tooooooooo obvious 🙂

[url= http://www.facebook.com/pages/Laimonas-Stasiulis-Photography/124391014198 ]Facebook page[/url] [url= http://www.laimonas.co.uk ]website[/url]

HDR was originally developed for gaming, and it was designed to give reproduce a wider tonal range to make it look more natural. HDR's are tone mapped, and you get greater control in a dedicated program such as Photomatix however if you do think they look unnatural and over-processed try Exposure Blending, also in Photomatix. Essentially, a HDR photo is combined from 2 or more different exposures which include all the highlights and lowlights without being blown out or that have lost detail. Tone mapping was originally designed to A) improve the difference in contrast to provide a reproduced wider tonal range and B) pull out detail, however it was designed for games so when applied to photography A goes out of the window as you are combining 2 or more exposures anyway, not digitally reproducing that tonal range. HDR then just provides a way to improve detail and change the luminance of the colours shown, which often produces the over-processed look.

Exposure Blending just combines 2 or more exposures without tone mapping, often producing more natural looking image overall.

Going back to your original problem, use it in whatever manual mode you feel comfortable and as said above auto-bracket. In order to provide a familiar depth of field and sharpness you should use Manual, P mode or Shutter priority so that the aperture will not automatically change.

it looks unreal to have everything exposed corectly, though if that's what you like then great.

I say this every time though, it IS more real to have it all exposed correctly - generally your eyes dynamic range is an order of magnitude higher than that of your camera/monitors capabilities. What you are considering "real" is actually a limited version of reality that only resembles what your eyes see. HDR is far closer to reality (when done right, not over-saturated etc).

i say pictures as i don't think you can classify them as photos with all that post processing.

They're only "not photos" because the camera cannot reproduce reality very well. If someone brought out a camera that could reproduce the eyes abilities, all photos would look like HDRs (only better). You are aware of the fairly heavy amount of photoshopping that gets done in-camera as the picture is taken, arent you? (multiple noise filters, colour balancing, exposure modification etc).

m_f - no, good composition and subject are the key, but HDR is an additional tool to better reproducing real life, rather than limited life. Though some scenes beg for "normal" photography to help reproduce a particular feeling or sense.

This is an example of one of my exposure blends although it looks a little unsharp when dropped in size and quality.

[IMG] [/IMG]

but HDR is an additional tool to better reproducing real life, rather than limited life.

So I tend to agree that,used correctly, HDR can benefit a picture but it CANNOT substitute an inherently well composed image.

Take, for example, Ansel Adams and the zonal system of exposure bracketing he devised. Some of the photographs he took are timeless, beautiful (I am sure most of you will know them - think Athena B&W pictures of Yosemite). But they are successful despite the system he devised, not because of it. This is because he considered composition first, the science behind exposing the image second...

I know nothing about photography but I think it can look great - like in JXLs images above.

Question - is there an equivalent for cinema/ TV? Can you shoot the same image 3 times somehow on a movie camera and obtain the same effect?

Tim

OK - naive question time.

If HDR is done subtly, does it look particularly different from the effect of a ND Grad stuck in front of the lens when you took the photo in the first place?

(I accept that if it is a dimly light room with a bright outside seen through a window then you would have to be an absolute wizard with a area based ND Grad - which may not actually be produced)

HDR is nothing but a filter

It's not a filter, that would be incorrect. But it is a tool, a method of better reproduction of detail.

But no-one has said it was a substitute for a well composed image, I'm not sure why you keep saying that. The whole point is you wouldnt try to shoot an amazing shot with an old 110 film camera because the image quality from it is very poor, you wouldnt try to get a super-sharp shot with a naff-quality lens. You might get shots that were good due to good composition, but you would be being let down by the media that you are using. While the best consumer cameras out there are damned good they are still limiting as a medium - if you want accurate (to the eye) reproduction of all areas of the image you NEED to do work with photoshop tools such as HDR. It's like saying I can reproduce an amazing image using a 16-bit sensor - it's all in the composition. Well a naff picture is a naff picture, agreed, but you wouldnt like the result of a 16-bit sensor (it wouldnt look anything like what you saw when taking the shot) so you'd strive to find a 32-bit sensor instead etc.

OK - naive question time.

If HDR is done subtly, does it look particularly different from the effect of a ND Grad stuck in front of the lens when you took the photo in the first place?

All an ND filter is is a method of reducing light into the camera, it reduces all colours equally so that you can work with a larger aperture inteh same light conditions. It has no similarity to HDR.

In all honesty, HDR is a bit of a misnomer - your screen/graphics card cannot reproduce the dynamic range of the images you create using HDR so you'll not see its true effects, all you see is the exposure-blending effects which are only part of the overall improvement of the image. It is the purpose of the HDR to gain enough detail in all exposure areas in order for the screen to try its best to replicate reality with its limited contrast ratio. JPEGs are 8 bit per channel, thats 256 shades of R, G and B. Your eye can see, at any one time, approximately 10,000 shades of each colour. When taking the photo a normal camera will create an 8 bit image with teh shades spaced out well in the pallette so that you get a good range, but it will undoubtedly lose some of the 10K shades to "fit" it into the 8-bit file. HDR takes multiple photos to try to get all 10K shades, then lets you choose where to spread the shades and lets you spread those shades differently in different areas of the image. A true HDR image file type (not JPG) stores all the shades for reproduction on a medium that can (print?).

I'm not sure why you keep saying that.

Some people are just blindly using it because it looks 'nice' and it is becoming tedious and boring IMO.

Because people seem to be holding it up as the saviour of photography when it isn't.

No they're not, there isnt one person here who has said anything remotely like that, or inferred it?

It IS nice because it more closely relays the image you saw when taking the photo (if done properly). It has absolutely nothign to do with the composition of the image, thats a whole other matter.

Ohh whatever, I am bored of discussing it with you.

Dont forget to shut the door on the way out 😉

Its the 'done' thing at the moment because as everything its the fashion. Just like tilt and shift, just like the recent revival of Holga's and naff badly exposed and vignetted images. Yes, some people do see it as an answer to one of the inherant problems of digital photography but most people on here are sensible and know differently.

ND grad filter isn't the same as an ND filter, coffeeking. ND filter is a consistent 'grayness' whereas an ND grad generally means you can dampen down the brightness of the sky to match the exposure of the land.

And, igm I think that yes, subtle HDR gives a similar effect to an ND grad but as you mentioned grads are generally limited to a difference in light levels that occur along some kind of straight edge.

dooge - it IS an answer to an inherent problem of digital photography (limited sensor contrast ratio and pixel depth) - this cannot be denied and is a fact, however it is [b]not[/b] the answer to taking good photos. No-one, as yet, has suggested otherwise, but some people have assumed that. It can, as we have seen, make a half-decent image look bloody aweful too! 🙂

stumpy - sorry, missed the grad bit out :D. Yes, similar effect to an ND grad. More like a user-selectable-area ND filter.

mastiles_fanylion: Ohh whatever, I am bored of discussing it with you.

4 comments is more like an interjection than a discussion...

Not a huge fan of HDR, there are some on flickr that are jsut way,way to overdone. Really like JXL's work-they look great! Just about the right amount of saturation etc that gives an almost surreal, yet qutie believable image. Also lovely work on your website, love the b&w wedding shots at the beach.

Thank you coffeking. I learnt with a manual SLR (OK I had apeture priority) with Ilford FPan (ISO 50 anyone) and I still prefer to filter the shot into the lens than out of the PC.

I think brutally over done HDR shots of stormy scenes in B&W can look good - not natural but full of drama and impact.

The whole question is actually whether photos should represent what is actually there and whether HDR increases or decreases the connection of the photo to "reality" - sometimes yes, somtimes no for both parts of the qustion in my (fairly worthless) opinion

Also remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder - ie the person looking at the photo not the person taking it

igm - very true, on all counts I think. Ultimately how an image looks is wholey dependant on teh person creating it and their tools. Whether it looks nice depends on who is viewing it and bears little relation to how it is created.

The whole question is actually whether photos should represent what is actually there and whether HDR increases or decreases the connection of the photo to "reality"

Absolutely. In my landscape photos I'm trying not to capture "reality", whatever that is, but to capture and give the viewer the feeling of what it was like to be there at the time. If that needs HDR, exposure blending, ND grads, B&W, whatever I'll do it.

Cameras don't see like people do. You don't look at a view and take it in all at once, your eyes flit across it adjusting exposure as they go and then you brain puts the whole thing together. That's why quite often a nice "view" makes a horrible photo. Your brain has filtered out the pleasing bits- cameras don't do that- that's where the photographer comes in.

coffeeking, I figured you'd just missed the 'grad' bit. 🙂

I don't have a problem with HDR. It's the same as any other manipulation technique - sometimes people get over eager with the sliders, whack everything to max and it looks cak. But, it can be a useful tool from what i have seen.
I am yet to try HDR, but fancy giving it a bash soon.

Over HDR'd images are no different from the images you see that have been opened in PS and had the saturation slider turned up, a heavy S curve put into 'curves' and then over-sharpened.

Heres a lovely HDR image (stolen from a photography board), showing the bits your eyes would pick out without over-doing it. This simply wouldn't be [i]possible[/i] without HDR. However maybe a sillywet ( 🙂 can never spell it right) would have been nicer in some peoples eyes - only the viewer can tell!

[img] [/img]

Dooge,

The fuzziness in your shot is due to the branches moving and the program trying to overlay the branches that have moved while trying to align the rest of the shot. The same happens with ripples in moving water.

One way to get past this is to shoot RAW files, take them into your photo editing software and reduce the exposure two stops and overexpose by two stops. Take your three images (all exactly the same as they came from the same shot bar the exposure) and drop them into your HDR software, et voila. Just try to avoid halo's at the junction of your light and dark areas.

HDR is a useful tool for retaining shadow detail while not blowing out your highlights. It tries to replicate what the eye does naturally. I like subtlety myself, but can appreciate (some of) the more artistic uses.

[img] ?v=0[/img]

One of mine, ND Grad, long exposure to soften the water, photomatix to process the image.

@ coffeeking "This simply wouldn't be possible without HDR"

I remember combining two exposures of a landscape, one for the clouds, one for the ground, from scanned film negatives in Photoshop years ago. Isn't that much the same thing?

I never got very far with film photography but I think it was possible to use similar techniques with film in camera by shielding part of the image and thus effectively having variable exposure acros the image. Assume doing this at printing (dodge and burn?) isn't quite the same thing.

elliot - what you did with the two landscape exposures is effectively exposure blending, done "manually" rather than with a pre-designed software tool. Its very similar to HDR (HDR is actually more correctly a term for the file/storage format than the technique but the two get merged and the difference is debated a lot) but not the same. Sure you could manually take two or 3 shots of the shipwreck above and manually cut and slice all the parts together, but you'd just be doing the exact same thing as the HDR package would do. My point, after all that, is that HDR is simply a tool to allow greater creativity and possibilities using a limited medium. Without combining the two images and effectively doing HDR/exposure blending (as you did) you couldn't get that image. Again with the film photography, manually covering bright sections to bring down the exposure in those sections IS creating an HDR image, just using film and in a clever way. HDR is just representing a larger dynamic range in a single image.

Just a brief note, from my take on the subject:

HDR - an image with a higher dynamic range than "normal".
Exposure blending/tone mapping - modifying the info held in an HDR image so that it can be displayed on a low DR device while retaining a good set of the details from the HDR image.

We create and HDR by combining 2+ exposures. We then make it look good (hopefully) on screen by selectively blending/mapping the tones to 8-bit per colour channel depending on where the highlights/lowlights are blown out or underexposed.

All "HDR photo"s on computers have to have been exposure blended/tone mapped to show you the result on the screen. If you had a super-duper computer screen that had 10000:1 contrast ratio you could display HDR images without blending/mapping.

interesting... cheers for the info. Thinking aloud, but presumably a way of viewing a true HDR image on a screen would be to make an animation which tweened between a series of normalised images taken with different exposures. Might muck about with this...

Interesting thought. More out-loud thinking...

To flick between you'd need to cover all exposures in < 1/25th of a second, possibly <1/50th for flicker reasons. How fast is the response time of the phosphors of the CRT or pixel sites on the LCD, is it capable of switching at 3x25fps in order to equally display 3 (for example) images as one frame for the eye to see.
Are you limited ultimately to the min and max brightness of the screen - you'll never get the intensity of the sun from your monitor, or the blackness of floating alone 20 miles out at sea at midnight.
Wouldnt work with standard hardware, as your standard graphics card output simply outputs a voltage or digital level corresponding to 0-255, so the second frame would have to be 0.5-255.5 which physically couldnot occur. Maybe the gamma correction would be the way to do this, but I dont know if gamma correction simply clips the tones at the extremes when shifted - it must on a digital device?

I like your thinking though.

Oh sure each image would have to be within normal range, I was thinking more that you'd animate over a second or two - the same sort of time that it would take your eye to adjust. A bit more Googling seems to show this is exactly what's done in video games - you look down a dark corridor and can see detail, you turn your view to an outdoor window and you can only see a white rectangle, after a second or two the brightness reduces and outdoor detail is visible.

presumably a way of viewing a true HDR image on a screen would be to make an animation which tweened between a series of normalised images taken with different exposures

No, you need to invent some form of display with a larger range (a High Dynamic Range display if you will).

They are coming...

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Projects/HDRDisplay/

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/3

The unreality of HDR photos (and CG imagery) when tone mapped for display on a standard screen (or worse, for print) is entirely due to how well the tone mapping is done IMHO, and of course we have 100 years or more of our culture looking at traditional photography / cinematography (and until recently computer generated stuff also aimed for 'photorealism' rather than 'realism'). But we have a much longer culture of looking at paintings, and if you look at some of the HDR images posted above and forget photography and instead think painting they make sense. Done well, they capture what you would perceive, rather than the necessarily extremely limited view that photography gives us (some of the artistry of good photography comes from working within those limitations of course).

Yep - the Pre-Raphaelites were doing HDR 100 years ago !!!
[img] [/img]

Yep - the Pre-Raphaelites were doing HDR 100 years ago !!!

DrJ - on the other hand Vermeer appears to have anticipated photography 200 years early (and computer graphics techniques like ray tracing, radiosity, ambient occlusion) 300 years early... presumably because he restricted himself to painting what he saw inside his camera obscura rather than what he saw if he stepped outside.

@porterclough: I meant you'd display the full range of the image over time by varying the tone-mapping. But I guess this is just the same as varying the exposure per frame while using a video camera that uses some kind of exposure compensation.

Cool 🙂 Have you read [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0330441604/ref=s9_simb_gw_xi_s0_p14_t1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0DQA1NNP077QXQ0S8627&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467128533&pf_rd_i=468294 ]The Apothecary's House[/url]? Not to give the game away too much, I will just say it touches on similar themes 🙂

@porterclough: I meant you'd display the full range of the image over time by varying the tone-mapping. But I guess this is just the same as varying the exposure per frame while using a video camera that uses some kind of exposure compensation.