any pro's here that use HDR? I am getting into real estate photography and have been comparing a long ambient exposure ( some times add a flash), with doing the HDR process. Frankly I...

canon Lee

I am getting into real estate photography and have been comparing a long ambient exposure ( some times add a flash), with doing the HDR process. Frankly I think it is a lot of work to get approximately the same results in LR, without merging and bracketing. Let me know what you think. HDR is new to me. Just wondering what I am missing by not using it?

tramsey Loc: Texas

Rather then answer your question with a yes, no, up, down, I went to the top of the page and clicked on 'search' and brought up everything that has been discussed on this topic on the forum. Here's a link have a look

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search-topic-list?q=HDR

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

tramsey wrote:

Rather then answer your question with a yes, no, up, down, I went to the top of the page and clicked on 'search' and brought up everything that has been discussed on this topic on the forum. Here's a link have a look

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search-topic-list?q=HDR

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Your bio says your a Photographer? Two days on the trot your asking pretty basic questions. A pro who does not know what he will get out of HDR? Are you serious fella or just fancy a chat? Do you have a web site by the way?

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

canon Lee wrote:

I am getting into real estate photography and have been comparing a long ambient exposure ( some times add a flash), with doing the HDR process. Frankly I think it is a lot of work to get approximately the same results in LR, without merging and bracketing. Let me know what you think. HDR is new to me. Just wondering what I am missing by not using it?

I would think that for real estate photography, it doesn't make sense to go to the extra work and effort. You can do in-camera HDR producing a JPG image that has much the same effect without any additional work that will open the shadows and tame the bright areas. It works quite well. I can't compete with real HDR, but it comes without extra effort.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

I just read an article asking if HDR is dead. They quoted one person who said while there looking to buy a house they would see a lot of overcooked HDR images of houses (inside and out) and they were not impressed with those houses. The point of the article was that with today's sensor providing more dynamic range the need for HDR has gone.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Lee, what you're missing is the easy potential of making a beautiful scene appear garishly unrealistic. Proper exposure techniques will provide adequate representation in a far more realistic manner. Though I'm not a huge fan of HDR, it can be applied to architectural photography. Real Estate photography should be a high quality representation of what is really there. Sure HDR can look spectacular in the image, but sooner or later someone is going to view the real scene.

I don't, nor didn't, make a career out of photographing real estate. I did work, along with a few other photographers, for a few agents. The agents frequently remarked that more people wanted to see the houses I had photographed than those the other photographers had done. Seems I was doing something right.

However, as I pointed out earlier, a good deal of the agents in my area of the world are quite content to do 'drive bys' with their cell phones.
--Bob

canon Lee wrote:

I am getting into real estate photography and have been comparing a long ambient exposure ( some times add a flash), with doing the HDR process. Frankly I think it is a lot of work to get approximately the same results in LR, without merging and bracketing. Let me know what you think. HDR is new to me. Just wondering what I am missing by not using it?

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

HDR does not necessarily mean "tonemapping" that, yes, can be "overcooked". Most RE photographers use bracketing, but use natural fusion over tonemapping. See the surveys on http://photographyforrealestate.net . Bracketing makes it easier to get the wide DR you find in dark rooms with bright windows. It also shortens the PP time (a must for RE jobs where you may shoot 2 or 3 homes in a day, with 100 shots each). Photomatix's batch process using natural fusion works perfectly and makes the PP in PS or PSP much easier and faster. Also, for the sake of speed and time saving, I only shoot JPG for my RE jobs -- where the images are for the web and small sized prints for flyers and brochures.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

chapjohn wrote:

I just read an article asking if HDR is dead. They quoted one person who said while there looking to buy a house they would see a lot of overcooked HDR images of houses (inside and out) and they were not impressed with those houses. The point of the article was that with today's sensor providing more dynamic range the need for HDR has gone.

This is absolutely not true. Granted there are more situations that can be adequately covered without HDR, given an increase of 2-3EV DR in the better modern sensors, but when you are faced with trying to present we'll it interiors and retain outside detail seen through windows on a sunny day, you will need real (not in-camera) HDR. I have shot up to 12 frames 1EV apart to adequately cover dark interiors and bright Windows, and that with a Nikon D800.

All HDR programs have settings to vary the strength of the tonemapping and tonal compression, and if HDR is "over cooked" it is purely the fault of the operator, who either chose the look or doesn't know how to use the program. If nothing is moving in the frame HDR is dead easy with a program like LR, and if there is movement in the frame it is generally easy to eliminate using Photomatix. I really don't think the need for HDR is gone, though it might be slightly lessened in some instances.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I submit an image contrary to your statement. There is adequate detail captured in the windows, and detail within the interiour view as well. Careful exposure was all that was required.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-216637-1.html

--Bob

kymarto wrote:

This is absolutely not true. Granted there are mor... (show quote)

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

When I sold my house I gave the RE person photos to post. Some of the inside pics were HDR , HDR does NOT have to be overcooked. Use it to see into corners etc and its a helpful tool.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

rmalarz wrote:

I submit an image contrary to your statement. There is adequate detail captured in the windows, and detail within the interiour view as well. Careful exposure was all that was required.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-216637-1.html

--Bob

I totally agree! However, for RE photography, we use techniques that save time and effort. Carefully setting exposure and shooting RAW and skillfully processing the RAW files will definitely work, but in my experience will double the time it takes to do the shoot on site and do the PP. IMHO the photo you posted, while very good, showing the atmosphere of the grimy diner, would not be the best for marketing real estate. A couple of off-camera flashes would have provided a "cleaner", color-balanced look with a little more detail in the shadows and less variation in the mid-range.

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

If you learn to properly use a light meter you won't need HDR or multiple shots to edit.
Check out Joe Brady on you tube for Sekonic 758 light meters

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's the meter I used on the sample to which I referred in my earlier post.
--Bob

Carl D wrote:

If you learn to properly use a light meter you won't need HDR or multiple shots to edit.
Check out Joe Brady on you tube for Sekonic 758 light meters

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That photo was never meant to be a marketing photo for real estate. It was posted to show that careful metering can avoid the necessity of multiple photos combined to render one image. Had it been a marketing photo, at least one strobe might have been used, and if so, carefully as to not provide evidence of its use.
--Bob

mallen1330 wrote:

I totally agree! However, for RE photography, we u... (show quote)