ziggykor Loc: East Texas

Actually, I'd say that most often, three isn't enough even if using two stop bracketing, if there is bright sun. Case in point the image below. I exposed +1, 0 and -1, but the window in the far corner is still blown. Had I used the two stop formula it still would have been so.

Without my Spotmeter, my only option would have been to consult the histogram after each shot until highlight clipping stopped showing. Probably about 11 stops most on the under-exposed side. Spotmeter at home so I took the easy way out and still have blown highlights.

The merge was done from Lightroom, un-optimized RAW images, into HDR Pro in CS6, tonemapped nad saved back to Lightroom for initial optimizing.

The image was exported to CS6 and finished with the conversion handled by NIK Silver Effex Pro.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

I think that window explains in a brilliant way what HDR is capable of.. The more exposures, the more detail can be retained and obtained. I have just been looking at images of cars which were in HDR but the shadows just blackened shadows... HDR should sort that out??

Chinaman Loc: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

I have mulled over this problem lately and thought of a solution but have not had the opportunity to try it out.
Meter for the darkest part of the scene, then meter for the brightest part of the scene. Note the exposures. Shoot at 1/2 or 1 stop increment until all the exposures are covered.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Have you tried a minimum of five exposures and then merged them? Note I am saying five as a minimum as I have seen some amazing shots that show detail outside of a window that would otherwise have clearly been burnt out..

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

I feel that you would get the same result simply by monitoring your histogram and adding one exposure at either end as insurance.

Had I not been in a bit of a rush I would have done so with this image, but now I essentially have a photograph that is a failure. Doing HDRI correctly requires that one slow down and pay attention to business. If you're going to take the time to set up the tripod, connect the remote and meter the full dynamic range of a scene what does one save using AEB over working manually?

Yes, there are times when a three step bracket is sufficient. There are also times when a single exposure is sufficient for the dynamic range of the scene. But most often there is a greater range than most cameras can cover using AEB so manual exposure is the answer.

My cameras fastest SS is 1/8000 sec, from there the photographer had better know how many seconds is a stop increase from 30 sec when you go to bulb and you could actually need more than that. Of course that's 19 stops if you begin at 1/8000 and go to Bulb, but you could start in the middle say at 1/250 and have to work back as much as 15 stops in a very dark area.

Just food for thought.

Ziggy

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

I have seen amazing HDR images that display detail I have never seen in a normal photograph and I am no fan of 'arty' type HDR, I have NEVER personally seen any 'ordinary images' that could ever compete with these 'top end' HDR images, but please note I am saying 'images I have seen'

PLEASE feel free to post your best so that we can compare but I very respectfully ask that you tick the 'store original' box otherwise we only get a minuscule thumbprint that does no one any favours.

My own attempts with fives exposures at sunset will show the very bright sun as it is going down, the beautiful sunset, the detailed information of what is in the darkest areas of shadow along with the prismatic effects of water droplets but I am no expert and a quick Google of detailed HDR images leaves me drooling all over my monitor :)

You sound a competent photographer and I am genuinely curious to see what images you have that are comparable :thumbup:

Chinaman Loc: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

I'm not a user of histogram at all as it doesn't tell me how an image looks like apart from it being overexposed or underexposed or correctly exposed. I like to see the image itself to judge. I think my theory mentioned above is logical as it gives me the correct exposure for the darkest and lightest parts and then manually exposing them as well as the in-between parts in 1 stop increments. I can be sure than that I have captured the extreme ends of the exposure. Doing it manually seems less confusing than fiddling with bracketing and exposure compensation and not having all the exposures available. With my fading memory and the ususal stress of being in the way of people with my tripod, I'll forget what exposures I have used.
I can't quite remember the details but I have shot a dark cathedral interior using more than 5 exposures but the stain glass window remained overexposed after tonemapping and I had to burn it in (not so well done - it looked obvious). This image was what prompted me to mull about the solution to such a challenge.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Hi Chinaman,
I like you picture but...

The colours look too saturated for my personal taste and is that what you wanted?

A good HDR image comes into its own regarding the stained glass window and although I do my steps manually, I wonder how quickly cameras can do this in auto mode?

I am not religious but I love looking at the craftsmanship that goes into the older churches.

Has anyone been inside the Palace of Westminster? The craftsmen that were employed building that place were the best in the land and I could spend days at that location.

For our 'less educated' :oops: ;) ... The Palace of Westminster contains both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The history of that location is well worth researching

Chinaman Loc: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Hi glojo
Thank you for your comments. The cathedral interior image is one of my early HDR work. I do like my images sufficiently saturated but not over the top of course. This interior has lovely colour tones in both the woodwork and masonary.
For a scene that requires more than 3 shots of 2 stops difference, I find that shooting in auto mode is more fiddly than in manual mode. I will also not be certain what exposures have been shot or not shot, and I may not be able to shoot the number of images I need.
In manual mode, once I've metered(using the camera) and know the correct exposures for the darkest and the lightest parts, I would start at one end of the exposure range - say, the darkest part exposure - and then decrease the shutter speed by 1 stop(or 2 stops) each time till I reach the exposure of the lightest part. The number of shots you take will therefore be determined by the exposure range and the 'stops' you use - 1 or 2 stops. Anything less than 1 stop will probably not be useful.
Like you, I like the old architecture and is always amazed by how skillful the builders were all those centuries ago. It is even more amazing that they only had rudimentary tools. Although I have lived in the UK (and London) for 15 years, I never had the opportunity to visit the interior of Parliament House. I believe only your Member of Parliament can arrange for you to visit.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Hi Chinaman,
That question made me think as I was invited up there and had a personal tour but a quick bit of research tell me there are tours for foreigners but the only place you can take pictures is in Westminister Hall :(

http://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-and-tours/overseasvisitors/summeropening/

That is a terrible shame as the carpentry throughout the palace is nothing short of amazing..

Skilled carpenters obviously had a sense of humour as they carved amazing caricatures of their supervisors on the ornamental endings of the supports for the ceilings. It is suggested that this is where the term 'boss' derives from as the boss is indeed that ending of the supports and the carpenters had great fun taking the mickey out of their supervisors or 'bosses' when they did these carvings :)

There are lots of amazing items like this and what a shame our cameras cannot record them.

Chinaman Loc: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

That is true. A lot of cathedrals, castles and similar buildings do not allow a tripod to be used these days, not even a little one. And these places are generally poorly lit for photography. I remember seeing the 'signatures' of carpenters carved into their work - like a mouse on a bench in churches, a motif on furniture, etc. Anyway, we are getting off the topic of this thread, so we should end our conversations. Great to talk to you.

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

A very interesting discussion and I appreciate the feedback, plus having photographed several old churches when stationed in Europe I wish we'd had HDRI then.

The real point of my comments were not to recommend that we use the histogram to judge if we've cover the dynamic range. Additionally, looking at the image in the LCD isn't the answer either. I say this because both are based on a JPEG that the camera uses to give either reading.

I also don't say that Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) is the answer to the problem either. Fact is, in most situations, a single RAW exposure can manage a 6-7 stop range. By using AEB at 3 stop increments you would get a 7 stop range. Yet most scenes that I've found that require HDRI seem to run in a greater range than even AEB can fully handle.

This leaves us with the option of watching the clipping at the edges of the histogram, or using a spotmeter to find both the brightest and darkest areas of the scene, and determining how many stops variance are needed to record that full range of light values.

My image was a failure because I failed to do just that! Had I attempted to burn in the one window that was specular it would have become a muddy gray. No information was recorded, so none could be recovered.

I think using an HDRI workflow is a wonderful thing, but there really are no shortcuts. I tried one and got burned.

Ziggy

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Hopefully you will get the opportunity to have another attempt?