HDR
Jan 18, 2019 16:27:20 #
the chuckster wrote:
this is my first run at HDR. Not too sure about it? whatathink?
Hi The 2nd photo lacks detail in the blacks. when doing real estate photography I use HDR, but, I have learned through experience when shooting a room with windows that I need to set my camera not in rapid bracketing ( to automatically set the bracketing +2/-2 off normal) but to alter the shutter speeds (I shoot in aperture priority setting the aperture to F8) at normal exposure, +1stop and -5stops. Sometimes there is enough light in the room so that I don't need to set the shutter to +1, actually many times I set the exposure to -2 stops off of normal exposure. I don't preset the bracketing, but actually set + or - stops to each room differently. As to the color adjustments in HDR, I set them to what I feel is normal looking, avoiding that HDR look.
Jan 18, 2019 16:43:23 #
Jan 18, 2019 18:17:06 #
wham121736 wrote:
Can you give us a link to this documents?
The website is: https://store.stuckincustoms.com/products/top-10-hdr-mistakes-bonus
They have other photography guides available as well.
Jan 18, 2019 19:19:34 #
There seem to be two HDRs.
First is the High Dynamic Range version. A scene has to have it to be effective. The brights and the darks have to be so far apart that the camera can't record them with enough visible detail. Multiple exposures and subsequent processing can overcome the limits of the camera.
Second is artistic color and tone manipulation. The first time it "moved" me was when looking at the impressionistic painting of Monet, Renoir, Manet and others. When we see it in photography we call it "HDR". Even if the scene has a narrow range of brightness that is fully within the range of the camera, we can artistically upset the colors to please the minds eye. As art, it leaves the realm of technical review. As art, it can only be reviewed by the artist.
As the first type, I think the images seem flawed. As the second type, I like them a lot!
First is the High Dynamic Range version. A scene has to have it to be effective. The brights and the darks have to be so far apart that the camera can't record them with enough visible detail. Multiple exposures and subsequent processing can overcome the limits of the camera.
Second is artistic color and tone manipulation. The first time it "moved" me was when looking at the impressionistic painting of Monet, Renoir, Manet and others. When we see it in photography we call it "HDR". Even if the scene has a narrow range of brightness that is fully within the range of the camera, we can artistically upset the colors to please the minds eye. As art, it leaves the realm of technical review. As art, it can only be reviewed by the artist.
As the first type, I think the images seem flawed. As the second type, I like them a lot!
Jan 19, 2019 07:33:41 #
Jan 19, 2019 08:36:29 #
Jan 19, 2019 09:12:16 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
I first learned HDR by using Photomatix software and JPEGs. I still think that combination works better than raw and LightRoom for HDR. It essentially allowed me to build 12 bit (or more) images from a collection of 8 bit deep exposures. Over processing was usually not a problem, although there was sometimes a bit of sky halo around objects if I tried to go a little to far.
The Photomatix workflow also includes a second step of compressing the new image back down so that it could be viewed on a monitor or printed. The overall result was very much like "pull processing," in which chemicals and procedures were used that provided extra development for shadow detail without blocking the highlights. The final tonal range in the negative was exactly the same as with normal processing, but the tones represented a wider range of brightness in the original subject.
I'm still working to really understand how to effectively use HDR with raw images. Since I already choose to save 14 bits of depth in my original files, stacking multiple images can quickly create a new image with more bit depth than LightRoom can even handle, and which could not be saved anyway. (5 images at +/- 1 stop increments would stack to 18 bits deep.) I'm beginning to feel that for what I do, it's better to just adjust the curves instead. The effect isn't the same, but the results seem to be better.
Just my thoughts...
The Photomatix workflow also includes a second step of compressing the new image back down so that it could be viewed on a monitor or printed. The overall result was very much like "pull processing," in which chemicals and procedures were used that provided extra development for shadow detail without blocking the highlights. The final tonal range in the negative was exactly the same as with normal processing, but the tones represented a wider range of brightness in the original subject.
I'm still working to really understand how to effectively use HDR with raw images. Since I already choose to save 14 bits of depth in my original files, stacking multiple images can quickly create a new image with more bit depth than LightRoom can even handle, and which could not be saved anyway. (5 images at +/- 1 stop increments would stack to 18 bits deep.) I'm beginning to feel that for what I do, it's better to just adjust the curves instead. The effect isn't the same, but the results seem to be better.
Just my thoughts...
Jan 19, 2019 09:33:54 #
I'm not an expert by any means, just an ordinary person telling what I think I saw.
My eyes hurt from trying to focus on the first photograph. It looks somewhat blurry/blurred.
The second one was again blurred, especially in the bottom half and the yellows were too bright.
My eyes hurt from trying to focus on the first photograph. It looks somewhat blurry/blurred.
The second one was again blurred, especially in the bottom half and the yellows were too bright.
Jan 19, 2019 09:39:12 #
thanks, that will help in the application. i'll dial it back and play with some other techniques. if possible, i too would like links to that guide.
Jan 19, 2019 11:02:20 #
Photographic results are sometimes “over analyzed.” Yes, it is great to obtain opinions and learn from mistakes. However, of great importance is what is pleasing to you with what you saw or were trying to accomplish. I probably would not have settled on the pinkish cast to the tracks in #1, but the more I look at that shot the more I like it. Learn all you can but be sure to satisfy your internal creativity.
Jan 19, 2019 11:34:00 #
larryepage wrote:
I first learned HDR by using Photomatix software a... (show quote)
"The final tonal range in the negative was exactly the same as with normal processing, but the tones represented a wider range of brightness in the original subject. "
Yes, getting a wider range of brightness out is my favorite purpose of HDR. A typical use for me is a shot from a dimly lit room through a window. The room has architectural details, the window has compositional framing and something pleasing to see is outside. Even a RAW won't capture the range, but multiple exposures combined in post will. To do it right, the colors and tones can't change.
Jan 19, 2019 12:45:59 #
Jan 19, 2019 12:47:04 #
Jan 19, 2019 22:14:15 #
MrMophoto
Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"
Gene51 makes some good points, it looks like the HDR affect was too heavily applied and definitely use 16 bit raw files as a starters. If you haven't already figured this out, when shooting the multiple exposures you should be in aperture priority, this way the DOF is constant and the shutter speed is adjusted. One other thing, What program are you using to process the HDR? I've never liked the Photoshop HDR mode. I use Photomatix-Pro, it has a wide variety of filters for a wide variety of "looks" and each has sliders for all aspects of the look.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.