Hdr Photography

I use HDR mainly for its intended purpose, to expand dynamic range and include more of the original tonality in an image. Others, like Mike Savad, use their own 'brand' of HDR for artistic purpose. Countless others use software to obtain an "HDR Look" because, I suppose, it looks 'different.' It's this latter case that I have trouble with. It stems from 'grunge' processing and has now become a genre of its own, although it still (inaccurately) clings to the HDR moniker. HDR software and processing may have been used to create it, but it seldom invokes High Dynamic Range.

One of my own HDR examples:

90% of what i have in my folders is HDR.

http://www.suburbanscenes.com has my base tutorials, though i've changed methods quite a bit since i wrote those.

you'll need a tripod if your hands aren't steady or you don't have photoshops align tool. you'll want to shoot in raw, 3-5 frames using 2 to 2 1/3rds stops in between. real hdr is used when you have bright windows and a dark foreground.


things like this would be impossible without hdr.


typically your subject can't be moving, but i figured out ways around that.


it can be used on the outside to shoot inside as well


i've used it to enhance brick texture, and get detail in the shadows, it can also enhance a reflection.


you can also use it in a still life. the light was on, with a normal image i couldn't see the detail on the shade.

its versatile, if you do the real thing. however many use it as an effect, and usually murder their image with noise, halo's, weird contrast, etc.

---Mike Savad

I recommend doing a search on youtube and just good old google... that's what I'd be doing to find you links, so saves us from doing the work for you :)

Here are some free HDR video tutorials:

http://www.everydayhdr.com/tutorials/

Also, some videos using Topaz products.

Enjoy!

I would show my work but it's over processed and could never live up to the high standards set here on FAA.

But I like it that way.

I have no experience with HDR myself, but I think this guy's work is amazing:

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Murray: Thank you for your input. Your entry collaborates well with the discriminative research I have done so far. The in-depth study of this technique is important so as to create high quality work. Your HDR work is commendable. Thank you for the sample.

Mike: The intricate process described on your intro page is reflected in each of your noteworthy images. Your base tutorials are just the right starting point. Creating HDR images will entail quite a bit of work, as with any other photographic technique, but definitely a worthwhile endeavor. Thank you for your samples and the abundant amount of useful information.

Heather: Thank you for bringing to my attention the need to revise the discussion description. This discussion thread was not intended to lessen or eliminate any research workload required on my part; simply looking for sound advise from experienced fellow artists.

Mike, can I ask about people in HDR. Moving subjects. Is this something that is easy to work with, or do you need to work with a separate layer with your subjects

I love the look of HDR images.

all my images uses 3-5 frames. in those frames they move. i mask in each layer choosing the best parts of each layer. for the person i go with the least movement but still tells a story. so the body might be on layer 2, the arm might be layer 3, the leg might be layer 1. it all varies depending on movement. if possible its best not to have moving people or to get away with the raw.


this one is an hdr, i had countless layers. it's a balance of people's faces over the faces in the window, while keeping the person whole and keeping the shadows and such. next time, i do it as a single, its not worth the trouble. too many elements.


if your lucky, they don't move. you want to keep it stable (i shoot only free hand for these), shoot as fast as you can.


this guy wasn't moving much so the potential ghosting was easy to deal with.


shooting with people is actually very advanced, it often takes many hours to get it all smooth looking. the angle of a persons face may look different from frame to frame. in the case of this one the one on the table this was the only good expression she had. but it was in the shadows and at the time this was the best i could do to smooth it out

if at all possible, avoid doing it when things move - boats bobbing, trees and flowers blowing, etc.

---Mike Savad

That's what I thought, layer masks, and tweaking each part. That's what I love. I do love intricate layer masks and am going to start playing with some HDR and people later this year.

alignment becomes tricky. some of these chains moved. 5 layers to start with, that broke down to around 40 layers to correct each tool and chain to give it a clean look. you could go crazy like that. i try to control the noise, but there is still some here and there. the highest iso is 25,000 or so, hard to mange it all.

---Mike Savad

Like they say, there's no learning like doing. I'd recommend starting out just trying a few using the basic method of 3 shots. (normal, +2 stops, -2 stops). Of the HDR softwares that I have used, I'd say photomatix is best all round and easy to use. If you want to save some money until you know you like it, there are a number of free offerings. I like luminance HDR and sometimes use it even though I have photomatix.

A fair amount of work that I've sold over the last 3-4 years has been hdr.

However, having said that. I shoot less HDR than I used to. It's great for the right lighting conditions (isn't everything?) and if not too much is moving. After that it doesn't get you much or it doesn't look better then what I can get with a few adjustments in lightroom or GIMP.

I do a lot of shooting where there's movement. HDR can be problematic for that. I found that in some situations I liked what I could get on film better than a multishot HDR. So, ironically, using a very new digital technique convinced me to try more film, where I could potentially get what I wanted with 1 shutter click. Now, that's me, and has to do with how I want things to look. Not necessarily the right choice for everyone.

Oh yes I see some of the noise in the chain. the nice thing about the layer mask is you can take it out if its to difficult to work with

Chuck Staley: lol Thank you for your input. Your work is brilliant and the link is outstanding!

April: Thank you for your input and the link is excellent. You're right, his work is amazing!

Kevin: Great question, I was wondering the same thing.

one of the downsides is the space you need. my camera shoots at 25-40megs a file. 3-5 files adds up fast. its worth it and space is cheap these days, but you'll need a bigger card. but be sure its raw your using. you can use jpg, but there isn't enough information in it. though it depends on the level of detail you need. a stable lens is a must if you do it by hand. a tripod is better because you can keep your iso low. but if the floor vibrates, it won't be sharp anyway. if you over expose the last frame and make it darker, you can control the noise very well. but this only works if it's WAY brighter than everything else.

it takes a while to recognize when you really need it. the basic rules

inside:
if it has windows, and you want to see the room hdr
a still life that has a lot of light or detail in the shadow, hdr - but i prefer flash if i can
if the range of exposure is tricky - light walls, dark machines

outside:
any time you want the inside stuff in a room to appear when your outside.
any shadows under things (like a pier or a bridge)
sunsets
reflections
night shots


try to avoid it for trees, flowers, windy days, i don't often need it for overcast because there are few shadows and its well lit. don't set the camera to multi, instead shoot them yourself. this way you can time it if someone walks into your shot, and you can help steady yourself. always focus on the same spot and keep noted of it.

its not good for getting the details out of a dark bottle. i use other tricks for that, and it involves painting the bottle.


---Mike Savad

HW: I completely agree regarding hands on learning. Photomatix was noted as a good HDR software in an article I found; good to have confirmation. GIMP is a great little program. Good old film; I was in high school the first time I stepped into a dark room, it was love at no sight. :) Thank you for your input, informative share.

Thank each and everyone of you for a great discussion filled with great shares! Cannot wait to start shooting HDR. Determined to produce some good solid images. Will probably have a follow-up thread requesting critiques.

Regards,

I like them a lot, I have made a few ones. I still try to keep slight natural feeling in it, not to be too surrealistic
.

The technique I use for my night photography: I merge 3-5 shots into 1 32-bit TIFF file. Now I have 1 file with all the information from the original files. The TIFF can be edited edited in Lightroom like a normal file. For me, this technique gives me the result I need. I can selectively open the shadows and keep the highlights.

Nice thread, I really do like HDR if done in a subtle way like yours Mike. I always cringe when I see HDR images that are just ran through a program, supersaturated, and oversharpened. I also think that for this type of image to be the best, you need a very good camera, lens, and a high ISO setting with less noise.

my first ones were crunchy, noisy, halos, sprites, ghosts. after a while i said, i don't like how it turns my blue skies gray. or how my whites become grungy, or how a thin black line has shoots of white coming out of it, and i had to fix what photomatix did. also every time they released their program, their algorithm would change, so the settings would never be the same. my style came out, trying to repair the damage it did to it.

i still use a contrast enhancer, though mostly for sharpening, topaz adjust, it's a pain to use, memory hungry (mine won't run at all actually if i use photoshop too much), but its how i locally enhance the subject.

---Mike Savad

The first HDR I did is my best seller; I didn't know what I was really doing so I took 7 photos 1 stop apart, merged them all in photo matrix, then merged the panorama, and added the fireworks (it's New Year's Eve). I also converted it to B&W.

Like Murray, I use this technique to expand dynamic range while still looking for realistic results. Even if technology improved a lot. There are still some cases where HDR is mandatory like in this example
And I'm also combining the technique with stitching one... 18 stitched pictures multiply by 5 (bracketing) so 90 shots for this view...



... and also combining with long exposure technique to add more fun !

I bracket everything I shoot now, just so I know the blacks and whites are taken care of.

Blown out skies and dark shadows are no problem.

But, then, photographers have been doing this for years. Now the cameras do it for you.

Love your image "Under the bridge" Patrick. I have used Photomatix in some of my pictures but like Mike says, I don't like the grey skies, the halos etc so I think I will have to try doing them by hand.

I just began trying some hdr with photomatix. I try and keep it subdued because I also don't like it if it's overdone. Depending on the scene of course the processing requires different settings with the software. Sometimes it doesn't improve the image, but most times it will.

Thanks Gill. For my bridge view, HDR treatment was done under photomatix that I've been using for several years now.
HDR tool is only one part of the development workflow... and definitely not the final one !

Beautiful work everyone! Thank you kindly for participating in this discussion.

Here's a new video that came out today from Everyday HDR.

http://bit.ly/1oH7ceu

I've read that some types of photography do not look right using the HDR method. Like wedding photography, portraits, candid street images. Generally speaking, I like HDR images, very artsy.

HDR covers a wide spectrum of usages. When you say "I like HDR" its kind of like saying I like color photos.

One thing to understand is not every scene has a high dynamic range. You need very bright to very dark. An overcast day won't have a high dynamic range. What HDR is trying to do is extend the range beyond what the camera sensor can capture.

Your eye changes as it scans a scene, but the camera can not. HDR can be subtle or it can be off the charts. Just be aware of the trap it can create. People have been lost in HDR for years and lose the ability to do anything else.

Ansel Adams did a lot of HDR monochromatic work although he used things like dodging and burning, paper choice, exposure etc to extend the tonal range.

many mistake HDR as a filter and then murder their images badly. scenes that didn't need the tone mapping. its pointless to do it at a wedding because it takes time to do it right and you don't want to spend any more time than you have to with those.

---Mike Savad

Chuck: Great video share! Thank you.

Robert: Good question.

Edward: Appreciate the insightful information. Thank you.

I began using HDR on my church images..still having trouble getting them super-sharp but I am getting better.

One of the most important things for HDR is a tripod.

Unless it is moving I usually bracket everything and then create an HDR image if necessary.

I use the HDR module of Paint Shop Pro.

i always shoot free hand.


---Mike Savad