Using RAW to create HDRs

[Geostant]

It works fantastic and really worth the hasle involves in
photographying 3 different exposures with a minimal framing mistakes

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/1999/img40673bw.gif

[jbkalla]

I'm going to try that on my next landscapes. How's the performance of 32-bit compared to 16-bit processing?

[Geostant]

I'm going to try that on my next landscapes. How's the performance of 32-bit compared to 16-bit processing?

Huge tonal rate

[Duder]

good example, and a nice way to demonstrate the difference HDR can make to an image. bright sunny days tend to look crap with single exposures, but HDR allows for a more realisitic rendering of the scene.

are you using Photomatix?

[Geostant]

Photomatix indeed
just imagine that these results are after a one day use

I just have to figure about the contrast
as in most cases I find the contrast to be not satifying enough

[Scottes]

I just have to figure about the contrast
as in most cases I find the contrast to be not satifying enough
I agree. The HDR process does have to "flatten" the image a bit - I figure since it has to squish a huge range into a smaller one. Some artful use of Curves can do wonders.

Another "problem" I find is that the resulting image can kinda look less than totally believable. While it certainly helps to not look at the originals, there are times when a simple conversion doesn't look right to me. (Maybe because I experienced the scene and know what it really looked like??)

With your image I think the sky is a little too dark and the ground a little too bright. But I have to wonder if I'd feel that way if you hadn't put the single exposure frame in there....

[UncleDoug]

Another "problem" I find is that the resulting image can kinda look less than totally believable. While it certainly helps to not look at the originals, there are times when a simple conversion doesn't look right to me. (Maybe because I experienced the scene and know what it really looked like??)

I atribute this to a form of prejudice. Don't get me wrong, hear me out.

Example. Galen Rowels work where he employed the ND grad. Some of those images looked unreal, and still do. Because I was used to seeing only single exposure images with no ND grad. Now that I have been playing with HDR images taken using a ND grad do not look all that "bizzare" to me now. Even HDr images are beginning to look "normal", within context.

To me this "prejudice" is normal and expected. Since for the most part we have been looking at images with 4-6 stops of dynamic range for over a century. But are just now beginning to get to the realm of the human eye, 18-20 stops, with HDR. This will take time for HDR images to be accepted into the mainstream and the image type to appear "normal".

Am I wacked?:D

[Scottes]

Nope, I don't think you're whacked. (Well, not about this...) As I said, I think my thoughts of unbelievability are due to the fact that I saw the original 5-stop image, thus the HDR image looked unreal. Obviously I'm used to 5-stop images. Eventually I'm sure that I'll get used to HDR images covering 10+ stops, and I'll treat them as looking normal/acceptable. Though I still think that I'll take pains to keep my HDR images believable, I'm sure the range of my believability will increase over time.

Good point on the ND Grad Filter - there have been times when I could "see" that a grad filter was used, other times I've been surprised.

[Duder]

the response I've had to some of my HDR's is that they look like paintings, because obviously painters are able to cover the entire light range of the scene in front of them, that until now has been, and still is, impossible for a single camera shot to record.

I've only been seriously into photography for about a year now, and when I first started, before I knew anything about dynamic range, I couldn't understand why a lot of my photos looked nothing like they looked through the viewfinder. This was especially true of bright sunny days, which in some cases I wanted to record as realistically as I could covering a greater dynamic range. HDR seems to be the best way of getting closer to the results I'm after, although I think the HDR merge and tone mapping are only part of the process to produce the final image.

the above HDR looks much more realistic to me than the single shot, although I think the clouds look a little too blue and unnatural.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Weird...
I was just showing some images I took of my theatres interior to my sister earlier this evening...

(now I don't even know what HDR menas but) I assume were talking about multiple exposures in layers to get the best of all layers.

I did exactly this with between three and five exposures in PSCS and then simply erase through the blow outs and massage it untill all looks good.

My sister said,. "They look better then real,. they look like paintings"

So .. anyone going to explain "HDR"? ;)

[Geostant]

The reason that people get "offended" by HDR is the way of thinking about traditional photographing without all these "tricks".

using ND grad will give some HDR, but not as much as using multiply exposure
since grad will give us less exposure only in the sky...
and what if we got a shadow under the tree ?

using HDR is just like using a flash
I'm sure that everybody will agree that flash is a natural thing to use in both digital and traditional photography... but... does flash occur in nature ?
the answer is no, using flash is as much as non-natural action as using HDR or any other manipulation in photoshop

[Samiad]

Great work at stopping the clouds moving :)

[Scottes]

So .. anyone going to explain "HDR"? ;)
HDR = High Dynamic Range. As we're talking about it we are using multiple exposures - UncleDoug once used 20 I think - with the exposures spaced apart (like 2/3-stop between each). You can then use programs like CS2's Merge to HDR or HDRSoft's Photomatix to blend these in a semi-automagic way. The end result is an image covering more - sometimes far more - than the camera's normal 5-6 stop range.

Here's a thread from jfrancho illustrating it very well: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=111749
Here's a thread discussing HDR and a shot I did: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=112872
Duder has a great shot here, which shows the potential: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=130527

[Poe]

I was looking at some of the sample before and after shots as well as the comparison between "Merge to HDR" in PS and Photomatix's own software. I too made the same response "they look like paintings." However, it seems to me from looking at the sample pictures that the standard settings in the Photomatix software increases saturation and contrast, while photoshop doesn't add enough contrast or saturation. It may be this oversaturation that gives the photographs a more painting-like feeling.

I disagree with making the photographs true to the camera's dynamic range all the time. I think the photographer should have their own dynamic range in mind for their finished product, whether it may be greater or lesser than that of the camera's abilities. Perhaps your artistic/technical intent is to have a large dynamic range; for others a small one. HDR makes your photographic tool box that much more versatile. As Mr. Adams said,"a photograph is made."

[mbze430]

HDR is great when shooting landscape forgetting your ND and Grad ND. I havfen't been able to successfully using it for anything else because there are so much changes/movements. Unless the subject is still life.

[jbkalla]

So how do you get Photomatix to read your CR2 files? Do they have to be converted to something else first?

[Poe]

I think you need to convert your RAW files to 16 bit .tiff files first

[jbkalla]

I think you need to convert your RAW files to 16 bit .tiff files first

Ahhh... Thanks! I just looked at the Photomatix website and it looks like version 2.2 will open some RAW files. Unfortunately, v.2.1 is the current Mac version. Sigh... :-)

[Duder]

you can open the RAW files using the batch mode only. you have to be careful to set the white balance though.

It may be this oversaturation that gives the photographs a more painting-like feeling.


I think it's more down to the fact that painters can represent the entire dynaimc range of the scene in front of them in the way that a single camera shot cannot. HDR images, with their increased dynamic range, look closer to paintings than single shot photos because they more accurately represent the range and distribution of light being recorded.

Also, it should be remembered that not every photo you take exceeds the cameras capabilities (between 6-9 stops of light) and HDR really isn't necessary unless the scene you're photographing is beyond that.

[Battery]

Are you using the freeware version or pro?

Thanks

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

I'm really beginning to like HDR images. Here's one I took a little while ago of my new car :)

8 images, each 1 stop apart. Taken in RAW, then converted and merged to HDR using Photoshop CS2. It was a dark carpark with very concentrated lighting - a great candidate for HDR.

http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/RX8_hdr_1.jpg

[Scottes]

Mat, this is a great example of keeping "believability." I'd never have known this was HDR if you hadn't said it was. Great job.

[Longwatcher]

I like HDR because it basically overcomes the one limitation remaining between film and digital which was dynamic range. The best B+W film has about a 10-12 stop range if I remember correctly, while the best DSLR (1DsMkII) has a reported 9-10 stop range. For color film the range is much lower. While you can't use HDR for every situation, it sure makes a huge difference when you can use it and can get higher DR then even the best film can do.

I personally tend to like 7-exposure HDR shots (1 on the center, 3 either side, 1 stop apart). This gives me a 15-stop DR (if my camera really does do 9-stop range). More then enough to satisfy me as far as quality is concerned.