Tonights Sunset, 3rd try at HDR

[Doogiekr]

This is my 3rd try at an HDR picture, I am learning but still having issues with some of the settings. Looking for honest (brutal if needed) C&C. Anything anyone would have done differently?

[DwightMcCann]

HDR images are usually better of things that aren't moving. When you say HDR do you mean you are taking five or seven images of the same thing in one f/stop increments and then merging them?

[Doogiekr]

Yes, this was 3 images taken using AEB on a 40D, and then merged in Photomatix. I was trying for some smoothness in the water, so I didnt think the fact that it was moving would be a negative thing in the final image. Maybe I need to rethink the process some and do some more reading. Thank you for the input.

[khnordeen]

I did an HDR with moving water and I think it came out fine. Here it is if you want to see it. But I think HDR's work best with more than 3. I always use 5 at the minimum. I think I'd like to see a little more color saturation maybe? There is something, but I just can't put my finger on it...

Here is mine with moving water in case you wanted to see it. (I know the tone-mapping is overdone, but I like the over-processed look)

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/gimmekickz17/YosemiteWaterHDR.jpg

[gilphx]

i'm new to this . but i think its cool. both.

[dlw3]

I don't know squat about HDR but I like the result you have.
Keep up the good work.

[liquefied]

Too much processing for my tastes. It just looks fake.

[bill boehme]

Yes, this was 3 images taken using AEB on a 40D, and then merged in Photomatix. I was trying for some smoothness in the water, so I didnt think the fact that it was moving would be a negative thing in the final image. Maybe I need to rethink the process some and do some more reading. Thank you for the input.

I did an HDR with moving water and I think it came out fine. Here it is if you want to see it. But I think HDR's work best with more than 3.

The stream picture is an example of a more suitable moving water subject for HDR than a picture of the ocean. The reason is that the variation in the water pattern in the stream is very slight and any changes that are non-repetitive are at a much smaller scale. The ocean picture , on the other hand, involves very large amplitude waves that, for photography purposes, can be considered non-repetitive since you will not be able to capture waves in the same relative position from shot to the next. And in that situation, the variation in wave position between shots is significant enough that, instead of seeing the nice stream type blur, the result will look more like out-of-focus blur. If you look at the picture carefully, you will see nice sharp details on the rocks and in the clouds, but at the same time, the water just has a hazy, lack-of-definition appearance.

As for the number of images to use in creating an HDR image -- you need at least two and in many cases, three is perfectly acceptable. It would be only in cases where the dynamic range of the scene is extremely wide that more than three would be absolutely necessary -- however, as a rule of thumb, I would guess that more is generally better than fewer.

[Zumba]

What happened to those good old times when photographers took landscape pictures with some good old ND filters?

nice picture, but I find a bit disturbing the blur on the water, it takes away the peace and relaxation of the moment.

[slimninj4]

For the top pic. I do not like the sky part at all. It looks just normal. Now I do like the water and the rocks. That part looks HDR. Keep it up and experimenting.

[Glenn NK]

The stream picture is an example of a more suitable moving water subject for HDR than a picture of the ocean. The reason is that the variation in the water pattern in the stream is very slight and any changes that are non-repetitive are at a much smaller scale. The ocean picture , on the other hand, involves very large amplitude waves that, for photography purposes, can be considered non-repetitive since you will not be able to capture waves in the same relative position from shot to the next. And in that situation, the variation in wave position between shots is significant enough that, instead of seeing the nice stream type blur, the result will look more like out-of-focus blur. If you look at the picture carefully, you will see nice sharp details on the rocks and in the clouds, but at the same time, the water just has a hazy, lack-of-definition appearance.


First time I've seen this stated, but it's emminently logical to me.

[jayak]

This is just a thought...and I am pretty sure someone will bite my head off.....but have any of you tried taking a single picture of somthing moving in RAW.... then creating multiple raw images by changing the exposures on each and doing HDR that way????


Im sure people will say somthing like "thats not real HDR" or somthing....but it is just a thought for things like shooting motorsports etc.....

[DwightMcCann]

This is just a thought...and I am pretty sure someone will bite my head off.....but have any of you tried taking a single picture of somthing moving in RAW.... then creating multiple raw images by changing the exposures on each and doing HDR that way????


Im sure people will say somthing like "thats not real HDR" or somthing....but it is just a thought for things like shooting motorsports etc.....

We won't bite your head off but that's generally called "blending" and isn't really "HDR".

[bill boehme]

....... That part looks HDR. ...

I didn't know that there was an HDR "look", but if it rocks your boat, that is what counts. My personal idea for HDR images is to be able to capture detail over a broader range of lighting than a single exposure is capable of producing. A digital camera is typically good for capturing about 5 or 6 zones. If the scene contains very deep shadows and very bright lights, detail will not be captured for those areas -- they will be either black or white. Using HDR imaging can improve some scenes where it is desirable to have more detail in the dark areas and not have the bright areas blown out. Somehow, exaggerated tone mapping has become confused with HDR whereas the opposite is the more logical outcome -- the reason being is that a wide range of luminance has to be mapped to the limited luminance range of either paper or electronic display.

This is just a thought...and I am pretty sure someone will bite my head off.....but have any of you tried taking a single picture of somthing moving in RAW.... then creating multiple raw images by changing the exposures on each and doing HDR that way???? ..... Im sure people will say somthing like "thats not real HDR" ....

Chomp ... chomp ... hey, this tastes pretty good ... munch ... burp! ;-)

Well, you can do it, it won't really gain you much, if any, dynamic range over some alternate processing methods ... BUT, on the other hand, the HDR tools have some really cool and powerful features that make some of the editing easier than doing it with other tools. The downside is that these powerful tools also allow for an easy way to over exaggerate things like contrast and color saturation if not used carefully (that is just my opinion, which, the last time that I checked with Starbucks, still won't buy a cup of Java).

[jayak]

LOL funny guys.... :P

so I have a question....why would it be that much different...IE adjusting 1 to make 3 vs. shooting 3 images.... I have yet to jump into the world of Photoshop and photomatix so I must say I am in the dark on all of this.....

Thanks

[DwightMcCann]

LOL funny guys.... :P

so I have a question....why would it be that much different...IE adjusting 1 to make 3 vs. shooting 3 images.... I have yet to jump into the world of Photoshop and photomatrix so I must say I am in the dark on all of this.....

Thanks
Because a RAW image might allow you shift a slider that says 1 f/stop but it isn't really the same. But more than that, most HDR involves 5 or more f/stops of exposure to be really effective. However, there are many folks who want to call their multiple conversions of one RAW file and then blending them HDR and are offended when one suggestions otherwise ... usually they are lazy and don't want to go to all the trouble of working with multiple exposures, a tripod, etc., etc. Of course, there are some, like Rene Damkot who use the "blending" technique to great advantage to enhance his concert images, but he isn't trying to pretend it is HDR ... just superb images that take advantage of what his camera can do!

[jayak]

ok.....fair enough....

so there is no way to do HDR in motorsports...just blending of 3 or more images...

so I take it photomatix can do blending also or am I mistaken??

Thanks!

[DwightMcCann]

No, if the subject is moving it will be virtually impossible to do HDR ... although there is almost always someone who disagrees with almost any statement, so take it for what it's worth. I am not familiar with 'photomatix' ... someone else will know.

[bill boehme]

My familiarity with Photomatix is limited to reading the information and seeing the examples that are posted on their web site -- so it is not much more than a passing familiarity. One impression that I came away with was they seem to be really into heavy tone mapping and deeply saturated colors. They had some pictures on their site that compared the results of using Photoshop HDR with Photomatix. Personally, I much preferred the Photoshop results because it had the look of a real photograph -- I thought that the results of using Photomatix bore somewhat of a resemblance to a Thomas Kinkade painting (I am not a Thomas Kinkade fan). I was not able to determine whether Photomatix used 32 bpc images or if they stayed at 16 bits.

In answer to your previous question asking why would three images be better than one for HDR, the answer has to do with the increased range of light that is captured because each image is exposed at a different level, typically 2EV apart. This means that if you had three exposures at 2EV increments, the total number of discernible exposure zones in the HDR image would be approximately 10 as compared to 5 or 6 for a single exposure.

[mikeassk]

ok.....fair enough....

so there is no way to do HDR in motorsports...just blending of 3 or more images...

so I take it photomatix can do blending also or am I mistaken??

Thanks!

There are virtually no limits to digital photography. HDR is almost married to a tripod. Take a series of shots of the sky, grass, road, white Paint?, anything that is stationary. Obviously exposing everything individually. Then take a shot of whatever your motorsport subject. This is obviously easier said then done but if you get where im going... you will get a High dynamic Range in your photo. The tricky part is getting the right shot of your subject, framing wise... Anything is possible though.

[jayak]

My familiarity with Photomatix is limited to reading the information and seeing the examples that are posted on their web site -- so it is not much more than a passing familiarity. One impression that I came away with was they seem to be really into heavy tone mapping and deeply saturated colors. They had some pictures on their site that compared the results of using Photoshop HDR with Photomatix. Personally, I much preferred the Photoshop results because it had the look of a real photograph -- I thought that the results of using Photomatix bore somewhat of a resemblance to a Thomas Kinkade painting (I am not a Thomas Kinkade fan). I was not able to determine whether Photomatix used 32 bpc images or if they stayed at 16 bits.

In answer to your previous question asking why would three images be better than one for HDR, the answer has to do with the increased range of light that is captured because each image is exposed at a different level, typically 2EV apart. This means that if you had three exposures at 2EV increments, the total number of discernible exposure zones in the HDR image would be approximately 10 as compared to 5 or 6 for a single exposure.


I get the last part I was suggesting to adjust the exposure of 1 picture to create 3 or more new pictures from raw each with different exposures....


and Photomatix uses 32bpc or at least has that option....you can download a free trial...

I have been messing with it....still nothing worth writing home about :P

[bill boehme]

I get the last part I was suggesting to adjust the exposure of 1 picture to create 3 or more new pictures from raw each with different exposures....

I probably should have also stated the reason that using a single exposure normally isn't very good for adjusting the exposure by +2 and -2 EV to create two new exposures, so here it is:

When you move the exposure slider in ACR (or other program) to create overexposed and underexposed versions, you are primarily shifting the luminance levels of the mid tones. However, there are no "new" data to reveal any additional details at the bright and dark extremes ... because brightness levels that are further than three stops lighter or darker than the middle exposure level can't be captured by the sensor -- those areas will appear either completely dark or completely white. An undesirable outcome of over and underexposing a single image for the purpose of HDR is that noise and saturation at the two brightness extremes will both be amplified which will make those conditions more noticeable. At the dark end, noise will be much more evident when the images are combined into an HDR image. At the bright end, a characteristic known as "bloom" will become evident. Bloom is a bright white area (or it may have a slight color tint if all channels are not blown) that is surrounded by a halo effect. Even if bloom is not evident, there will still be loss of detail.

Having said all of that, if you are very good at carefully manipulating tones and using the various tools in Photoshop, you can obtain great results using a single image and the HDR tools.

[jayak]

Thank you for your explanation....I think I get it now.. :)

[Glenn NK]

I probably should have also stated the reason that using a single exposure normally isn't very good for adjusting the exposure by +2 and -2 EV to create two new exposures, so here it is:

When you move the exposure slider in ACR (or other program) to create overexposed and underexposed versions, you are primarily shifting the luminance levels of the mid tones. However, there are no "new" data to reveal any additional details at the bright and dark extremes ... because brightness levels that are further than three stops lighter or darker than the middle exposure level can't be captured by the sensor -- those areas will appear either completely dark or completely white. An undesirable outcome of over and underexposing a single image for the purpose of HDR is that noise and saturation at the two brightness extremes will both be amplified which will make those conditions more noticeable. At the dark end, noise will be much more evident when the images are combined into an HDR image. At the bright end, a characteristic known as "bloom" will become evident. Bloom is a bright white area (or it may have a slight color tint if all channels are not blown) that is surrounded by a halo effect. Even if bloom is not evident, there will still be loss of detail.

Having said all of that, if you are very good at carefully manipulating tones and using the various tools in Photoshop, you can obtain great results using a single image and the HDR tools.

Good post.

[DwightMcCann]

I probably should have also stated the reason that using a single exposure normally isn't very good for adjusting the exposure by +2 and -2 EV to create two new exposures, so here it is:

When you move the exposure slider in ACR (or other program) to create overexposed and underexposed versions, you are primarily shifting the luminance levels of the mid tones. However, there are no "new" data to reveal any additional details at the bright and dark extremes ... because brightness levels that are further than three stops lighter or darker than the middle exposure level can't be captured by the sensor -- those areas will appear either completely dark or completely white. An undesirable outcome of over and underexposing a single image for the purpose of HDR is that noise and saturation at the two brightness extremes will both be amplified which will make those conditions more noticeable. At the dark end, noise will be much more evident when the images are combined into an HDR image. At the bright end, a characteristic known as "bloom" will become evident. Bloom is a bright white area (or it may have a slight color tint if all channels are not blown) that is surrounded by a halo effect. Even if bloom is not evident, there will still be loss of detail.

Having said all of that, if you are very good at carefully manipulating tones and using the various tools in Photoshop, you can obtain great results using a single image and the HDR tools.

Thank you, Bill! I argue with guys all the time about this multiple conversion of one RAW image thing ... they just WANT it to be HDR and it isn't ... and even with your explanation I know they will continue to argue ... they just don't understand what RAW means and have no clue what the Digic processors do to the data from the sensor, sigh.:rolleyes:

[Doogiekr]

gone for 2 days and the post took off :) ... thanks for all the great information, I am at the new stages of the HDR process and I am just experimenting with what works and what does not. All of the posts will be very helpfull to me in my learning curve. Thanks again...

[tonydee]

This is my 3rd try at an HDR picture, I am learning but still having issues with some of the settings. Looking for honest (brutal if needed) C&C. Anything anyone would have done differently?

I think all the HDR discussion has been at the expense of basic photographic C&C... not sure if that's what you wanted or not. I'd point out that the horizon isn't a third from the top of the picture, which is the "safest" bet for placement when there's not some other dominant factor. Further, HDR techniques are all about reducing contrasts across the overall photo while often increasing localised contrast. Your HDR process has lost so much contrast isn't scary to witness:

223312

You've lost most of the contrast between the clouds and water, so the horizon isn't clearly demarkated. Given there was probably some good colour in those clouds, it's a real pity.

I think the foreground's really excellent... sharp and interesting. As others have noted, the sea does have an unfocused look to it. I'd hazard that it might have been less pronounced given a really powerful, moody sky (see next email).

I've spent 5 minutes in LightZone adjusting the picture: one is a simple histogram intensity curve (a zonemapping in LightZone parlance). Couldn't do so much because most of the ocean simply doesn't vary in its grey tone sufficiently (as per the histogram, there's a huge spike of the same intensity grey).

223313

...to be continue...

[tonydee]

...continued...

Here's a version with the sky tone mapped for more contrast both internally and with the ocean...

223314

And here's a doom-and-gloom version with the tone mapping results blended with the original using an "overlay" algorithm (whatever that is - doesn't matter really, just a mad-arsed result)...

223315

Cheers,

Tony

[bill boehme]

Tonydee, I agree with your suggestion of having good contrast at the horizon along with more internal contrast in the water and in the sky, however, it appears to me that while you have managed to significantly increase the internal contrast in the areas mentioned, your result has lowered the contrast between sky and ocean save for the narrow halo at the interface. And, I think that the overall effect has made the photo too dark, leaving the exposure of the foreground no longer in agreement with the rest of the image.

I think that my personal preference for the ocean would be to apply a gradient layer to the ocean using a soft light to blend the layers and to set the opacity to a very low value. Personally, I like the sky on the image by the OP, but I agree that it could stand to be punched up -- for me that would be just a slight amount.

[tonydee]

Tonydee, I agree with your suggestion of having good contrast at the horizon along with more internal contrast in the water and in the sky, however, it appears to me that while you have managed to significantly increase the internal contrast in the areas mentioned, your result has lowered the contrast between sky and ocean save for the narrow halo at the interface. And, I think that the overall effect has made the photo too dark, leaving the exposure of the foreground no longer in agreement with the rest of the image.

I think that my personal preference for the ocean would be to apply a gradient layer to the ocean using a soft light to blend the layers and to set the opacity to a very low value. Personally, I like the sky on the image by the OP, but I agree that it could stand to be punched up -- for me that would be just a slight amount.

Yup - I wasn't really happy with the result either for the same reasons. I think the contrast at the horizon was important, but agree the rest was out-of-proportion dark. Didn't think of using a gradient layer on the ocean - great suggestion.

Cheers, Tony