Models in HDR

[Beau Hudspeth]

Here is one month of a full year calendar that I am doing for a client. The final, main shot, is an HDR.

Being shot in my garage while it is 40° outside (52° in the garage) I had very limited space as well as lights - and this shoot took all that I have.

The sand in front and behind the blanket was added in post.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb213/ViciousVP/Photos/August2009-1000.jpg

[AlphaChicken]

The whole point of HDR is to capture a larger than normal, rather the WHOLE, dynamic range in a shot. If you were shooting in your garage then why would you need HDR? Unless you were going a for tone-mapping look...which obviously is not the case.

It is a very very nice shot though...I just dont understand the use of HDR?

[Toeslider]

I think it looks good in HDR, it brings out detail in the umbrella without becoming distracting. Seems like a good use of HDR for what it is intended to do, create a picture with a high dynamic range. If you do HDR right, you shouldn't be able to look at the picture and say "that's an HDR processed image". The over the top HDR images are fun to look at sometimes, but I wonder if it's just in a "how did they do that" type of way.

My only suggestion would be to change the calendar text to something with a slight black drop-shadow so you can read it on both dark and light backgrounds. It doesn't have to be much, just a hint of black so the white doesn't get lost in the light backgrounds. I see a lot of people either forget to do this or just not think of it in the first place, and it becomes annoying to try and read the text.

[Beau Hudspeth]

I think it looks good in HDR, it brings out detail in the umbrella without becoming distracting. Seems like a good use of HDR for what it is intended to do, create a picture with a high dynamic range. If you do HDR right, you shouldn't be able to look at the picture and say "that's an HDR processed image". The over the top HDR images are fun to look at sometimes, but I wonder if it's just in a "how did they do that" type of way.

My only suggestion would be to change the calendar text to something with a slight black drop-shadow so you can read it on both dark and light backgrounds. It doesn't have to be much, just a hint of black so the white doesn't get lost in the light backgrounds. I see a lot of people either forget to do this or just not think of it in the first place, and it becomes annoying to try and read the text.Correct. It is not supposed to like like an obvious HDR. Look at how dark the umbrella is in the other shot - that is why I had to go HDR - to get enough light everywhere.

As for the text: it is OK in the native 12x18 print - it just looks odd this small :)

[anvilimage]

I think the size of the text is fine, but have you though about maybe adding a translucent colored bar across the bottom of the pic as a container for the text?

-joe

[Beau Hudspeth]

I tried a few options, and at full size, what I have really is the best. ;)

[AlphaChicken]

You obviously did not at ALL read what I said...it captures the whole dynamic range...this has absolutely nothing to do with detail in the umbrella as it is a midtone...HDR allows the camera to capture the extra few stops of shadows and highlights in an image that would usually be clipped off on the histogram.

in a controlled lighting situation, the camera should be able to capture the whole dynamic range on its own without HDR as you can control the extreme ends of the lighting.

If you read what I said, it is obvious that you were not going for the tonemapped tradit. HDR look. Last line of what I wrote.

[Beau Hudspeth]

You obviously did not at ALL read what I said...it captures the whole dynamic range...this has absolutely nothing to do with detail in the umbrella as it is a midtone...

in a controlled lighting situation, the camera should be able to capture the whole dynamic range on its own without HDR.I did read all of what you said and the fact still remains: the camera can ONLY pick up the full range IF that range is illuminated and, as I said, I had not more light to use. HDR can be used as an alternative to increasing the exposure in a shot to bring out brightness of a specific area - which, invariably increases the noise ratio in that area.

If I wanted to pick up the DETAIL in the umbrella I would have a smaller f-stop - I wanted the umbrella in the shadows BRIGHTER and hence, the HDR. It is really straight forward. To further illustrate my point, here is a before and after. The standard shot (the center of this bracketed set) was lit for the model BUT far and away too dark for the rest of the scene behind her. Creating a 3-step HDR that has not been OVER COOKED achieves this beautifully.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb213/ViciousVP/Photos/August-800BA.jpg

I am pleased that you like the shot but brow beating me about my (perfectly usable and appropriate) use of HDR serves no purpose. ;)

[Toeslider]

The HDR REALLY brings out the drink on the left...

:)

[Beau Hudspeth]

The HDR REALLY brings out the drink on the left...

:)Hahahaha! That is amazing, is it not!? Great catch ....

[AlphaChicken]

I was not browbeating you...and you are correct it did work quite well...If you actually did read my first i was rather curious as to why you decided to use HDR hence the question.

[zacker]

would it be safe to assume then that the OP used HDR to sort of clean up the shot and even out all the tones?? i understand why he used it for the shot, look at the original and the then the final output.. there is a huge difference... maybe we just found another great use for HDR?

[S.E.V.]

Now did you actually bracket the shots through the camera or do a single exposure and create the -+ from the single image? This shot could of be achieved with the proper lighting. If this was created from a single image then it is a pseudo HDR. Which is nothing other then a tone mapped image. Don't get me wrong the image is stunningly detailed great job, I just hate when people think that merging 3 bracketed shot of any scene will automatically make it an HDR image, or HDR from a single image is still not HDR. Seeing that it is movable object you created it from a single shot to have it look so sharp.

[Toeslider]

This shot could of be achieved with the proper lighting.


Being shot in my garage while it is 40° outside (52° in the garage) I had very limited space as well as lights - and this shoot took all that I have.


Come on man, it's a thread with 13 posts. Is it too much to ask to actually read the thread before responding?

[AlphaChicken]

Come on man, it's a thread with 13 posts. Is it too much to ask to actually read the thread before responding?

meaning? I think S.E.V. is right...HDR is for capturing scenes with a HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE...a controlled indoor shot with the proper lighting should not need HDR to bring out all the details...

[S.E.V.]

Come on man, it's a thread with 13 posts. Is it too much to ask to actually read the thread before responding?

O I read it alright. I'm stating the truth here pal. Is it too much to ask that people also get the correct understanding of when and when NOT to use HDR??????? Tell me that this shot could not of been achieved with the proper lighting? I understand that he had limited space and he used a technique to make the shot look much better. But it is not HDR!

[Toeslider]

Did either of you read anything in this thread? He says right in the first post that he had limited space and lights! Of course you could make the same shot without any post production IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT GEAR, which he stated he did NOT, so he chose this as an alternative to achieve the same results.

[S.E.V.]

Yes we did READ THE TREAD! Obviously I was stating something and making it clear that the image was not truly an High Dynamic Range Image. Just cause you take three images and merge them together you can automatically call it HDR. It is a tone mapped image. There are also is alternative options for lighting it tight place over the big bulky umbrellas and lights.

[Toeslider]

Yes we did READ THE TREAD! Obviously I was stating something and making it clear that the image was not truly an High Dynamic Range Image. Just cause you take three images and merge them together you can automatically call it HDR. It is a tone mapped image. There are also is alternative options for lighting it tight place over the big bulky umbrellas and lights.

Ok.

I'll say it again for you, real slow, so you can understand it.

You said: "This shot could of be achieved with the proper lighting." (its right there in post number 12).

In the next post, mine, I pointed out to you through the use of quotes that the original poster stated he did not have the correct lighting to accomplish what he wanted to do, (He stated this in the first post of the thread, when he said "I had very limited space as well as lights - and this shoot took all that I have.") and that you would have known this had you carefully read the whole thread.

I never questioned whether it's technically HDR or not, all I said is that you are responding to a thread without reading the information that is obviously there.

The original poster has stated that they could not get the results they wanted with the lights they had available to them. You responded that this image could be exposed the way he wanted with the correct lights. Can you explain to me how that is a viable solution to the original posters problem? He has stated that he doesn't have enough lights available to him, yet you suggest he use more lights. How does that help?

[AlphaChicken]

We never said that his solution was not viable....

We said that the image does not have a high dynamic range...there is a huge difference. Maybe you should learn what a high dynamic range is before you tell people that they are wrng.

I am leaving this thread now. I hate that it turned so negative. It all started with me just asking a simple question about why HDR was used... w/e. You may have read but as far as comprehension you are dead in the water...

[S.E.V.]

We never said that his solution was not viable....

We said that the image does not have a high dynamic range...there is a huge difference. Maybe you should learn what a high dynamic range is before you tell people that they are wrong.

I am leaving this thread now. I hate that it turned so negative. It all started with me just asking a simple question about why HDR was used... w/e. You may have read but as far as comprehension you are dead in the water...

I second that, I'm unsubscribing from this post. Learn then post.

[Toeslider]

I don't know how to make it any clearer. I'm not arguing about the definition of HDR. I'm arguing the point that both you guys suggested that this image could be made without post-processing with better lighting or use of more lights, and that the original poster stated in his first post that he did not have the required lights to make that happen. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

[Lizard Frenzy]

meaning? I think S.E.V. is right...HDR is for capturing scenes with a HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE...a controlled indoor shot with the proper lighting should not need HDR to bring out all the details...


So? It looks good, he didn't have the necesary lights, and this is supposedly the best that he was going to get?


It looks good! So WHAT is the problem? Does it matter HOW he got there, as long as he got there?

[zacker]

really... who the heck cares how/what/why? the point is that the final image is pleasing to look at.. all those who think they are right all the time and so all knowing should be out making $$$ with all that knowlege instead of looging onto the internet and arguing over stupid things like thhis.. c'mon!!

[AlphaChicken]

I never insisted I was right, never said his images was bad, rather if you check, it started with a question. Since the image WAS so good, I had no real critique to give it, so I asked what his purpose in using HDR was.

Please just use some simple logic and let this argument die. And who the heck gives a flying crap in hell about the comment you posted? It wasnt helpful in the least to this topic. Use some logic...its a really nice thing.

[zacker]

And who the heck gives a flying crap in hell


lol,lol,lol,lol... gotcha! ;)

[joruiz]

I haven't seen a helpful comment from you zacker.

I have to agree with the other two guys. This is not HDR, he used tonemapping for a somewhat good result. I'm not even sure that it looks "so good" as others say.. in my humble opinion.

I think the original photo looks better, but it's underexposed. If he exposed correctly for the light he had available, The picture would have been much better, no need at all for tonemapping, he would have more contrast (less of a flat image).

But it's a good experiment I guess.

[Beau Hudspeth]

I think the original photo looks better, but it's underexposed. If he exposed correctly for the light he had available ...Ok. I'm going to reply to this and then un-subscribe from MY OWN THREAD because some can not wrap their heads around the use of HDR that does not fit the basic look that people expect to see in an HDR image.

I will lay this out REALLY simply so all can see the reasoning for shooting this the way it was.

The Problem: I need to reproduce summertime, low-horizon light conditions with limited space and lighting.

The camera is mounted on a weighted tripod 8' off of the ground with shutter release attached.
This is to provide as much of the models figure in the frame and not just have her taking up the center 1/3 as it would have been if shot from ground level.

A ladder was used to reach the camera at that height.
The ladders feet are at the max distance from the model and against an immovable object.
I have my Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro AT-X PRO D (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-m100-a.html) attached to my 5D
This is my best lens and the only one that has a max aperture of 2.8.
I need all the light I can bring in to keep shutter speeds up.
This lens costs $300.00 and is NOT 'L' quality glass.

The image is supposed to look like summer morning/evening at the beach - not mid-day.
That means that the sun in lower on the horizon casting light onto the underside of the umbrella.
The sun is very bright.
The brighter and larger the light source is, the less harsh shadow it casts.

This is shot in my garage/studio.
The outside temperature was 42° +/- 2°
The temp in the garage was just under 54° - the model/client was cold and shivering some.
The final print will be 12'x18' so the image HAD to be sharp.
A higher shutter speed had to be used to reduce the possibility for blur.
This was shot at 100mm, meaning I had to be 12'-15' from the scene to get it all in frame.
The greater the distance from the focal point of the scene the more likely motion can be an issue in sharpness.

I have a total of 2000 hot-light watts that I can 'throw' at the scene.
1000 watts of that light are affixed to the ceiling and can not be lowered - only directed.
Those lights are 3 feet in front of the models feet and 9' feet up.

The umbrella in the BG is 8' wide.
The garage it 9' wide.
The light from the upper lights do not shine under the umbrella and only on the model.
The second light is a 1000 watt medium photoflex starlight softbox set an floor level and shooting directly at the scene from center.
This light is 5' from the models feet to keep it out of frame.Test shots concluded that: for the shot to be illuminated correctly with the above setup, without the creation of dark areas and unacceptable shadows, no combination of shutter and aperture was feasible.

The Solution: Shoot the image as a three image -2,0,+2 HDR, thus reducing the amount of light required to illuminate the underside of the umbrella, reducing shadows and increasing the available shutter speed to a high enough point as to remove blur.

The Result: The highest dynamic range of the scene, as provided by the illumination from the above lighting setup, and as captured by all three images, provides enough mid-level lighting as to defeat the shadow issue while providing proper brightness to the hat and also allowing for the darker sections to remain that - dark.


... Continuation to follow ...

[Beau Hudspeth]

... Continuation ...

The results fall completely into the definition of HDR as provided by Wikipedia, English:

In image processing, computer graphics, and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range of luminances between light and dark areas of a scene than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows.


This ends the laborious and needlessly long explanation of the process, reasoning, and setup for this shot; in which the end results were both appealing as well as firmly within the range and designated intended use of HDR in digital photography.

[zacker]

... Continuation ...

The results fall completely into the definition of HDR as provided by Wikipedia, English:



This ends the laborious and needlessly long explanation of the process, reasoning, and setup for this shot; in which the end results were both appealing as well as firmly withing the range and designated intended use of HDR in digital photography.


Ha ha ha..Awesome for you... I agree with everything you said and did.. screw em all if they dont understand... everyone is so quick to jump on the band wagon of "Photographic know-it-allity" that they cant even just look at a good photo anymore without trying to rip it apart for the smallest thing..and "whoa, did he say he used HDR? Why the nerve of this guy... using a perfectly acceptable style of Photography to achieve the end result he was going for"... "I know he said he didnt have any good or enough lighting to make this shot in the area he was in with the conditions he had to work with but I dont see why he didnt just use more lighting and expose it properly" seriously... why are SOOOOO many members here such know it all when it comes to Photography? I mean... a great photo is a great photo, wether its done in the camera, dark room or PC... if its a great shot, its a great shot... get over yourselves already, Please.. or go log onto Photo.net with the other photograpy gods!!

"UNSUBSCRIBED" :p

[ducatiwv]

Ha ha ha..Awesome for you... I agree with everything you said and did.. screw em all if they dont understand... everyone is so quick to jump on the band wagon of "Photographic know-it-allity" that they cant even just look at a good photo anymore without trying to rip it apart for the smallest thing..and "whoa, did he say he used HDR? Why the nerve of this guy... using a perfectly acceptable style of Photography to achieve the end result he was going for"... "I know he said he didnt have any good or enough lighting to make this shot in the area he was in with the conditions he had to work with but I dont see why he didnt just use more lighting and expose it properly" seriously... why are SOOOOO many members here such know it all when it comes to Photography? I mean... a great photo is a great photo, wether its done in the camera, dark room or PC... if its a great shot, its a great shot... get over yourselves already, Please.. or go log onto Photo.net with the other photograpy gods!!

"UNSUBSCRIBED" :p
LOL...I think that pretty much tells it like it is .....:D

[AlphaChicken]

LOL...I think that pretty much tells it like it is .....:D

Pretty much sounds like a load of useless, jumbled rambling to me...

~peace

[joruiz]

Pretty much sounds like a load of useless, jumbled rambling to me...

~peace

I have to agree with that.

shouldn't bother to answer since the author was nice enough to "unsuscribe" from his thread to try an ignore us, but anyways..

I read the whole explanation, and I still think the original looks better, only that it is under exposed and COULD be exposed properly without the issues mentioned. But hey, if the author want to believe in his excuses to not take the photo properly without the HDRI gimmick (in this case), and he likes the result, good for him.

[tmcman]

Isn't POTN supposed to be about the love? ;)