HDR and tone mapping

[aladyforty]

I have never been much of a landscape photographer but recently tried out HDR and tone mapping. The results were so good Ive kind of become addicted, mainly to very subtle changes in the images and I'm kind of now taking three bracketed shots for every landscape. I am going to Queensland in September and I now realize that I will need a lot of card space If I do this all the time. Most times if the image does not suit these methods I just keep the properly exposed image and then edit it as usual but in comparison to the others it does not pop.. Does anyone in here use the HDR or tone mapping method a lot and I would also like opinions on what you guys think of HDR landscapes. You only have to look on flicker to see that the most popular landscapes are HDRs. I'm not into the way out look but the more realistic HDRs any thoughts?

[jrader]

Well, I don't personally care for the over-the-top HDR look like most people employ. Every once in awhile, you'll see a shot on here that is a subtle HDR that is appealing, but it's rare. I feel it's a technique that people use because it's "easy". Granted there are times when it can be valuable, like when the dynamic range of a scene is beyond the sensor's capabilities. However, instead of doing HDR, you can expose for the highlights and the shadows and just take two pictures instead of 3 (or more) and combine in PS for a more "realistic" shot. It really depends on the scene. If the shot is not too complicated, I would just slap a GND on the camera.

I carry around a portable hard drive that I can download images onto whenever I want, so I don't worry too much about the number of shots that I take. I almost always use bracketing when I shoot, and also my GND filters. That way, I'm almost always guaranteed to get a winner.

My 2 cents...

John

[argyle]

Exactly that John has posted...he just beat me to it. :D

[jrader]

Exactly that John has posted...he just beat me to it. :D
After a long night of drinking, my brain and bladder wake me up at 6am. What else is there to do but post on POTN? :P

John

[Hikin Mike]

Exactly that John has posted...he just beat me to it. :D

+1.

Can't stand most of the HDR treatments that I see. I don't own a GND, so I hand-blend my shots.

"Mount Watkins" 3 exposures, blended in CS2.
http://www.thebackcountry.org/images/web_temp/CRW_3891.jpg

[aladyforty]

some of my HDRs, any thoughts, too overdone ?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3504444512_1804546110_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3472905663_92f5eaa34b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3471057786_86d5942d73_o.jpg

[blackcap]

some of my HDRs, any thoughts, too overdone ?


The first and second ones look unnatural to me. The foreground in the first one looks blurry too - not sure whether the DOF is too narrow or what. The third one isn't too bad in terms of the HDR treatment, although the photo itself is pretty unremarkable.

I'm not a big fan of HDR. I've used it occasionally but usually only as a last resort. Usually the only HDR shots I like are the ones where I couldn't tell they were HDR.

[LarryD]

I suppose that HDR has it's place in the latest technoworld that we live in..

But HDR is processing, not photography; so it's use should be to enhance good photography, not to try to save bad photography..

I like your attempts, ant the photography base is sound.............but it is clear that they are processed images and not "photographs" in it's purest sense.........

[aladyforty]

Thanks for the input, I think I will leave HDR for certain occasions only and rely on getting the shots right. I think it seem to work best on shots taken at sunset

[gcflora]

+1.

Can't stand most of the HDR treatments that I see. I don't own a GND, so I hand-blend my shots.


I agree. And I also hand-blend bracketed shots when the need arises--I find the result much more realistic.

[qveda]

I suppose that HDR has it's place in the latest technoworld that we live in..

But HDR is processing, not photography; so it's use should be to enhance good photography, not to try to save bad photography..

I like your attempts, ant the photography base is sound.............but it is clear that they are processed images and not "photographs" in it's purest sense.........

IMO, Nothing wrong with pushing an image in HDR - if that's the look you are going for - why not? What is so sacred about a photograph vs a painting or graphic design? Even Ansel Adams spent vast amounts of time post-processing. I haven't been that successful with HDR yet, but sometimes I really like images like your first one. I also really appreciate subtle use of a technique.

[bzollinger]

I agree that if you like HDR then shoot it. I personally need to spend some serious time with photoshop before I have the skill to hand blend several exposures.

HDR is fun for me and works sometimes when nothing else seems to. IMO photography is being accepted more and more as an expression rather than a pure representation of the world. So go for it!

But I also agree there's something to be said for excellent technique and skill that shouldn't be supplanted by HDR.

[aladyforty]

IMO, Nothing wrong with pushing an image in HDR - if that's the look you are going for - why not? What is so sacred about a photograph vs a painting or graphic design? Even Ansel Adams spent vast amounts of time post-processing. I haven't been that successful with HDR yet, but sometimes I really like images like your first one. I also really appreciate subtle use of a technique.

Thanks, I do like it but for cetain photos, I would prefer to just tome map if possible.

[aladyforty]

By the way the first one was accidentally shot at F 3.5 and all three are handheld shots

[gcflora]

A bit off topic, but how do you find your 17-40L alady40? I have major crossover in my lenses and am thinking of getting rid of one of my lenses and getting the 17-40L and a 10-22 sigma as well (my first non-canon lens).

[gcflora]

aladyforty: You only have to look on flicker to see that the most popular landscapes are HDRs

I really have to disagree with that. First, popularity on Flickr is not (in my opinion) a great measure of success. Second, a great majority of the HDRs on Flickr are also overdone and look like complete crap... this backs up my first point--Flickr is not a good gauge of success. You do not see all those overdone HDRs in National Geographic.

Don't try and emulate things you see on Flickr unless you personally like the result. HDR greater than 8 stops (of dynamic range) is, IMO, a horrible fad that will soon pass.

[qveda]

Rather than Flickr popularity, consider some of the magazines, such as Outdoor Photography. Interestingly, most of the featured landscapes are shot on film, and unlikely that any of them are HDR processed. Same goes for most 'contest winning' photos.

on the other hand, HDR and tone mapping are often used seek emulate some of the best qualities of excellent in-camera photos - e.g. great tonal range, contrast, etc .

[Hikin Mike]

Rather than Flickr popularity, consider some of the magazines, such as Outdoor Photography. Interestingly, most of the featured landscapes are shot on film, and unlikely that any of them are HDR processed. Same goes for most 'contest winning' photos.

on the other hand, HDR and tone mapping are often used seek emulate some of the best qualities of excellent in-camera photos - e.g. great tonal range, contrast, etc .

I doubt that. Maybe some, but I would say most have switched to digital. ;)

[bzollinger]

Here's a panoramic HDR taken around dusk up in Denali National Park last month. It is not phenomenoal however I would have liked to see anyone, be it film or "purist digital" create an image this good without HDR processing at that point in time.

I guess my point is, it's my belief that there are opportunities that we have now, that we didn't use to have, because of all the tools available to us. When a better film came out, people bought it to better their work be it less grain or better color saturation. When a better body comes out people buy it for the new features it offers. When a faster, sharper, longer, wider lens comes out people buy them because it broadens the opportunites. Can pictures be taken without all of these things? Of course, but by strictly saying "my work will not bear this type of "insert concept, tool, technique here" you are missing out on some unique experiences and captures that this day and age is affording us.

HDR is no different IMHO.:)

[bjordan]

Did you see the latest Westways (http://www.aaa-calif.com/westways/0609/cover.jpg) (Auto Club Travel Magazine) cover by Don Smith (http://www.donsmithphotography.com)?

If you want to buy Photomatrix he offers a 15% discount code at his blog.

[bzollinger]

That's a pretty good deal. I'd jump on it if I didn't already own it! Intersting looking at Don Smith's photos. He uses a lot of CPL, a whole lot of split ND filters and sometimes HDR. He even has a one I noticed where he used a 5 stop split ND, and HDR processing! It's a great photo too.

I never even thought of that combination!

[samueli]

Your images are nice and I enjoy viewing them very much! There are some things I would correct if they where mine, and maybe the problems are there because of HDR, maybe not. Of course it's only my opinion. It would be cool to see your results on the same images without HDR and just some creative adjustments to the properly exposed versions.

I got hooked on HDR for a bit, but it totally distracted me away from photography... I took some time to PP some decently exposed single images and found that I can achieve more pleasing results without shooting with HDR in mind.

[dr1ft]

If you use HDR with the goal of emulating GND filters, you will get natural looking photos.

[airfrogusmc]

Here's a panoramic HDR taken around dusk up in Denali National Park last month. It is not phenomenoal however I would have liked to see anyone, be it film or "purist digital" create an image this good without HDR processing at that point in time.

I guess my point is, it's my belief that there are opportunities that we have now, that we didn't use to have, because of all the tools available to us. When a better film came out, people bought it to better their work be it less grain or better color saturation. When a better body comes out people buy it for the new features it offers. When a faster, sharper, longer, wider lens comes out people buy them because it broadens the opportunites. Can pictures be taken without all of these things? Of course, but by strictly saying "my work will not bear this type of "insert concept, tool, technique here" you are missing out on some unique experiences and captures that this day and age is affording us.

HDR is no different IMHO.:)

Have you ever seen Adams work?
http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/recent/index.html

Check out
Winter Sunrise
Sierra Nevada
From Lone Pine, California
1944...

6th row center image

And the computer screen does not do this image justice.

Theres still a good deal of VERY SERIOUS landscape photogrpaher using the zone system and large format cameras.

[bzollinger]

Have you ever seen Adams work?




6th row center image

And the computer screen does not do this image justice.

Theres still a good deal of VERY SERIOUS landscape photogrpaher using the zone system and large format cameras.

Who's he??;)

The pioneer of awesome manipulation in the darkroom?

Very seriously, I wonder what he'd be using for equipment and processing today? One could argue that the environmental footprint of a high end digital camera is considerably less than using a large format camera which includes the film and all the chemicals for development.

After all Adams was an environmentalist....

[bjordan]

One could argue that the environmental footprint of a high end digital camera is considerably less than using a large format camera...

I'd like tickets to that argument! environmental impact is a squirrely thing. Whenever you think you're doing something good, there's an impact somewhere else.

Don't forget all the chemicals used in manufacturing digital cameras, cards, etc., the unfriendly metals in circuit boards, batteries, hard drives and such, and the far greater amount of electricity that is used to shoot digital, PP, archive, etc.

Some counties regard B&W developer safe enough to pour down the drain, and one gallon of mixed fixer will process at least 100 rolls of 35mm because it can be reused. Then, you can reclaim the silver from it. That's all I use, but stop bath is just purified vinegar, and wetting agent is basically like Jet-Dry that people put in their dishwasher. But, I don't know about hypo (or film itself), and I think intensifiers and such can be pretty bad.

But also, if B&W photo chemicals were still in high usage, there would probably be better reuse techniques and more environmentally friendly chemicals developed by now.

[airfrogusmc]

Who's he??;)

The pioneer of awesome manipulation in the darkroom?

Very seriously, I wonder what he'd be using for equipment and processing today? One could argue that the environmental footprint of a high end digital camera is considerably less than using a large format camera which includes the film and all the chemicals for development.

After all Adams was an environmentalist....

If he Adams could get the tones and quality from any process he would but I have yet to see anything that you've shown that comes close to the tonal range and quality of his work. And he always approached the darkroom as part of the process. His books The Camera, The Negative and The Print are what he considered to be 3 parts to a whole. All being equal. Getting the right exposure for the vision he had in his minds eye and then being able to process each negative to give him the tonal values to match that vision leaving some basic burning and dodging was his philosophy and the basis for the zone system. I'm sure if he could find a system that could give him the control and the quality then he would use it. I'm not sure digital is there yet for the kind of standard he had for his work and that would give him the control and dynamic range that he was able to get with the zone system. I guess we'll never know. But I have yet to see a B&W image in digital that can match a large format, properly exposed, properly developed negative, silver gelatin or platinum print.

[Agnu]

Ok, that Don Smith guys work was a real disapointment. It was really quite boring, bland stuff with not a great degree of technical difficulty - and to then compare it to the LF wonderland that is Ansel Adams...oh lordeh.

Whilst HDR looks cool at 72dpi at 1024/x pixels, try printing a Photomatix image at A1 and see what you get. It'll be grainy, patchy and look basically kinda weird 90% of the time. Sure i've seen a couple of them that have looked awesome, but that's compared to the hundreds that i've seen that looked like crap. I'm currently becoming a serious fan of Photoshop blending though, as I used to use very subtle HDR to attempt to capture what I saw at a scene but it was never quite at the quality that I wanted to to be. Now i've found that the Photoshop method is much better in terms of quality and control.

For all those of you out there who are saying that HDR is just another photographic development like a new camera body or a new film - as a matter of fact it's not. It's a digital/graphic manipulation which, at a point, stops being as much photography as it does become digital art. And yes digital art has it's place, but it still is, and always will be, digital art.

[bjordan]

Ok, that Don Smith guys work was a real disapointment. It was really quite boring, bland stuff with not a great degree of technical difficulty - and to then compare it to the LF wonderland that is Ansel Adams...oh lordeh.

Did someone compare them?

[tonydee]

I have never been much of a landscape photographer but recently tried out HDR and tone mapping. The results were so good Ive kind of become addicted, mainly to very subtle changes in the images and I'm kind of now taking three bracketed shots for every landscape. I am going to Queensland in September and I now realize that I will need a lot of card space If I do this all the time. Most times if the image does not suit these methods I just keep the properly exposed image and then edit it as usual but in comparison to the others it does not pop.. Does anyone in here use the HDR or tone mapping method a lot and I would also like opinions on what you guys think of HDR landscapes. You only have to look on flicker to see that the most popular landscapes are HDRs. I'm not into the way out look but the more realistic HDRs any thoughts?

Glad you are happy with the results. I also found my first exposure to HDR was a "wow - that's incredibly good" feeling. Still, that's true of most things you see for the first time. Have a look in the macro forum and you'll be blown away too. Or snag your first shot of a bird taking fish from a river. As you get used to it though, you become pickier - some uses are better than others.

It's not a big deal as assuming you keep the originals you can always post-process them differently as your tastes evolve. But, don't let HDR or any other treatment prevent you from noticing great photo opportunities that don't require it. If you shoot every shot into the sun just because you know you'll need HDR to handle it, many other things will likely be wrong with your work.

Consider other similar things too: you can get some of the tone-mapping style feel from local contrast enhancement filters, tuning partially transparent layer blends in other modes like "multiply" or "overlay", highlight/shadow adjustments. Unlike tone mapping, these processes don't attempt to divide the photo into logical sections based on contrasting edges, then adjust these sections to reduce contrast between them. It's that - much more than the contrast enhancement within sections - that introduces tell-tale quality issues that compromise many HDR images. You see a tree divide the sky into small patches, and each one is a very distinct shade of blue for no good reason. Or edges have marked halos. This is especially obvious when they're printed large.

Separately, bracketing every shot seems excessive. Uses a lot of card space, but also slows you down, especially if you're bothering to use a tripod to do it (HDR does work slightly better that way, you can frame more accurately, and you ensure you're getting all your megapixels out of the camera rather than the central area that all the exposures happened to include). Of course the need for HDR will vary massively with the time of day and environment, but in general it's only a relatively small percentage of otherwise promising shots that have issues with large dynamic range (e.g. 10-20%). For other shots, one shot exposed to the right is probably adequate input to the tone mapping process, unless the shadows are going to be brought up massively and/or you're shooting high ISO but want to minimise noise....

In summary:

focus on good photography - both composition and exposure - more than HDR
consider other post-processing adjustments that have less negative repercussions than tone mapping
use actual bracketing / HDR only when the scene requires it
Cheers,
Tony

[Shadowblade]

HDR is fantastic - it nets me photos which would otherwise be impossible to take without sacrificing either highlight or shadow detail. Exposure blending is better for some images, but not as useful for others (particularly those where transitions between light and dark are very sharp). GND only works well if the line of transition is straight, with few significant objects crossing it.

HDR also doesn't produce unrealistic images by itself. It's the (often poorly done) tone mapping that's responsible for the unrealistic look - you can produce the same look in a non-HDR image by applying the same tone mapping.

Case in point: without looking at the EXIF, which of the following are HDR?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3512565572_2dd01e5053_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3580483830_1a00eee6e0_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3413/3500776256_27098e1e3b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/3599098861_440a58222c_o.jpg

[Suzumushi]

I also found myself impressed with the first examples I saw of obvious HDR. After seeing many more, they seem less impressive. Most of the things that make them look like HDR actually seem undesirable, like halos at the skyline and dark grungy skies. If too overdone they look like cartoons or paintings rather than photos. My current thinking is that the best way to use this technique is as an intermediate step in the processing of an image. Careful blending of the tone-mapped image with the original constituent images using layer masks, different blending modes, noise reduction and such can help reduce the unpleasant artifacts of tonemapping while preserving some of the visually striking quality of the HDR that simple exposure blending may not produce. As Shadowblade pointed out, subtly implemented HDR can give good results that aren't too over-the-top and may not set off alarm bells for those that disdain the technique, which seems to be a growing number of people. Of your examples, I would guess 2 and 3 are HDR. Maybe 4... Night shots seem to be well suited to pulling it off subtly, if this one is HDR then you've done a great job of eliminating artifacts.

Also, someone mentioned 15% off Photomatix... Before you go ahead with that, I would seriously recommend checking out the free trial version of Dynamic-Photo HDR. I was blown away by how intuitive its interface and workflow is, and it seems to offer more freedom than Photomatix. It has raw support, both automatic and manual image alignment with rotation (a necessity if you have to hand-hold the shots), and 8 different tone-mapping modes. Four are local (like Photomatix) and four are global (more subtle, like Picturenaut), and all have various settings you can adjust like in Photomatix (don't worry if the default settings look bizarre for many of them--some fine tuning can produce good results in most). Also things like de-haze to recover lost contrast that sometimes occurs with some of the tone-mapping modes, sky smoothing to reduce grain and darkness in the sky, and a built in curves editor. It's also 55$ compared to 90$ Photomatix, so still cheaper even with the Photomatix 15% discount.