HDR without tripod.. 5fps?

[tonylong]

I don't think there's reason to argue here.

If I ask "is it possible to get a good HDR set hand-held?" the answer is, of course, yes.

If I ask "are there times when a tripod will enable me to get the best HDR set?" the answer is, of course, yes.

It's like doing a pano. You can get a great pano set handheld. And, if that's all you have available you give it your best shot. Today's software can do a great job aligning pixels, although with hand-held you may throw a lot away. But still, you can do it! Give it a try!

But if you want the sharpest HDR, panos, landscape shots, consistently, a tripod should be a given part of your equipment. Does anyone seriously doubt this?

[Mark_Cohran]

Originally Posted by grig

It's funny how people keep insisting a tripod IS A MUST for HDR shots after so many samples posted here which prove clearly that it's not.

Mark_Cohran: when you've trespassed in an abandoned structure, hotel or factory, TRUST ME, THERE'S NO TIME to set-up a tripod, moreover carry it! (that's just an example where a tripod would complicate things, I can think of more if you think it's needed to convince you it's not true what you've said) Not EVERYBODY is shooting flowers and landscapes

Do you want to argue or discuss? In my post, I said from the examples that handheld HDR's were possible, and simply asked why. You gave me a reason - but we won't get into the ethics of breaking the law to get a photo. That will certainly get this thread closed quickly.

[grig]

True, so I guess we've solved this one! No intent to argue here!

Tonylong's post is the perfect conclusion to our thread. Happy hdr-ing to all of you, handheld, beanbaged or any other way you'll have it!

[Grentz]

I have done a few HDRs handheld with no issue. Some of mine are just to get the extra detail out of a dark area on a sunny day though or for effect...I also usually use the 24-105IS so the IS helps with the keeping steady.

With a fast enough shutter speed it should be no issue though.

[Sgt_Hovanec]

You can also use your body as a tripod like with shooting a rifle. I've taken 4.5 sec exposures at night without any loss in quality, although it was 42mm, ISO 100 and Image Stabilizer. I also had to be either on one knee or sitting. It's an extreme option if you just can't carry a tripod. Obviously, a tripod is HIGHLY recommended even for mid day HDR's. Just my two cents...

[Bill Boehme]

Originally Posted by e r y k

handheld, 3fps :P im not cool enough to have 5 fps!

ErikM, that is an AMAZING shot. wow.

I was just about ready to say that it would be nearly impossible to handhold an HDR sequence of shots when you have a wide lens with objects very close in the foreground against a much more distant background.

You really have a steady shooting stance. I could not do it -- I have tried, but the problem is that even slight camera movement shifts the relative position of foreground and background objects (think about binocular vision). This situation would be the acid test for steadiness.

[WSpruance]

Originally Posted by Sydor25

Here are a couple of hand held HDRs:
One of the main reasons that I bought the 1D Mark III was the ability to shoot handheld HDRs, the 10 FPS definitely helps keep camera movement between shots to a minimum.

I don't have a question about the tripod. My question is "what is the difference in using a single raw file at 3 different exposures - as opposed to taking three images at +-1 stop?" Are there advantages to both?
I have a 1D Mark III and think all of these images are fantastic!
Thanks for the advice in advance.
WSpruance

[rgs-]

im new too, but from what i gather, it stand for high dynamic range.

and the technique is to take multiple shots of the same object but using different iso settings, and then using photoshop to blend them all together.

PLEASE correct me of im wrong!

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by rgs-

im new too, but from what i gather, it stand for high dynamic range.

and the technique is to take multiple shots of the same object but using different iso settings, and then using photoshop to blend them all together.

PLEASE correct me of im wrong!

Correct (ish) you change the EV not the ISO. but IMO Photomatix does a better job than Photoshop.

[tzalman]

Originally Posted by WSpruance

I don't have a question about the tripod. My question is "what is the difference in using a single raw file at 3 different exposures - as opposed to taking three images at +-1 stop?" Are there advantages to both?
I have a 1D Mark III and think all of these images are fantastic!
Thanks for the advice in advance.
WSpruance

The point of a "true HDR" is that it captures a wider range than the camera is capable of capturing in one shot - for example, an interior scene with the view through a window of a sunlit exterior. By taking several shots that cover dfferent parts of the light range and combining them the overall contrast is reduced while maintaining optimum detail rendition. Obviously a single RAW cannot contain more data than the camera can capture but by using the technique of blending different conversions you can maximize your utilization of what that RAW does contain.

[Peter Pawinski]

Originally Posted by azpix

um...no. then it's not an HDR Photo

I believe that example actually does fall under the heading of "HDR." The Wikipedia definition certainly allows for that term (see the heading "Exposure Examples.") You can eke out at least an extra stop or possibly two of dynamic range with RAW by exporting files developed for the highlights, midtones, and shadows, or some combination thereof. I've only used HDR to mean separate images with separate exposures, but I think the single image method also qualifies.

Anyhow, as for doing it in Photoshop with handheld images. If you have CS3, do the following:

File > Automate > Photomerge

Select the files you want aligned. UNCHECK the "Blend" option. There you go. It will align all the layers for you.

Another way of doing this is to open each file in Photoshop, and paste each image onto separate layers in a single document. Edit > Auto-Align Layers and there ya go.

[number six]

Originally Posted by rgs-

im new too, but from what i gather, it stand for high dynamic range.

and the technique is to take multiple shots of the same object but using different iso settings, and then using photoshop to blend them all together.

PLEASE correct me of im wrong!

That's the idea, but changing ISO to change exposure will cause problems in merging the shots - noise levels will be different.

Shutter speed changes are the way to do it.

-js

[pete.rush]

Originally Posted by Collin85

OK, I'll admit it.. I'm not a huge fan of tripods. It cramps my shooting style and although I most definitely bring them for night cityskapes/evening shoots, I tend to leave it home most other times. But I really want to explore HDR more, so here I'am.

My question is: I was wondering if the continuous shooting in cameras like the 30D would be good enough for me to leave the tripod home (for daytime situations). Say I set the 30D on 5fps, bracket 3 exposures.. what kind of shutter speeds would I need (for say, the overexposed shot (which requires the slowest shutter speed out of the lot)) to make it all work out relatively well?

I was thinking probably atleast 1/200th, but again I know it would depend on one's level of hand shake and their own definition of what is acceptable for shot to shot disprepancy.

Anyone have any experience with this?

I had the same problem on a recent trip to the lake district.....no tripod, so hand held, try the bracketing +2, 0, -2 on 20D then used Photomatix to process the images....didn't work very well, created a ghosting effect because I was steady enough....however...did some reading and found using one RAW image and Capture One LE, I could sort of create the effect of bracketed images by creating over and under exposed images from original and saving them as TIFF files, then combining them in the HDR software to create my HDR image....it works quite well...just need to get the hang of processing the image in Photomatrix better than I'm doing at the moment...

Peter

[tonylong]

Originally Posted by WSpruance

I don't have a question about the tripod. My question is "what is the difference in using a single raw file at 3 different exposures - as opposed to taking three images at +-1 stop?" Are there advantages to both?
I have a 1D Mark III and think all of these images are fantastic!
Thanks for the advice in advance.
WSpruance

To me, it's the difference in shooting for HDR possibilities "on purpose" and trying for the pseudo-HDR blending after the fact.

You get the most range shooting for HDR by going more like two stops in either direction, getting maybe 5 exposures in all, using a tripod, being either in manual or aperture priority and just tweaking the shutter speed (I say that rather than the ISO because you have to push two buttons with the ISO, increasing little wobblies and hassle).

But, it's great to be able to process a RAW file two or three times for blending as well, you can if you want save each version as a tiff and run it through HDR software as well -- less range than the +/-2 stops, but sometimes that's all you need!

[WSpruance]

Originally Posted by tonylong

But, it's great to be able to process a RAW file two or three times for blending as well, you can if you want save each version as a tiff and run it through HDR software as well -- less range than the +/-2 stops, but sometimes that's all you need!

Please try to explain to me how the range and tone are greater using +/-2 stops as opposed to one raw image saved as several tiffs in the same manner.
I am a retired engineer and need the next layer of explanation to see the light!
Thanks for your advice,
WSpruance