HDR without tripod.. 5fps?

[aCiD99]

Originally Posted by WSpruance

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

As a current computer engineer I'll try :P

If I'm taking a normally exposed image, the near black portions of the image, say the side skirts on my car in the example, will have a range of defined colour values which is very narrow. In re-saving a RAW file, we're falsely extrapolating that range. By taking a second overexposed picture (which properly exposes that area) I'm getting another separate file which accurately represents the colour ranges for that area of the picture.

Also, for the clouds in this picture, the normally, or overexposed pictures simply have the sky near completely blown out, no editing of a RAW file can bring back the data, having an underexposed frame now allows me to use that data in the final HDR composite.

Normal (for the glass wall):


Under (for the sky/clouds):


Over (for the tires, lower parts of the car):


TRUE HDR (of course tone-mapped for showing here, but developed using true HDR methods):


Also note for the purposes of this topic, these shots were taken handheld at 5 fps :P

[WSpruance]

aCiD99

A light just went on here in Fort Lauderdale. Now I get it.
Many Thanks,
WSpruance

[grig]

Opened your normal exposure in Photoshop, converted to 16b, aplied Tone Mapping on it, converted back to 8b, saved, posted. It's noisy, but I say it works: HDR from a web-sized jpg

[aCiD99]

Originally Posted by WSpruance

aCiD99

A light just went on here in Fort Lauderdale. Now I get it.
Many Thanks,
WSpruance

Glad I could help.

Now look at what grig did. Look at the dynamic range in the sky, it's nowhere near that of my tonemapped HDR image, due to that limited amount of data being extrapolated.

It's most pronounced in the sky, but you can see it in the bottom of the car, and wheels as well.

[tonylong]

Originally Posted by WSpruance

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

It sounds like you "got it" from the previous great post...

I'm a fan of dual- or triple- or whatever-processing a RAW file to get a great image, but still, if you stop down your exposure you will get more in the highlights than a "neutral' RAW" will retain and if you stop up you will get more in the shadows -- combine them together and you have HDR --sometimes really fake looking, but sometimes exactly what we want!

[azpix]

This was a great thread. I never would have thought nor believed it possible to do multiple exposures with out a tripod. Great examples non tripod users. I 'm still amazed those lined up in the software. I'm going to give it the old college try this weekend minus the tripod. .

For those going back and forth on 1 raw vs multiples there is great info on the HDRSOFT website!

[Roy C]

Just changing the subject slightly - would there be a difference between shooting a 3 exposure sequence (-2, 0, +2) and a 5 exposure sequence of say (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2).

[Mark_Cohran]

Originally Posted by tonylong

It sounds like you "got it" from the previous great post...

I'm a fan of dual- or triple- or whatever-processing a RAW file to get a great image, but still, if you stop down your exposure you will get more in the highlights than a "neutral' RAW" will retain and if you stop up you will get more in the shadows -- combine them together and you have HDR --sometimes really fake looking, but sometimes exactly what we want!

Excellent explanation!

Mark

[Collin85]

Hmm.. lots of bickering in the thread. Some people suggested I just go out and simply try it.. well, I just got back from an outing with a few friends around the city. I took a few bracketed exposures handheld at 5fps. When I have time later, I'll see how it turns out after some PP.

[Collin85]

OK, just a question. I converted three exposures to TIFF via. DPP. Then I used the Merge to HDR function in CS3.. but after that I can't see to save it as a JPEG? There's a few file types I can save as, such as another TIFF.. but I can't seem to save it as a JPEG. Don't tell me I have to use some other third-party TIFF to JPEG converter or something.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Collin85

OK, just a question. I converted three exposures to TIFF via. DPP. Then I used the Merge to HDR function in CS3.. but after that I can't see to save it as a JPEG? There's a few file types I can save as, such as another TIFF.. but I can't seem to save it as a JPEG. Don't tell me I have to use some other third-party TIFF to JPEG converter or something.

You would need to convert it to 8 bit/channel to be able to save as a jpeg.

[zacker]

use a tripod if its possible if its not at all possible find a way to brace the camera...problem for me is i shoot at f22 or so... its too hard to HH at the shutterspeeds needed to over expose by 2 stops at f 22. (i like the whole scene to be in acceptable focus)

[Collin85]

Originally Posted by Roy C

You would need to convert it to 8 bit/channel to be able to save as a jpeg.

Thanks.

I've got a new problem though - after I Merge to HDR, I get a preview of the merged exposures. So I click OK and Photoshop creates the actual file. The problem is.. I seem to get a different looking file than the one in the preview? The created PSD file at the end always seems to have less of a DR than the one displayed in the preview. What's the deal?

The only way I've found I can try to get back a shot like the one displayed in the preview is to choose 8 bits/channel at the preview screen, so it then displays the 'Exposure/Gamma Correction' screen after the file is created. Then I up the gamma and it makes it look closer to the shot I see earlier at the preview.

Any help appreciated.

[grig]

zacker: I wouldn't recomend going beyond f16. Difraction comes in and you lose A LOT of resolution there.

Colin: I don't have experience with hdrs IN photoshop, isn't there something like "Tone Mapping" you should do to get the best out of those hdrs? Just asking coz' I don't know how ps produces hdrs. My suggestion: try Photomatix!

[Collin85]

Thanks grig, I should go check out Photomatix.

In regards to my original question of even making HDR images handheld, I'd have to say it works rather well. With even a few people making minute movements via each exposure, I found PS managed to align the images quite well. My minimum shutter speed was always above 1/200th and I shot at 5fps. I used the 17-55 and I'm sure the IS would of helped too.