HDR: How? Why? Where? What are the benefits?

First off, if this doesn't belong here, I apologize...

I see a lot of threads about HDR, and I'm assuming that it is taking several pics continuously at different settings, then 'merging' them together. My question(s) is/are...

Why is this better than taking a single, correctly exposed image?

Can this only be done on 'non-moving' images (so all pics are the same, still subject)?

Where do YOU merge the pics? I saw a few programs that people use, which do you think is the easiest & best to use?

Why go through the time & hassle? How much 'better' is the image going to be?

When merging, how do you decide what exactly you're trying to do with the pic? I guess what I mean is, do you have an idea before you snap the pic, or do you look at the images and roll from there?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm kinda curious & intrigued, and may want to give it a shot.

Thanks,

~Steve

Sometimes you cannot get a single perfect exposure. If the sky is too bright but the building below it has shadows all over it, but you want the detail from each area you need more than 1 exposure. A fast shutter to get good detail in the sky and a slow shutter to bring out the detail in the shadows on a building or something like that.

If you search youtube there are a lot of good videos explaining HDR, how to do it, what tools to use. Thats how i learned.

Photomatix is what I use to do my HDR work. http://www.hdrsoft.com​/ follow this link, right on the main page is a good explaination.

This is a test shot from the chair I'm sitting in - no artistic merit at all.

So the question is: which of these three images would you say is correctly exposed?

OK guys, thanks. I didn't check any videos or sites yet, but my first question now is...

Couldn't this be done using layers in photoshop? Kind of like when you put multiple poses of the same person in an image?

Really cool, by the way

Yep, you can do it with multiple layers and masking. But HDR software (or the HDR function built into PSP) is much quicker. No doubt you'd have more control doing it by hand...

-js

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #14507055
OK guys, thanks. I didn't check any videos or sites yet, but my first question now is...

Couldn't this be done using layers in photoshop? Kind of like when you put multiple poses of the same person in an image?

Really cool, by the way

My biggest issue with HDR is the abuse of the process. Meaning those who take the process to extremes and end up with an image that looks like a late 60's album cover instead of a photograph. I don't really care one way or the other why they do it, sometime it looks good in a surrealistic fashion, but it needs to be tagged with a different name than just HDR. High Dynamic Range is supposed to be a technique to create a well exposed photograph from a scene where the light range is stretched beyond the camera's useable exposure range.

When I look at what I consider a well done HDR image, it's difficult to tell that it was HDR, much like number six's example above. It's unfortunate that many seem to think that HDR is supposed to have that overprocessed cartoonish look. If I took that same over processing to a single image, I'd get hammered for overusing my sliders. Yet we constantly see others doing essentially the same thing, only since it's "HDR", they get praised for it.

I think a more suitable name for the extreme use of the process would be something like HDR CGI because it ends up looking more like a cartoon, or even a painting, than captured reality.

Preeb wrote in post #14507257
My biggest issue with HDR is the abuse of the process.

Couldn't agree more!

-js

Preeb wrote in post #14507257
My biggest issue with HDR is the abuse of the process....

I think "abuse" is a strong word, though I do know what you mean. While it's true that what you describe as abuse is really just using tools as the creator sees fit to meet their creative vision, for me a good HDR is one that you can't tell it's been done. The ones that are super-saturated just make my eyes bleed.

Somtimes folks like to over-cook thier photographs. This can give the pictures a cartoonish look. It isn't necessarily a bad thing as it depends on what the objective is.

Completely agree with this. Now anyone can process any photo how they see fit, but to me HDR is a process I use to allow my camera to capture the same dynamic range in an image that my eyes see. There are very few to no instances where you can successfully capture the dynamic range of a sunset with the sun in view or partial view without HDR.

The answer also is yes you can do it manually, but manually masking 7 shots together would give me a headache and take hours. I use photomatix, total processing for a shot for me from start to finish out of the other end of photoshop is 30 minutes to an hour. No way I could do a 7 shot blend in that time, or do it as nicely or neatly.

Also, you can do it of moving subjects, its called Ghosting in HDR, and my software can account for it, and adjust it to give you a single sharp image in that area. Its sketchy though, and difficult to do perfectly.

Preeb wrote in post #14507257
My biggest issue with HDR is the abuse of the process. Meaning those who take the process to extremes and end up with an image that looks like a late 60's album cover instead of a photograph. I don't really care one way or the other why they do it, sometime it looks good in a surrealistic fashion, but it needs to be tagged with a different name than just HDR. High Dynamic Range is supposed to be a technique to create a well exposed photograph from a scene where the light range is stretched beyond the camera's useable exposure range.

When I look at what I consider a well done HDR image, it's difficult to tell that it was HDR, much like number six's example above. It's unfortunate that many seem to think that HDR is supposed to have that overprocessed cartoonish look. If I took that same over processing to a single image, I'd get hammered for overusing my sliders. Yet we constantly see others doing essentially the same thing, only since it's "HDR", they get praised for it.

I think a more suitable name for the extreme use of the process would be something like HDR CGI because it ends up looking more like a cartoon, or even a painting, than captured reality.

Preeb wrote in post #14507257
My biggest issue with HDR is the abuse of the process. Meaning those who take the process to extremes and end up with an image that looks like a late 60's album cover instead of a photograph.

Same here, which, I guess, is why I was asking about HDR in the first place. I wasn't understanding why people were 'ruining' a pic to make it look like a Beatles album cover. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's really cool, but it depends on the image. The examples above made me say "Whoah, that's awesome!", when originally I felt HDR was just a 'gimmicky' tool at best, now it's something I definitely want and will try out.

HDR helps with even exposure to over or under exposed areas in photos. In high contrast shooting, HDR can help you save your photos. It can only be done on several shots that are not moving, otherwise you end up with just overlays which don't make much sense. For HDR processing, I still use Photoshop since it allows the most amount of control so your photos don't turn out over-processed. You can't really post process for HDR unless you intend to take the HDR shots in the first place. The reason why HDR can be important is due to the ability for cameras to see details in high contrast areas where a single properly exposed shot is impossible.

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #14507336
Same here, which, I guess, is why I was asking about HDR in the first place. I wasn't understanding why people were 'ruining' a pic to make it look like a Beatles album cover. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's really cool, but it depends on the image. The examples above made me say "Whoah, that's awesome!", when originally I felt HDR was just a 'gimmicky' tool at best, now it's something I definitely want and will try out.

When used sparingly, it simply gives you more dynamic range in a photo. I agree with the others on overcooked HDR. Sometimes it's cool, but a little goes a long way.

As js said. Good example. I use DDP to do them.

Has everyone forgotten about fill-flash? It's not the end all be answer to shooting portraits with Sun back-lighting, but it sure can fix a lot of those under-exposed areas.