Edit This
Premium
join:2001-05-08 | HDR tutorial.
»www.soocool.com/tutorial/hdr.html |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA
clubs:   | That's a great tutorial and in my opinion (as much as it pains me to say it  ) an excellent example of HDR done right. |
|
jaykaykay
4 Ever Young
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to Edit This
I would love to learn how to do HDR done right without using CS2. Some easy way to do it in any editing software so as to have it look as if it were done in CS2.
--
JKKAge is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature! »www.pbase.com/jaykaykay |
|
altermatt
Premium
join:2004-01-22
White Plains, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Edit This
An interesting package that may be of interest here is Photomatix, which goes beyond what Photoshop CS2 offers in creating HDRs. Their website also has a good discussion of the use of Tone Mapping (since prints and monitors really can't do justice to the high dynamic range.) And they offer a Tone Mapping plugin for Photoshop for those that want to use PS' Merge to HDR and then tweak it with Tone Mapping.
I don't have anywhere near the experience to speak to this program's usefulness; just thought I'd pass it along to those who do! »hdrsoft.com .
--
The truth of a thing is the feel of it, not the think of it. -- Stanley Kubrick |
|
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs: | reply to Edit This
HDR is only for Bright objects? |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| said by Subaru  :HDR is only for Bright objects? In one sense, you could characterize it that way, but that's not really the fundamental issue in selecting a scene for some form of HDR processing.
It's more a matter of finding a scene in which there are both very bright and very dark (to your own eye) aspects and you want to catch the detail in both areas. Unfortunately (or fortunately, from my perspective ) a lot of the scenes that really appeal to me when I first see them fall into this general category. And a typical digital (or film) camera simply doesn't have the latitude to capture that large a latitude of light (but you eye does). But, in these situations, HDR processing (or one of its analogs) now gives you a capability to capture such scenes in your final images. You just need a camera (and tripod) so that you can take multiple images of the scene at different exposure settings (time, not aperture). Individually, all but the 'center-most' of these exposures will appear as either overexposed or underexposed (and the 'center-most' is likely to exhibit both blow highlights and shadows). The HDR process, however, allows you to incorporate the detail from these 'underexposed' or 'overexposed' images into a composite view -- and that's the beauty of the whole process (well, at least for me).
You need a fairly static scene to begin with. It's not simply a matter of no moving subjects, however. Even a breeze can mess up the results due to differences in the multiple images required.
And, going back to the 'bright subject' issue, I think I've seen at least one low-light scene in which HDR was used to good advantage.
That said, there are certainly images for which HDR is totally unnecessary and -- even in those situations in which HDR could prove useful -- it's all to easy to turn the result into a garish nightmare, as has been discussed previously in threads in these two forums.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs: | ok just wondering as I had my camera set to bracket and the image looked like Crap, never messed with HDR again. But then again i don't shoot things that have a Drastic light change anyways. |
|
fractalman93
Progressive Music Fan
Premium
join:2004-08-02
Newport News, VA
·Covad Communications
·EarthLink
| reply to Edit This
While I have seen some excellent HDR renderings here, I still question going through such trouble in post-processing.
Why not just use the appropriate filter(s) (the glass type that screws on to the lens of your camera) to get the optimum exposure to begin with? That would, generally, look much more realistic to me than many of the HDR images that I have seen. HDR is a neat effect, but that's really all it is; an effect. It artificially expands the dynamic range by interpolating values of lightness and darkness between several different exposures. True, filters are used for effects too. However, they do it naturally by altering the amount and/or frequency range of light that enters the lens. Also true, filters are not cheap. Neither is the software. I can buy quite a few filters for the $400-$700 that I would spend on software to do the same thing.
That's just my 2 cents.
--
If you like, you can call me David. Why Fractalman? Type Endeavour Experiment into Google and find out. Site to be renovated. Go live date: about the same time Chris Squire releases his 2nd solo album. FYI, I own a Sony DSC-F707.;^) |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to Subaru
Yeah, the 'off-center' images will definitely look like crap, even under the best of circumstances. 
If I intend to do HDR, I take the easy way out and simply bracket three frames at -2, 0, and +2 EV. That's something I can do fairly quickly, whereas getting two (or even four) more frames would take a lot more time, with more opportunity to have something messed up. (I have this vague recollection that I could set up bracketing to do a lot more than three frames with my older film cameras; guess I should go back and check that.)
I'm still just playing with this after reading the various threads, including Edit This and Mauricio's, but (for me) there are definitely situations in which I'll be able to use this.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to jaykaykay
Jaykaykay,
I agree with altermatt on this matter. Just download the trial version of Photomatix Pro (free) and experiment with it.
Yes, as Mauricio noted, this will put the Photomatix watermark on the resulting images (which I believe vanishes if you actually decide to buy the software). You'll discover soon enough if you have a tendency to take images that could profit from this capability. (And, if histograms of your images tend to be abruptly truncated at both the high and low ends, then you do.) And the 'bought' version is about $100, IIRC.
In terms of equipment, you'll almost definitely require a tripod and your camera must either be able to bracket exposures or you need a capability to manually set EV compensation (or exposure times) for the additional images. That's pretty much it, except for fiddling with the tonal settings to get a result that still looks realistic and Mauricio provided a lot of hints on how to do that.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to fractalman93
said by fractalman93 :While I have seen some excellent HDR renderings here, I still question going through such trouble in post-processing. Why not just use the appropriate filter(s) (the glass type that screws on to the lens of your camera) to get the optimum exposure to begin with? The reason for HDR is that the camera is simply not capable of capturing the entire range.
Let's say this is the dynamic range of the scene:
|---------------------------------------------|
The camera can only capture part of the range due to the limitations of the sensor:
|---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx----------------|
or
|----------------xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-|
So you either get a picture where the brighter areas appear white or the darker areas appear black.
With HDR, you take mutilple exposures to capture the entire range (by adjusting the shutter speed) and then the software pieces it together:
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--------------------|
+
|------yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy--------|
+
|----------------------zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz|
=
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzzzz|
I hope that this helps out a bit. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Edit This
real estate agents everywhere are calling their photographers |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | And I thought it was the other way 'round -- photographers everywhere are calling their local real estate agents! 
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
sheik28
Premium
join:2000-10-15
New York, NY
| reply to justin
said by justin :real estate agents everywhere are calling their photographers You called??
I tried it once or twice in an apartment.... Not worth it for ad shots, nothing that the flash and proper exposure couldn't handle.
--
There is no such thing as a stupid question, and yes, the camel types.
Need A Private Spot? Get Your Own Tribe! |
|
35375105
Premium
join:2002-11-20
127.0.0.1 | reply to Edit This
good guide. but I don't see any real difference between the guy's final photo, and the one in the middle of his brackets?
--
depressed as usual |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to sheik28
said by sheik28 :said by justin :real estate agents everywhere are calling their photographers You called?? I tried it once or twice in an apartment.... Not worth it for ad shots, nothing that the flash and proper exposure couldn't handle. I dunno I am always taken with indoor shots that show BLUE skies and views thru the window. Your example was good but made easier by the white apartment.
Usually they are faked. HDR can make them easier. |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to 35375105
said by 35375105 :good guide. but I don't see any real difference between the guy's final photo, and the one in the middle of his brackets? Take another look at the mid-range photo and pay particular attention to the areas blown out in both the shadows and the highlights. Then look at the final (HDR) image again. Now, they've got some detail that wasn't in the mid-range image.
Yes, it's not terribly obvious (and partly because he did a nice job of not ending up with a garish image as a consequence of the tonal mapping). I must admit that I think he would likely have done a bit better if he'd underexposed another image at least a stop more, but I'm not exactly in a position to be picky.
Alternatively, there's always the three image HDR at »www.hdrsoft.com/ , but I find the tonal mapping a bit off in that one.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
fractalman93
Progressive Music Fan
Premium
join:2004-08-02
Newport News, VA
·Covad Communications
·EarthLink
| reply to jjoshua
I understand that. However, couldn't you accomplish something similar (with some compromise) with the appropriate filters. There are all kinds of filters out there. All you need to do is check out the Tiffen or Hoya sites to see that. I think that using combinations of filters could certainly enhance the dynamic range. Thus, enabling you to make the "shadow" areas brighter without washing out the "highlights".
My main complaint with much of the HDR that I have seen here (no offense to anyone that uses it) is that it tends to make the picture appear unrealistic (fake). Don't get me wrong. The final product is often awesome, but it just doesn't look real. So, if you are using HDR for the particular artistic effect that it provides, that's cool. Just don't expect it to produce something that looks real. While the images may not appear computer generated, they do look more like those you see in a big budget movie. Sure, it looks pretty, but it doesn't look natural. In the case of movies, that is more acceptable because you are going to see the movie to escape reality.
What I am trying to say is that I have mixed feelings about HDR. While it can produce an awesome effect, I feel that this effect can be over-used. Again, no offense to those here that regularly use HDR. After all, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
--
If you like, you can call me David. Why Fractalman? Type Endeavour Experiment into Google and find out. Site to be renovated. Go live date: about the same time Chris Squire releases his 2nd solo album. FYI, I own a Sony DSC-F707.;^) |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| said by fractalman93 :I understand that. However, couldn't you accomplish something similar (with some compromise) with the appropriate filters. There are all kinds of filters out there. Do they sell filters where the darkening areas are shaped like doorways and windows? that might help in the tutorial example to save HDR processing, just like a half-filter is going to help with a sky/seascape taken 50:50. But otherwise, I can't see how they would help.
If they sold a camera with a much wider dynamic range then nobody would argue that post-processing was cheating: you take the picture with one snap, take it home and then when you reduce range for display, you decide whether to compress, or throw away all that juicy extra information at one or both ends.
I'm looking forward to 20 years from now when the camera will have spectacular dynamic range (will show detail both in the sun, and the black cat) and ALSO there will be some kind of display technology that keeps it all. You'll be blinded by the sun and yet if you shift to look at the dark area your eyes will adjust and you will see detail. Until then the compromise is still there even with auto HDR in the camera, it is just pushed down the chain to the point of display. |
|
tmpchaos
Requiescat in pace
Premium,Mod
join:2000-04-28
Hoboken, NJ
clubs: | Photographers, for years, have carried rolls of ND and color correcting gels, for just that purpose... |
|
