Conservative (real estate) HDRs from today

[musicaleCA]

It's a nifty trick to invert colours to cancel them out. Works really well when whitening teeth (usually comes-out to painting a little cyan over the teeth, brightening, and presto). If you want the end result to be brighter or darker, you can brighten or darken the inverted colour. (It's easiest and more accurate to do this in LAB where you have direct control over the luminance value without affecting colour, though it's such a simple change that it's more about being picky.)

 

[ek20]

have the images since been removed? why aren't they appearing?

EDIT: srry, they are appearing just fine. I had a flickr issue.

the images look great, true example of realistic well put together HDR images
the untrained eye would be unable to tell.

 

[Jon_Are]

They appear fine for me.

Anyone else?

Jon

 

[Nostregar]

I see the pictures fine.

Also, I love them - great use of HDR. Do you have a trick for getting the windows and what is outside them to show up so cleanly without getting blown out, or do you just make your 0+/- exposure one that shows what is outside the windows?

 

[CraniumDesigns]

overall i think these are very good. HDR is perfect for interior photography. they're not 100% realistic, but damn close enough. i think you're gonna get barrel distortion on any lens at 10mm. it's near impossible to cram a whole room into a picture when you're that close to everything.

also, what exposure sets did you use? a standard -2,0, +2?

oh, and to kill the blues on the towels, i would just desaturate them a bit, maybe all the way.

 

[musicaleCA]

overall i think these are very good. HDR is perfect for interior photography. they're not 100% realistic, but damn close enough. i think you're gonna get barrel distortion on any lens at 10mm. it's near impossible to cram a whole room into a picture when you're that close to everything.

also, what exposure sets did you use? a standard -2,0, +2?

oh, and to kill the blues on the towels, i would just desaturate them a bit, maybe all the way.

For HDR, it's best to meter the lightest and darkest parts of the scene, and then take exposures in increments in between. The problem with that lens is that it's non-uniform barrel distortion. The edges are curvy at 10mm, but the centre field isn't at all. That complex distortion requires something like PTLens to fix accurately.

 

[Jon_Are]

Thanks, everyone. I'm extremely new at this, got a lot to learn. It's nice to hear some positive remarks.

As for the windows, it was a lot of trial & error. My first attempts were with just three images. I was pretty disappointed with the results, and walked around in a bad mood for a few days because of it. :mrgreen:

So I realized - with the help of a lot of nice folks on TPF - that I needed to use more images, a wider range of exposures, to achieve what I was after (especially with the windows). My next shoot, which came at a perfect time, I set up two bracketed sets, giving me six exposures for each image. I started doing +/-2, then changed to +/-1 EV.

My goal is to shoot real estate using no flash, just natural lighting.

As for the distortion, it sure does look ugly to me now; it's all I see when I look at some of these photos. I just downloaded PTLens literally ten minutes ago, and used it on a horribly distorted image. My reaction to PTLens: Wow! So easy to use, and so effective. It's worth 5 times the cost.

Now I have to go back and fix some verticals and un-barrel some barrels. I'll post a few of the results back here.

I still want to keep my Sigma away from the 10mm, though.

Jon

 

[Jon_Are]

OK, so here is an image I corrected with PTLens, shown below the earlier, non-corrected version for comparison. Please let me know what you think, good, bad & ugly.

(still trying to rein in those window highlights)

Thanks!

Jon


Before:





After:

 

[Josh66]

I prefer the "before" version. The white balance looks more natural.

Please let me know what you think, good, bad & ugly.

(still trying to rein in those window highlights)

The grass outside the window is blown out, but I take it that you noticed that.

I suggest you try the method I mentioned in another thread...
Like I said there - with AEB you will always be guessing. Sometimes you might get lucky. I don't think that happened here...

It may take a little longer to set up, but it will solve your problems.

(And you will have perfect HDRs...)

 

[Jon_Are]

Thanks, Josh. I will try your method as soon as I get the chance.

Anyway, I was more focused on correcting the distortion in the above example than the saturation (or the blown highlights).

So, just for you, here is a more restrained version. :mrgreen:

Jon

 

[Josh66]

I was more focused on correcting the distortion in the above example than the saturation (or the blown highlights).

Oooh... I didn't even notice the distortion till just now.

The doors (camera left) look better in the after version, but I think the windows look better in the before version...

Looks like it will be hard to get both perfect...


If I had to go with one, it would be the doors though - closer to the edge, more noticeable.

 

[Jon_Are]

Josh, so I dug up that other thread, the one where you advised against using bracketing.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I still don't understand how that will give different results that bracketing, and I definitely don't agree that it is easier.

If you're interested in re-hashing it with me, this is a comparison of our methods:

Yours:

• Shoot in manual
• Meter darkest area
• Meter brightest area
• Note dynamic range of scene
• Split range into equal increments; take an exposure for each stop, from dark to bright
• Bottom line (on example of, say, 6 images): Click shutter 6 times, make 5 adjustments, touch camera 5 times

Mine:

• Shoot in manual
• Meter darkest area
• Meter brightest area
• Note dynamic range of scene
• Take 3-shot bracket of scene, using same aperture, setting shutter at lowest metered exposure (so capturing bottom three images of range)
• Adjust shutter speed appropriately
• Take another 3-shot bracket to capture next (final) highest three images of range
• Bottom line (on example of, say, 6 images): Click shutter 2 times, make 1 adjustments, touch camera 1 time

And....we both end up with the exact same six exposures.

If I'm wrong, please tell me.

Thanks,

Jon

 

[Josh66]

As you set it out above, they both should give the same results.

But, you can clearly see that my method has fewer steps, that makes it easier - IMO.

In the examples in this thread, you failed to meter the brightest area.

Metering - knowing the dynamic range that needs to be captured - is more important than the method you choose to capture it in.

My way, your way..., doesn't matter - just get the whole scene.


I will say this though...
The larger the dynamic range gets, the harder your method becomes.
...Something to keep in mind.

EDIT
I'm not saying that they're not good. But, I am saying that they could be much better.

 

[boogschd]

wow!

 

[Jon_Are]

In the examples in this thread, you failed to meter the brightest area.

Here's what I don't get, though: When you meter for the darkest areas - which you must do - the highlights are going to be blown.

Because you need this exposure as part of your final picture, how do you prevent these blown highlights from making their way into my final HDR image?

Is there a way, within Photomatix, that prevents this from happening? An adjustment I am missing?

Jon