1/3/5/or 7 shots ...?

snaps042 · May 19, 2015

A quick discussion point: 3 or 5 images?

Like many here, I would hope that we have all tried (at least) both a 3-shot and a 5-shot HDR (some take it as far as 7). Who gets the best results from which and why? I would be interested in hearing your individual thoughts.

I take mainly 5-shot HDRs and have been playing with the '1-shot' converting a RAW file into separate 16-bit TIFFs. OK, the '1-shot' isn't a true HDR in the full meaning of the process, but they're not bad … the green helicopter tail rotor and the plane with the turning prop were made from 1 original RAW file and not the 3/5-shot RAW collection.

Furthermore, I use Photomatix Pro and have been looking into upgrading to their version 5 … if you don't use 'LIghtroom', it it really worth it?

So, your thoughts on 3/5/7 HDRs and Photomatix Pro 5 would be most welcome - and here are a few 3/5 shot HDRs (with the 2 x 1-shots thrown in for free!)

snaps

Overread · May 19, 2015

It depends on the dynamic range of the scene and what you want from the shot. Clearly the greater the dynamic range the more shots will help you capture the whole scene well exposed; furthermore if you want to take it toward the "Cartoony" look then you will need more shots so that each differently lit area will have part of the exposure colourfully and well exposed so that the merging brings it out.

If you're going for a more natural look and using HDR to just reduce noise and bump up detail in the darks whilst not losing the whites then you might well get away with less shots, because you don't need perfection for the software to do enough of what you want.

Which is the other aspect - how long do you want to work on it - more shots potentially makes using software easier to work with as you don't have to do much to each shot to get them to blend well. Get less shots and you might have to push/pull some a little ("Fake HDR methods") to get what you want out of them.

snaps042 · May 19, 2015

Thanks, I am certainly not after the 'cartoony' look. I am finding more and more that with the sun high in the sky, and coming at me, some results are better than others. Naturally, this will mean that shadows and hidden darker areas leap into life.

I try not to spend too long on the final result, as just putting the RAWs into the software balances them all out automatically. Then it's just a case of gently lifting or reducing here and there.

Braineack · May 19, 2015

1. I shoot nikon.

ronlane · May 19, 2015

I've watched a few video's lately and have actually started testing the LR CC merge to HDR process by using 2 shots at -2 and +2. Scott Kelby and RC Concepion have been talking about this and have shown some very nice natural looking examples.

I like the process and the way that the new LR CC is processing my images now.

480sparky · May 19, 2015

There is no one, single 'magic number'. Nor is there any law that states one must take an odd number.

2 shots can work. So can 3. And 4. Or 5. It might take 6. Some scenes need 7. Or 8. Maybe 9.

Point is: Every scene is different, and should be treated as such. Take as many frames as needed to obtain the results you desire. Heck, if there's time, take an extra two. Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

Overread · May 19, 2015

Odd numbers are normally popular because:

1) Most in-camera options default to odd numbers - middle value you meter then it takes X number of shots above and below that range.

2) Because most of use start from a base-line metering point and then work up and down from that (much like the camera does). It feels right that if the camera has metered for that midpoint then we want to take it up in exposure as much as we take it down for the whole dynamic range.

Braineack · May 19, 2015

someone posted here a really good video explaining how to do HDR maybe 6 months back. I wish I could find it. He explained he technique and how he determined how many shots to take and then how to combine them. The results were fantastic.

agp · May 21, 2015

snaps042 said:
A quick discussion point: 3 or 5 images?

Depends on the dynamic range. For the pictures you posted, 3 will suffice. I would even go one step further and say 2 will suffice.

snaps042 said:
I take mainly 5-shot HDRs and have been playing with the '1-shot' converting a RAW file into separate 16-bit TIFFs.

Not true. Or at least I hope it's not.

snaps042 said:
Furthermore, I use Photomatix Pro and have been looking into upgrading to their version 5 … if you don't use 'LIghtroom', it it really worth it?

So, your thoughts on 3/5/7 HDRs and Photomatix Pro 5 would be most welcome - and here are a few 3/5 shot HDRs (with the 2 x 1-shots thrown in for free!)

My thoughts are against Photomatix. It really makes a picture look unrealistic. If you are going for a natural image with high dynamic range, as the human eye would see it, Lightroom is your best friend. If you're going for an insincere and calculated HDR, Photomatix will fool a few uninitiated.