Can't Believe I'm Doing This, but...HDR, First Attempt

sm4him · Aug 19, 2012

It took me MONTHS (and some encouragement from sparky) to work up my nerve to even decide to try HDR. Took another month to finally get a chance to take the photos. It's taken two days since processing to finally work up the nerve to post one of them here.

FIRST HDR Attempt, Ever. Might be my last, depending on how "blasted" I get for the result.

This is one of the cantilever barns in Cades Cove. For this one, I used a total of 7 exposures. I really meant to do 9, but I miscalculated and ended up not going a full stop on the last two exposures and decided not to use them.
I'm using Luminance HDR software. I also have CS5, but didn't do anything in Photoshop other than resize my original result.

With some time and effort, I can probably figure out the settings better. What I'm not sure I can improve on much is aligning the exposures. My blurry vision and floaters proved to be too much of a challenge to the task and I simply couldn't tell whether things were aligned correctly or not.

I know I've still got blown out sky and some of the barn's interior is too dark; not sure if it's because I needed more exposures or because of my lack of processing skills.
That's all I know to even tell you. C&C away! Oh--I'm including the "original" shot as well as the HDR result (by original, I mean the middle photo with an EV of zero).

HDR:

Original, EV 0 photo:

ronlane · Aug 19, 2012

They both look good to me. I think the grass color is popping in the original but I see the depth of the grass I'm the HDR. Good job.

zombiemann · Aug 19, 2012

For a first attempt I think you did fairly well. I think the sky could benefit from another exposure as it looks kinda washed out, but the trees and barn you nailed pretty well. If you had not specifically said this was your first attempt I would have thought you were an old hand at this

shefjr · Aug 19, 2012

I like it. Most HDR are way over cooked for my liking. This is not at all over cooked. :thumbup:

FanBoy · Aug 19, 2012

The interior and bottom is lit up fairly well, enough that you can see the outlines. Too bad about the sky--a different angle of shooting would have helped or simply waiting for more uniformity in the sky. Interesting structure.

480sparky · Aug 19, 2012

Jeez! My first HDRs were NEVER this good!! They were so horrid, I never saved a single one of 'em.

Of course, I was trying it out before I found TPF....

Bynx · Aug 19, 2012

For first attempt very nice. If you used Photomatix you should deghost the vegetation on the left side. The additional underexposure for the sky has been mentioned. If you go to HDR photography software & plugin for Lightroom, Aperture & Photoshop - Tone Mapping, Exposure Fusion & High Dynamic Range Imaging for photography you can download the software. It will give you a watermark on your final image but you can use all the features including deghosting to see how well your image can come out.

that1guy · Aug 19, 2012

this looks really well for a first HDR could use a little more time mapping in the post processing to give it that pop

this is by far one of the better first time HDR images I have seen in this forum

but just some words of encouragement don't let people's comments discourage you from doing hdr there's no one perfect in these threads but if I had to choose one is say "Janok" is probably the best one in here. look at his work get some inspiration seek tutorials online develop a style and be happy

Designer · Aug 19, 2012

Oh, hey, I like that! Not "overdone" if you know what I mean. congratulations!

rexbobcat · Aug 19, 2012

I think it could use a little bit more contrast. I know the whole point is to lessen the contrast, but it seems kind of "foggy" as-is. But backing off of the saturation and detail adjustments is better than being all over them for a first time.

unpopular · Aug 19, 2012

Was the missing exposures on the short or long side of the bracket? The sky looks blown.

For seven exposures, I think your ±0 should have been -1, like -4, -3, -2, -1, ±0, +1, +2. IMO this is a good example of why I always recommend people meter the dynamic range of the scene, rather than just picking some arbitrary starting point and winging it.

sm4him · Aug 19, 2012

Wow, thanks all!! That was a far more encouraging response than I was expecting!
To those who mentioned it not being "overcooked"--that's especially good to hear, because I'm not a fan of that look.

480sparky said:
Jeez! My first HDRs were NEVER this good!! They were so horrid, I never saved a single one of 'em.

Of course, I was trying it out before I found TPF....

Not only would I probably not even decided to attempt it if it hadn't been for your encouragement, but your assistance is really what made the difference between coming up with a reasonable first attempt and just coming up with an overcooked, muddled-up mess of a photo! Thanks for your help!

unpopular said:
Was the missing exposures on the short or long side of the bracket? The sky looks blown.

For seven exposures, I think your ±0 should have been -1, like -4, -3, -2, -1, ±0, +1, +2. IMO this is a good example of why I always recommend people meter the dynamic range of the scene, rather than just picking some arbitrary starting point and winging it.

That makes perfect sense, now that I'm in the house thinking about it. Out there, that logic failed me. I *did* meter the dynamic range of the whole scene, but where I failed was in figuring out quite what to DO with that information. So, my seven exposures were evenly split on either side: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3. And the two missing exposures were also one on each side, so that wouldn't have helped anyway.

sm4him · Aug 19, 2012

Bynx said:
For first attempt very nice. If you used Photomatix you should deghost the vegetation on the left side. The additional underexposure for the sky has been mentioned. If you go to HDR photography software & plugin for Lightroom, Aperture & Photoshop - Tone Mapping, Exposure Fusion & High Dynamic Range Imaging for photography you can download the software. It will give you a watermark on your final image but you can use all the features including deghosting to see how well your image can come out.

Thanks, Bynx! I'll definitely check into that; didn't want to even think about buying any software until I figured out if it was something I might want to do more than once.

unpopular · Aug 19, 2012

Good for you on using your meter! So often people will just go into evaluative or average mode and just use some one-size fits all routine.

The easiest way to kind of keep things straight is to meter one end or the other of the bracket, say the hilights in the cloud, make note of this exposure time. Then meter the opposite end of the bracket, say the shadows in the bridge. Then, simply adjust exposure time by 1ev until you reach close to the other end: the clouds. So say the clouds read 1/4000 at any given aperture, you'd write that down or keep it i n your head, then immediately meter the shadows, say they say 1/8. Then you'd just decrease time by 1ev until you come close to 1/4000: 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/120, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000, 1/4000. It may not be practical to actually use all these exposures all the time, but, at least then you know you have everything.