Conservative (real estate) HDRs from today

[crazycreature11]

THUMBS UP

 

[c.cloudwalker]

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

Never done HDR but from what I'm reading that has got to be the case. You end up combining 3, 5 or more exposures so as to cover the tonal range that the camera cannot cover in one exposure.

PM Manaheim. What you're trying to do is what he shows as the results of a good HDR. I'd be surprised if he didn't help you out.

 

[Jon_Are]

Here's another, just for fun:

 

[manaheim]

Hey Jon, got your bat signal...

I've been trying to get in here all day to talk a bit about this but haven't had the time. I plan to get to it tonight.

That being said, any chance you could put up your raw images somewhere for the first two shots so I could download them? There's something wonky going on with them but I'm not totally sure what and it's hard to tell without playing with the originals.

If that's cool you can PM me the download details.

If not, I'll be happy to offer what advice I can when I get back online this evening.

 

[Jon_Are]

I'd love for you to have a go at the RAWs, Chris, but I have no way of getting them to you (that I know of).

[new thought: I'd even put them on a disc and ship them to you]

Anyway, they're wonky because Photomatix has so many freaking settings, and no two tutorials / 'experts' on the net agree on even general guidelines and/or starting points.

I've been tweaking and tuning for hours, often 'til I get to the point where nothing looks real. Time to go to bed, then. I've got all kinds of variations of the same few images.

So, advise away. Maybe if you could share your starting points for each slider, that might go a long way toward my learning process.

Thanks for dropping in.

Jon

EDIT: To be honest, #2 looks pretty OK to me (I did change it to an improved version, not sure which one you saw). What is not right about it?

 

[Josh66]

but I have no way of getting them to you (that I know of).

Free File Hosting Made Simple - MediaFire

Like photobucket, but for files.

 

[Jon_Are]

Dang, Josh. Yer smart!

Thanks,

Jon

 

[Josh66]

Any time. Glad to help.

 

[manaheim]

I still need to invest more time with this, but honestly, Jon, I don't think you're far off... at least for my eye.

To be honest, I don't know how I've gotten myself some kind of name as "an HDR guy" since I've probably done 6-10 of them max, AND I'm a total slack-@ss about it when I do it... I don't bother metering dark and light areas, I keep it on auto white balance, etc.

What I do:

- Set up on tripod and get it REALLY steady.
- Spot meter and focus on whatever happens to be my primary focus point.
- Set aperature up for whatever depth of field I want, trying to keep within optimum for the lens/e.
- Spin the aperature wheel to the point where it says I am MASSIVELY underexposed (like literally fill up the exposure indicator to the right of the line).
- Then I follow this series of...
1. Wait 3-5 seconds to be sure camera is still.
2. Take shot.
3. Move exposure up 3 stops.
4. Repeat.
- I do this until I have the exposure at the opposite extreme of overexposure (bar all filled up)

Then I go home and generally edit the HDR using the RAW images as sources (no correction step inbetween). I usually select the exposures that I think are most appropriate, trying for no less than 3, no more than 5... some exceptions on the 5 though. I set the white balance to "As Shot", align images usually based upon features, reduce noise and ghosting, etc.

Then I tone-map.

Mostly I just keep tweaking it until it looks "right" to my eye, though sometimes "right" means a bit warm or cool, depending on what feeling I'm trying to portray. This is admittedly tricky, but it's very much a feel thing and I don't see any real pattern on the settings... though I imagine if I did 1000 of them or so I would.

Once done, the final rendering often seems to be not QUITE what I had in the preview screen... often a bit more red. So I usually wind up having to pull some red out of the final product and make other small tweaks to color and brightness and contrast.

I then save it as a 16 bit tiff and then open it up in photoshop. I want to retain as much of that color info and such as I can so I can make non-destructive adjustments.

I don't generally bother trying to sharpen the HDRs as they tend to be quite soft by nature and tend to have a bit of noise, which makes sharpening a disaster. I often consider cleaning up the noise and going a few steps further, but honestly most of the times I've done this it seems to work out so that these kinds of details seem less important in the final product than they would be in a more standard range image. Probably just because there's more detail to carry it without making razor edges on everything. Not certain, though.

The things I've noticed you have to watch out for is inadvertantly winding up with washed out trees outside and such, and I actually t hink most of that has to do with my not taking enough care at capture, but I'm still fiddling. You also have to watch out for nasty oversaturated colors, but you can usually pull those down in photoshop after the fact.

For me, part of the reason why I tend to rush these is...

1. I think I get a pretty good result just horsing around with it as I do- after all, this is about as close as you get to splashing paint on a wall in photography as you get, so I think you have a LOT of leeway.
2. Since I'm trying to actually behave and most people with HDRs are creating alternate realities, even if I don't get it dead-perfect, it stands out.
3. Hourly cost. Particularly at the rates I know you are charging, you have to consider how many $/hour you are eating up here. While I certainly think you should understand the tool inside and out as it can't help but make your process better and faster, I think you should keep in mind that there is a diminishing return factor when you are on a paying job. Obviously make your own choices here. Quality is important and will make you stand out amongst a sea of hacks... but 80% of the job might make you stand out just as well as 99%. You know what I mean?

BTW, here is a thread where I posted a few of these I did for a client this weekend: (one of them has a color space issue, but still looks pretty cool IMO) (paint->wall)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/174454-residential-real-estate-example.html

btw, I think it was your first two in your original post that had the most issue.

OH... and yes... ptlens is the stuff of the gods. And for what? $30? pfft. I'd pay 'em $100 without question. Photoshop has some of these capabilities, too, but PTLens is so much faster and easier.

 

[Jon_Are]

Chris,

You're the TPF HDR guy, well, because we say you are. That is, until some young buck de-thrones you.

Your camera set-up isn't much different than mine at all (and that's the part of the process I do understand pretty well).

What I need help with, I think, is the post stuff, particularly Photomatix settings. Or, at least, starting points. Defaults a good place to begin, I guess?

Also, some specific advice on keeping the windows looking natural. Whatever that means.

As for the dollar/time investment, oh yeah. I am fully aware of that. But by investing a lot of time now, learning it, my hope is that I can happily and speedily zip through the process when the meter's running. I know that what I can already do is so much more betterer than 95% of the real estate photos you'll find online. And I know it's good enough to 'fool' virtually all the agents into thinking I'm a near-genius.

I just want to be really good, that's all.

Holy crap...my grill is on fire. Be right back.

 

[musicaleCA]

Aren't grills supposed to be on fire? :lmao:

I think the really good people in any profession are the ones who want to be better at their job, for the sake of being better at their job. A mindset of doing the best job you possibly can is always a boon.

manaheim, it's that one HDR you use as an example all the time. Indoor foyer, plants, big windows and glass doors going on, and it's all perfectly exposed and doesn't look like an HDR at all. That's what makes me think "Oh...hey, that bloke might actually know what he's doing. Maybe..." :greenpbl:

And yes, your real estate photography is already quite good. Being honest, most pictures of real estate tend to look like they were done by the agent with their weeny P&S on full auto. *shudder*

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Dang, Josh. Yer smart!

Thanks,

Jon

Isn't that the point of sites like this? We learn from those who know.

At least, that's why I'm here.

Just hope manaheim the artist doesn't hate me for shouting his name so loud on this thread :er: I guess we'll see about that

In the meantime, who can argue with musicaleCA when he says: "I think the really good people in any profession are the ones who want to be better at their job, for the sake of being better at their job. A mindset of doing the best job you possibly can is always a boon."
:thumbup:

 

[manaheim]

Chris,

You're the TPF HDR guy, well, because we say you are. That is, until some young buck de-thrones you.

Does that work with other stuff? Can you declare me the super rich and famous guy?? Well, maybe just rich.

Your camera set-up isn't much different than mine at all (and that's the part of the process I do understand pretty well).

What I need help with, I think, is the post stuff, particularly Photomatix settings. Or, at least, starting points. Defaults a good place to begin, I guess?

I wish I could tell you but I honestly can't. It very clearly has a lot of variability based upon the subject, how the white balance was setup, how many exposures you have, whether or not you used flash, what items were in the room, etc. Each of mine has varied pretty drastically. Sorry I wish there were a magic formula starting point... well... there may be and I just haven't stumbled on it yet. If you find out, let me know. Well, either that, or I'll crown you instead.

Also, some specific advice on keeping the windows looking natural. Whatever that means.

I think that's primarily making sure you have the right source exposures and then not washing out the subject in PP. Note that you want to generally speaking err on the side of underexposing blues and (to a lesser degree) greens, because it really makes those colors pop.

As for the dollar/time investment, oh yeah. I am fully aware of that. But by investing a lot of time now, learning it, my hope is that I can happily and speedily zip through the process when the meter's running. I know that what I can already do is so much more betterer than 95% of the real estate photos you'll find online. And I know it's good enough to 'fool' virtually all the agents into thinking I'm a near-genius.

Yup, no doubt. I'm with you... I'm just hyper sensitive to the fact that residential real estate takes me easily 2x as long to shoot and process and makes me at BEST 1/3 the money... and that's at my "Yes, I understand all the other guys doing this are 1/4 my cost... but I'm better" price.

Holy crap...my grill is on fire. Be right back.

err... hope that flamed out quickly.

 

[manaheim]

I think the really good people in any profession are the ones who want to be better at their job, for the sake of being better at their job. A mindset of doing the best job you possibly can is always a boon.

Oddly, I've found in commercial real estate that being better got me in the door, but then they just want to rush rush rush even if it means not getting the quality of shot they expect from me. I'm always pushing back at least a little... gotta make sure I give them a quality product, but in general I find that business at least slightly trumps the need to get those nice big puffy white clouds in every shot. (as an example)

manaheim, it's that one HDR you use as an example all the time. Indoor foyer, plants, big windows and glass doors going on, and it's all perfectly exposed and doesn't look like an HDR at all. That's what makes me think "Oh...hey, that bloke might actually know what he's doing. Maybe..." :greenpbl:

Oh yeah... you mean the only HDR I have that I actually have an ounce of respect for? I probably know what I'm doing to some degree at this point, but I honestly have no idea why.

And yes, your real estate photography is already quite good. Being honest, most pictures of real estate tend to look like they were done by the agent with their weeny P&S on full auto. *shudder*

Oh sure. I think you could pretty much just have slightly better equipment (like a wide angle lens) and have the notion that maybe you should try to back yourself into a corner when taking the shot and you'd be about 80% better than most of the crap out there. It's astonishing how bad some of it is.

Just hope manaheim the artist doesn't hate me for shouting his name so loud on this thread :er: I guess we'll see about that

Actually, I was kinda flattered by the whole thing. Thanks for the ego boost.

 

[Jon_Are]

Alright, so here we go. The good news is, my house didn't burn down and I didn't singe a single hair. I was firing up the grill, paying it just half-attention, and the flames started a-shootin' a couple of feet in the air. Put out the fire, re-grouped, and had some tasty barbecue chicken w/ corn on cob.

Back on topic. I tried HDR-ing that dang dining room scene a few more times, using slightly different methods. First, I omitted using the most overexposed frame. Then, I omitted the TWO most overexposed frames, thinking that might chill out the blown window to some extent.

Didn't really help all that much. I'm to the point where I feel that the window isn't going to be well-exposed no matter what I do. The error here - and the lesson - is that this was probably not a good shot to begin with. It was a very sunny day and I was shooting a moderately dark room full on toward a large window. Maybe that shot, at that time, was not meant to be.

Not that I'm going to trash it. Blown highlights and all, it's still a fairly good shot.

As for Photomatix settings, I understand that they must be highly individualized. I guess part of my frustration with that, though, is the wide, wide range of advice I've encountered when searching out how to create a realistic HDR. For example, on the Strength slider alone, I saw some folks swear you shouldn't take it above 20 (but 10 is better), while others push 100 with it. Quite a wide range, that. And these were both specific to indoor, natural-lighting non-cartoony HDR creation.

I think I'll do OK. I just need to keep practicing, jotting down settings, and backing away from the screen when my eyes start to lose focus.

Chris (or anyone else, for that matter), if you still feel like it, I'll send you the RAW files of that evil dining room scene. If anyone is able to get a purty HDR out of it - windows included - I'll buy you a beer one day.

Or maybe grill you a chicken leg. :mrgreen:

Jon