HDR images come out absolutely terrible?!

SPL Tech

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I tried to stitch a few images together to get an HDR image and was surprised by the absolute garbage of the final output. Can anyone guess whats going on here? I am using a Canon 40D with the stock 28 - 135 mm lens and with +/- two full stops in auto exposure bracketing mode. I used a tripod and a self timer for the second set of pictures. I am using Photomax Pro 3.0 to stitch them together. The camera was set to Aperture priority mode with a f/6.3, auto white balance and color, and +7 (maximum) contrast. The contrast and aperture are the only things I did not have set on automatic.

img4937.jpg

img4939o.jpg

img4938.jpg


HDR:
img493789.jpg

Sorry, damn Image Shack is automaticaly flipping my pictures.

img4790n.jpg

img4791c.jpg

img4792e.jpg


HDR:
img479012compressor.jpg
 
HDR doesn't work very well with people subject. You can photoshop the person in after your HDR is complete.

For the landscape shot, did you play around with the Tone Mapping? That's pretty important. I'm going to guess that you didn't play around with the Tone Mapping sliders.
 
Considering that your first picture seems pretty well exposed, I wonder why do you feel the need to create a HDR photo?
 
I agree, I dont see the need for an HDR in the first image. Why did you chose HDR?

The person is blurry because while your camera is on a timer and tripod, the person can still move. The software will attempt to to align them, but can't work miracles. Your best bet would be to take the middle exposure image and use a layer mask to fix. As mentionned, people and HDR dont mix well right out of the software.

As for the other image, I'm not too sure. Maybe a lack of information? I'm thinking you are shooting in JPG instead of in RAW.
 
HDR is only for cases where you can't get everything at least decently exposed in one photo. each photo section you're using in the HDR result needs to have a new portion of the photo in perfect exposure

on the climbing, the first photo is perfectly exposed across the whole photo. thus there's no reason to even consider HDR

on the trees the first photo is near perfect for everything except the clouds, the second the clouds are perfect, the third one is junk as nothing is well exposed. drop the third one and try the HDR process again.
 
As for the other image, I'm not too sure. Maybe a lack of information? I'm thinking you are shooting in JPG instead of in RAW.

I think that's a huge reason for HDR photos not to look as good as they can be. :thumbup:
 
As for the other image, I'm not too sure. Maybe a lack of information? I'm thinking you are shooting in JPG instead of in RAW.

I think that's a huge reason for HDR photos not to look as good as they can be. :thumbup:

not really, it's mostly because people use HDR in cases they shouldn't or else they take it way too far.
 
As for the other image, I'm not too sure. Maybe a lack of information? I'm thinking you are shooting in JPG instead of in RAW.

I think that's a huge reason for HDR photos not to look as good as they can be. :thumbup:

not really, it's mostly because people use HDR in cases they shouldn't or else they take it way too far.

That is true too (done that myself) but I mean as far as color loss and getting a lot of noise. I will find out soon (Camera comes tomorrow) :)
 
, and +7 (maximum) contrast.

Two points:
  1. As mentioned the first scene was not an HDR candidate as it had insufficient dynamic range. It certainly could have been tone mapped as a single image by using software like Topaz Adjust.
  2. Your note that you set your camera for maximum contrast could mean you were shooting JPEG, which means 80% of the color information the image sensor recorded was discarded milliseconds after you released the shutter. Additionally, the entire image was converted into 64 pixel squares (8 px by 8 px).
Of course if you were shooting RAW rather than JPEG the camera woulsd ignore the +7 contrast.

I have to ask. Why +7 on the contrast?
 
As for the other image, I'm not too sure. Maybe a lack of information? I'm thinking you are shooting in JPG instead of in RAW.

I think that's a huge reason for HDR photos not to look as good as they can be. :thumbup:

not really, it's mostly because people use HDR in cases they shouldn't or else they take it way too far.

I agree that people use the HDR style of processing way too often and in many cases, not when I would use it.

But if you are using it for "something you should", you need to seek the most amount of data to be captured to be allowed for better processing. If you shoot JPG, you are cutting out a bunch of data and letting your camera do the first pass of processing on its own.
 
, and +7 (maximum) contrast.

Two points:
  1. As mentioned the first scene was not an HDR candidate as it had insufficient dynamic range. It certainly could have been tone mapped as a single image by using software like Topaz Adjust.
  2. Your note that you set your camera for maximum contrast could mean you were shooting JPEG, which means 80% of the color information the image sensor recorded was discarded milliseconds after you released the shutter. Additionally, the entire image was converted into 64 pixel squares (8 px by 8 px).
Of course if you were shooting RAW rather than JPEG the camera woulsd ignore the +7 contrast.

I have to ask. Why +7 on the contrast?
I did use medium / fine JPEG. Is sRAW okay or does it have to be shot in full RAW? I did the contrast boost as I like colorful pictures. Nutral tones just look boring to me, especially when I am taking pictures of naturally colorful subjects. How does the camera ignore the contrast settings if I shoot in RAW? I though it dident matter, it will apply the white balance, color temp and user defined settings regardless of the shooting mode?
 
HDR is only for cases where you can't get everything at least decently exposed in one photo. each photo section you're using in the HDR result needs to have a new portion of the photo in perfect exposure

on the climbing, the first photo is perfectly exposed across the whole photo. thus there's no reason to even consider HDR

on the trees the first photo is near perfect for everything except the clouds, the second the clouds are perfect, the third one is junk as nothing is well exposed. drop the third one and try the HDR process again.
Here it is with the overexposed pic out:

img47901auto.jpg


Does anyone know if there is there a way the Canon 40D can do five frame +/- 2EV in increments of 1EV auto exposure bracketing?
 
Just do the bracketing manually, that's what I do. At least that way you can choose which exposures you want instead of some arbitrarily pre-set value.

I don't know if it applies to converting jpg's into HDR's as it does for RAW, but make sure you have the right colour space selected on photomatix. It took me ages to work out why my images always looked garbage and it was simply that I had Adobe RGB checked instead of sRGB (which the camera is set to).
 
Just do the bracketing manually, that's what I do. At least that way you can choose which exposures you want instead of some arbitrarily pre-set value.

I don't know if it applies to converting jpg's into HDR's as it does for RAW, but make sure you have the right colour space selected on photomatix. It took me ages to work out why my images always looked garbage and it was simply that I had Adobe RGB checked instead of sRGB (which the camera is set to).
Where the the program is this Adobe RGB / sRGB you are referring to?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top