HDR Question

[412 Burgh]

I have been interested in HDR for a while now. I want to give it a go and try it out. So I just have a few questions, on the whole process. I know some people use Photoshop, and others use an actual HDR software. I want to get it one on my mac and been trying to read some reviews on the softwares.

1. So what are the main softwares/programs?

2. Can I use one photo and over expose it, then under expose another and merge the 2 edited photos and 1 original photo together?

 

[480sparky]

You can use two photos, but the results may not include the dynamic range of the scene.

Figure out what the 'proper' exposure is for the brightest part of the scene, as well as the darkest, and take a series of shots to cover that entire range.

For instance, if you're using ISO 100 and you want to use f/11, what will the shutter need to be for the brightest part of the scene? Let's say it's 1/250. OK.... now find out the same thing for the darkest part. Let's say 1/4. So you would take 7 shots. 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125 and 1/250. Now you've technically captured the entire dynamic range of the shot. But just for S&G, take a 1/2 and 1/500 for good measure, just to CYA.

That should be all you need to create a good HDR of the scene.

 

[412 Burgh]

You can use two photos, but the results may not include the dynamic range of the scene.

Figure out what the 'proper' exposure is for the brightest part of the scene, as well as the darkest, and take a series of shots to cover that entire range.

For instance, if you're using ISO 100 and you want to use f/11, what will the shutter need to be for the brightest part of the scene? Let's say it's 1/250. OK.... now find out the same thing for the darkest part. Let's say 1/4. So you would take 7 shots. 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125 and 1/250. Now you've technically captured the entire dynamic range of the shot. But just for S&G, take a 1/2 and 1/500 for good measure, just to CYA.

That should be all you need to create a good HDR of the scene.

Thank you! I was reading it all wrong! I thought it was just 3 images, must have had some bad links. I will have to look further into it and try it out in the future!

 

[480sparky]

Thank you! I was reading it all wrong! I thought it was just 3 images, must have had some bad links. I will have to look further into it and try it out in the future!

3 shots is fairly common, but not a mandate. Try some of the Shootouts in the HDR section. The menu there ranges from 3 to 24 shots.

 

[lyonsroar]

When I was up in the mountains on vaca last week I was routinely shooting 9 exposures of every scene. The problem I ran into during PP is that my clouds are moving across the sky and it looks crappy.

Just keep that in mind...

 

[412 Burgh]

Yeah That's what mainly the question was about. You really can't do HDR's on moving subjects like water, clouds, and stuff like that. I want to get a tripod so I can try out some HDR's!

 

[KmH]

Sure you can make HDR's that have movement in them, but you have to have the necessary post processing skills to make it look right.

The consensus best HDR software available right now is from hdrSoft.com and is called Photomatix Pro. You can download a trial. The trial puts the Photomatic watermark on any HDR's you make using the trial.

Their web site has some tutorials too. www.hdrSoft.com

Three exposures is the miniumum required to make a ture HDR, but as mentioned a scene may require more exposures to cover the entire dynamic range the scene has. Any less than 3 exposuers is not an HDR though it may be tone-mapped to look like one. Usually, the smaller the EV steps, gthe better the end result.

Many landscape shooters avoid using a GND filter by making 2 exposures. One for the sky and one for the land, and then blending the 2 post process, using a mask or an eraser tool.

Few are willing to take the time and make the detailed effort required to make a good HDR. In post process several visits between Photomatix, for fine tuning the tone-mapping, and Photoshop, for clean up and local edits, is what it usually takes and often requires several hours of work.

 

[412 Burgh]

Sure you can amke HDR's that have movement in them, but you have to have the necessary post processing skills to make it look right.

The consensus best HDR software available right now is from hdrSoft.com and is called Photomatix Pro. You can download a trial. The trial puts the Photomatic watermark on any HDR's you make using the trial.

Their web site has some tutorials too. www.hdrSoft.com

Three exposures is the miniumum required to make a ture HDR, but as mentioned a scene may require more exposures to cover the entire dynamic range the scene has. Any less than 3 exposuers is not an HDR though it may be tone-mapped to look like one. Usually, the smaller the EV steps, gthe better the end result.

Many landscape shooters avoid using a GND filter by making 2 exposures. One for the sky and one for the land, and then blending the 2 post process, using a mask or an eraser tool.

Few are willing to take the time and make the detailed effort required to make a good HDR. In post process several visits between Photomatix, for fine tuning the tone-mapping, and Photoshop, for clean up and local edits, is what it usually takes and often requires several hours of work.

Thank you, I didn't know people actually edited the HDR after it was manipulated. I'll have to do some further reading on the website. I downloaded the trial, but the software looked very lacking, due to the graphics. however, I shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.

 

[adversus]

You can get away with it by using a single exposure, but the results won't work nearly as good. I've done a few HDR edits that were not taken with HDR in mind, so I only had the "real" exposure to work with. I shoot RAW, so I made copies of the original and used a RAW editor to adjust exposure +/- on the copies. Then I used a combination of Aperture, Photomatix Pro, and Pixelmator (a competitor to Photoshop on the Mac) for editing.

This is a single exposure shot which turned out very badly:


Columbia River Gorge (East) by adversus.us, on Flickr

Here's the same picture, using an HDR technique (a total of 7 images combined: The original (above), 3 stepped down in exposure with 1/3 increments, and 3 stepped up in exposure with 1/3 increments):


Columbia River Gorge - B&W 2 by adversus.us, on Flickr

 

[412 Burgh]

You can get away with it by using a single exposure, but the results won't work nearly as good. I've done a few HDR edits that were not taken with HDR in mind, so I only had the "real" exposure to work with. I shoot RAW, so I made copies of the original and used a RAW editor to adjust exposure +/- on the copies. Then I used a combination of Aperture, Photomatix Pro, and Pixelmator (a competitor to Photoshop on the Mac) for editing.

This is a single exposure shot which turned out very badly:


Columbia River Gorge (East) by adversus.us, on Flickr

Here's the same picture, using an HDR technique (a total of 7 images combined: The original (above), 3 stepped down in exposure with 1/3 increments, and 3 stepped up in exposure with 1/3 increments):


Columbia River Gorge - B&W 2 by adversus.us, on Flickr

That looks amazing! how do you do HDR with clouds, do you do it quickly? or let them move throughout your frams?

 

[adversus]

If you read my post carefuly

This HDR was done with a single image. I didn't take the picture with HDR in mind, but I didn't like how it turned out, so I turned into HDR after the fact by copying the image. So rather than shooting 7 frames on-site, I shot 1 frame and copied it six times, adjusting exposure in software rather than in-camera.

 

[412 Burgh]

oh, I thought you did the first one without HDR then, did the other one. I was going to say they look pretty similar! I love the second image!

 

[adversus]

I learned how to do HDR using the tutorials on HDRsoft's website (they're the makers of Photomatix). Download the trial and try it out, that's the best way to learn!