HDR

[hirschizer]

well lately ive been reading a lot about hdr and how it works and such.
some things ive picked up
1) u have to under expose and over expose your image to get shadows and highlighted area to get detail
2) no not change apereture just shutter speed to under and over expose


couple of things id like to ask u guys is
1) when i over and under expose how far do i go and how many exposers do i take.
2) should i change iso (yes or no when and at what settings should i leve it at if no)
3) can i do it in photoshop 2 or do i need a software
4) do i under and over expose for all the parts of the image i.e. sky bulding subject. or just diffrent highlights and shadows?
5) idk just any hints or maybe a how to website....

 

[markc]

It's not that you under or overexpose the image explicitly. You shoot images that will make sure that you have all areas that will be in the image well exposed. If you have a shot where the whole image is overexposed, you don't need it. Having all the shadows exposed is as far as you need to go in that direction. Also, if you can get all the areas of the shot exposed in one take, you don't need HDR.

 

[Remi M.]

1. If the scene has no fast moving elements (waves, clouds....) I shoot 5 exposures 1 normal + 2 stops underexposed + 2 stops over exposed. But like markc said if the whole image is overexposed ot underexposed I delete that shot. If the scene has fast moving clouds I use bracketing. If I don't then the clouds loose definition (sometimes that actualy is a good thing). I bracket for 3 exposures 1.3 under and over.

2. I would leave the iso at the lowest possible.

3. Photoshop 2? As in CS2? If yes than yes you can do it. But I use Photmatix.

4. Your goal is to have a exposure where the darkest shadows are exposed enough to show detail. And a exposure where the brightest part of the image is NOT blownout. And a few exposures in between.

5. Taking the shots and creating the 32bit image is the relatively easy part. The hard part is the tone maping. It's where you convert that 32bit image back into 8bit for general viewing. Photomatix by default gives HDR images a "cartoony" look that I don't like. So it takes some tweaking to get the image to look the way you want to.

Visit my gallery. I have a HDR set. You can tell by the file name how many exposures I took for each image.

 

[fmw]

Time to pull out the old Ansel Adams books and look into the subject of the zone system. I'll bet your local library has a copy of "The Negative." That would the the perfect primer for HDR and written more than a half century before HDR was invented or even possible. I won't elaborate. I'll just suggest that HDR does nothing more than bring unmanageable dynamic range into manageability. You can learn about dynamic range in the first place by going back to the basics. Check out the zone system.

 

[benhasajeep]

I absolutely agree on the zone system for HDR. Like said above its not just your over and under exposing (I did reply in another post saying just under and over expose but that was lazy typing). You are exposing for all the different areas in a picture for lack of better words. The scene you have framed will dictate how many shots are required to get the full dynamic range.

I put the camera on spot meter (also have a hand held meter). And I set the camera to aperature priority. I then meter the different areas of the picture while watching the shutter settings the camera meter says is appropriate for that area of the scene. I have not worked with more than 5 pictures. My first tries at HDR were not true HDR as the scenes were really not sutiable for it. I am getting better at know when and when not to use HDR.

I have seen alot of people say -5, -3, -1, 0, +1, +3, +5. Thats basicaly a shotgun approach. The thing is one area may only need -4 to be exposed correctly. If you do a series of just odds, you will miss correct exposure for that element of the picture. Basically for the best results meter all the different areas and expose a shot for them. If there is not alot of differences in the readings its probably not a good scene for HDR.

After I meter I then set the camera on a tripod and with remote release shoot the settings I wrote down. I hear alot of people handhold for the shots but I have a QR plate so tripod for me is no biggie. I have been lazy and done the auto exposure compensation thing, and held the shutter down. The results definately showed I was lazy!

 

[davis10]

I've heard that although you don't get the same quality as a bunch of different exposures, you can shoot the image in RAW and save as many different jpegs as you need.

(Im new to this too)

 

[dewey]

I'm new to the whole HDR thing too... I recently started working with it, and it's certainly useful when done right and annoying as heck when done wrong!

I'll save you all some time and say shooting RAW and saving JPEGs at different exposures doesn't do much - it's a waste of time. The only way to get any sort of a useful HDR image is to shoot for different exposures.

It makes an AMAZING difference when shooting at night!! :thumbup: