help~~What quality of light we are looking for when doing HDR photography

[Jason.C]

I found very difficult to predict what kind of HDR look will come out from my taken photos. Some of them are surprisingly good. Some of them are just not what I expected.
regards

 

[MK3Brent]

That's the beauty of HDR processing, you can make it all work for you.

Most of the time, when I feel the lighting isn't perfect for the subject I'm shooting... I will switch to bracket and do a 3 photo set.
There are a lot of details you can extract from just about any lighting, but personally I like lower light HDR's. These are challenging due to noise that exists when processing.

 

[Rephargotohp]

The "Quality" of light does not change even when doing HDR, in fact flat light will make a worse HDR than a standard photograph. If it's an Totally overcast day (NOT broken clouds, those can be very High Dynamic range) You won't get a great HDR image, just as you wouldn't get a great standard photograph. People try to make HDR the star of the photograph, when it should be a Great photograph to begin with but just not able to be captured because of dynamic range in a single image.

You can learn a great deal if you look at your 32 bit intermediary HDR radiance image, If it looks OK on screen, it will make for a bad HDR. If the 32bit image looks really bad, it will most likely make for a better HDR.

Bottom Line – It’s still “All About the Light”
If…How 32 bit images tell the whole story

 

[Jason.C]

Thats means I won't be able to view the HDR results if I don't process it? is there any ways I can predict the HDR looking while I'm photographing? like what lighting situation , textures will make a good HDR photograph? please explain a bit more thank you

regards
Jason

 

[MK3Brent]

Thats means I won't be able to view the HDR results if I don't process it? is there any ways I can predict the HDR looking while I'm photographing? like what lighting situation , textures will make a good HDR photograph? please explain a bit more thank you

regards
Jason

You need to merge the photos with different exposures and process them before you can really see, but with experience you can tell which details will make for a good shot.

Take a look at some of the challenges posted in this sub-forum, and you'll see the same files transformed into way different interpretations.
In the end, it's up to you honestly.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/269250-shootout-36-a.html

 

[Rephargotohp]

Thats means I won't be able to view the HDR results if I don't process it? is there any ways I can predict the HDR looking while I'm photographing? like what lighting situation , textures will make a good HDR photograph? please explain a bit more thank you

regards
Jason

It depends what your "HDR Intent" is. Is it to make a surrealistic, Grunge, painterly, Computer graphic looking style of HDR, those are hard to predict because they aren't very "Scene" related in dynamics. They will often bring out any textures that are in your scence because they use a lot of local contrast. For those you could shoot about any situation.

If however you are looking to do an image with a high "Scene" dynamic range and then process that to "as the eye sees" or a more natural look for HDR, you need to start ith a scene that in itself has a high dynamic range.

There is a simple and quick test to do if you want to do a basic measurement of your scene. Put your camera on Spot or partial metering. and in manual mode, Meter the brightest part of the scene and place that at the +2 neter mark, now move your metering area to the darkets part of the scene and if that reading is -2 or more, then most likely you have suffcient Dynamic range to make an HDR worth while.

If the sun itself is in the scene , there is more trhan suffcient dynamic range. Broken Cloud dayts make for god HDR's. Interiors architecture with Window light make for good HDR's, Backlit Architecture makes for good HDR. If it can easily be capyured with a single image, it is not a good candidate for HDR, although most people will anyway.

The more you do them the more you recognize a "Scene" that has potential

 

[jake337]

One must also realize that most images labeled as "High Dynamic Range" photos, really aren't. We only percieve them to be.


A nice write up from another forum:

About "high dynamic range" - Open Photography Forums

 

[Bynx]

While I pretty much agree with the last post by Rephargotohp I would suggest you can try doing HDR for situations which dont look like they need HDR processing. The image which emerges is very well detailed, looking better than a single shot. This is an example of what I mean. This was certainly not a HDR lit scene, but I think the HDR processing with few shots then tone mapped gives me a more interesting shot than any single shot I could have taken.

 

[Compaq]

When I'm out shooting, I most often take several exposures even if I probably won't do HDR. Exceptions are when I've experienced earlier that it won't work (with my vision). Such times could be white scenes with snow and a white sky. I've found tone mapping doesn't do much for me, there.

I look at the scene, establish the brightest part and the darkest part and see if I need several exposures. If in doubt, I always take a few extra. Experience gives you the ability to predict what each scene will come out based on your processing. The more you process, the more you know what you will do in pp before you're even home with the files.

 

[vipgraphx]

From my experience thus far is that there are often times when HDR is not needed but like Bynx sometimes makes for a more interesting picture IF and only you are into tone mapped images. To truly tell on the light you would need to take a few exposures and if you could not capture all the details you want then HDR is the magic key. On another note sometimes HDR/ tone mapping just does not work when you do not have enough light to capture detail.

 

[ann]

What I have discovered (at least in my mind ) is that multi exposures give the impression of depth. Similar to the image Bynx has posted.

Makes me wondered if this is similar (similar not the same) as stacking?

For me the issues usually is the result of people thinking just hitting a few sliders and clicks turns the image into an award winning photo.

There is a reason some folks here post terrific images, they have done the foot work; failed and kept learning and their work improves, along with the knowledge of just what lighting conditions are going to allow which techniques.