My first ever HDR image

[jamesbjenkins]

OP, until recently I had a D90 as well. It's more than capable of capturing high quality HDR, although thanks to Nikon gimping it with only allowing a 3 shot bracket, you have to sometimes take matters into your own hands. Thankfully, when shooting stationary objects this isn't an issue.

You have to be in aperture-priority for it to work best, so your depth of field stays consistent. Leave the metering on matrix and let the D90 do its auto bracketing set of 3 shutter releases, then while being careful not to nudge the camera too much, switch to spot metering and tag the hot spot (in this case, the light over the fireplace) and capture a single image under your spot meter. When you combine them in post, that should give you the detail you're looking for in the hot spots.

There are lots of ways you can deal with the blown highlights, but that's one of the easier ones. Especially when you can only take a 3 shot Auto-Bracket. When you upgrade to FX, this is no longer an issue, as all of them can take up to 9 images in an auto-bracketed sequence.

Please post more images once you've had a chance to take in the advice and shoot some more! Good luck!

 

[jamesbjenkins]

My suggestion to OP would be to never do anything that you consider "a hassle" unless elements are automated for you.

Choices in exposures are something you should be controlling with some amount of care... not simply letting the camera bracket for you and be done.


My suggestion to James would be to not tell others how to express their opinions, except that would be me telling him how to express his, which would have some internal logic issues.

Edit: That said... who are you to question how a "pro" gives advice? This always fascinates me. If someone really is that good, perhaps rather than judging their approach you should just sorta keep your mouth shut and listen? Call me crazy.

I certainly don't have any problem with opinions, especially since that's all any of us have on this forum. My problem is when people like Mr. Catalano jump onto a thread like this, attack the OP and don't offer the slightest bit of specific advice to help the rookie along. I wouldn't have said a thing about Mr. Catalano if he wouldn't have been such an a$$. If he wants to be considered a professional, he really should consider using some of his talent or intelligence for the betterment of this community. Otherwise, as I said, he's just typing to feel superior. The world doesn't need anymore self-promoting egotism.

 

[Bynx]

I dont know why bozos hang around the HDR forum advising people not to use HDR.

Bynx... I hope that wasn't aimed at me! (If it was aimed at Catalano... that's OK!) I just get so tired of all the way over-processed crap we are seeing so much of.. mostly on subjects that don't even have high dynamic ranges! I like HDR when used properly... but I don't like HDR cartoons! (although a lot of that is more over done tone mapping, since they don't even seem to know what HDR is!)

I was trying to help the OP see that she needed more exposures to HDR that properly... I think I made my point on that.

Yes it was mainly aimed at Catalano. In your first post however, your first sentence is a$$ backwards, in my opinion. Ive stated the lighting found inside the house is fascinating and needs HDR to really do it justice. Outside shooting for HDR is another thing entirely, and one I find not as interesting as interior. Im really tired of seeing exterior shots of dirty, depressing looking skies and Homer Simpson nuclear yellow green grass. That stuff aside under many circumstances great HDR images can be had outside. The fact is, HDR can be applied to almost anything. And I remember someone saying recently that HDR wasnt an art form, which I disagree with strongly. HDR is something unto itself. It produces more life like images than any single shot, it can also produce images which look different, a more artisitic look to them that you cant find in any single image. There is such a range of looks that go from great to hideous, but even hideous can have an application somewhere. Anywhere where there is a fall off of light from its source is a place for HDR.
By the way cpgibson I agree entirely with your second post.

 

[manaheim]

I dont know why bozos hang around the HDR forum advising people not to use HDR.

Bynx... I hope that wasn't aimed at me! (If it was aimed at Catalano... that's OK!) I just get so tired of all the way over-processed crap we are seeing so much of.. mostly on subjects that don't even have high dynamic ranges! I like HDR when used properly... but I don't like HDR cartoons! (although a lot of that is more over done tone mapping, since they don't even seem to know what HDR is!)

I was trying to help the OP see that she needed more exposures to HDR that properly... I think I made my point on that.

Yes it was mainly aimed at Catalano. In your first post however, your first sentence is a$$ backwards, in my opinion. Ive stated the lighting found inside the house is fascinating and needs HDR to really do it justice. Outside shooting for HDR is another thing entirely, and one I find not as interesting as interior. Im really tired of seeing exterior shots of dirty, depressing looking skies and Homer Simpson nuclear yellow green grass. That stuff aside under many circumstances great HDR images can be had outside. The fact is, HDR can be applied to almost anything. And I remember someone saying recently that HDR wasnt an art form, which I disagree with strongly. HDR is something unto itself. It produces more life like images than any single shot, it can also produce images which look different, a more artisitic look to them that you cant find in any single image. There is such a range of looks that go from great to hideous, but even hideous can have an application somewhere. Anywhere where there is a fall off of light from its source is a place for HDR.
By the way cpgibson I agree entirely with your second post.

Would you call b/w art? How about acryllic paints?

HDR isn't art, it's a method... perhaps a medium... but not art in and of itself.

There's nothing wrong with that, and you can certainly produce wonderful art using that method, but simply rendering something with HDR hardly makes it art.

 

[Bellaluna]

OP, until recently I had a D90 as well. It's more than capable of capturing high quality HDR, although thanks to Nikon gimping it with only allowing a 3 shot bracket, you have to sometimes take matters into your own hands. Thankfully, when shooting stationary objects this isn't an issue.

You have to be in aperture-priority for it to work best, so your depth of field stays consistent. Leave the metering on matrix and let the D90 do its auto bracketing set of 3 shutter releases, then while being careful not to nudge the camera too much, switch to spot metering and tag the hot spot (in this case, the light over the fireplace) and capture a single image under your spot meter. When you combine them in post, that should give you the detail you're looking for in the hot spots.

There are lots of ways you can deal with the blown highlights, but that's one of the easier ones. Especially when you can only take a 3 shot Auto-Bracket. When you upgrade to FX, this is no longer an issue, as all of them can take up to 9 images in an auto-bracketed sequence.

Please post more images once you've had a chance to take in the advice and shoot some more! Good luck!

Excellent suggestion, I may just try that! Again, like I said, it was my first HDR, and since the D90 only does 3 exposures for auto-bracketing, I ran with it.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Excellent suggestion, I may just try that! Again, like I said, it was my first HDR, and since the D90 only does 3 exposures for auto-bracketing, I ran with it.

I'm glad you're getting some useful information. I really wish I'd found a site like this a few years ago when I was stumbling through teaching myself photography.

I hope you post more, and I hope I can be of some help. I'm inspired by your signature, because you have the exact setup that I started my business with (D90 w/ kit lens, 55-200, 35 1.8, SB600). There's nothing like looking at your portfolio and watching your images get better over time...

Cheers!

 

[cgipson1]

I dont know why bozos hang around the HDR forum advising people not to use HDR.

Bynx... I hope that wasn't aimed at me! (If it was aimed at Catalano... that's OK!) I just get so tired of all the way over-processed crap we are seeing so much of.. mostly on subjects that don't even have high dynamic ranges! I like HDR when used properly... but I don't like HDR cartoons! (although a lot of that is more over done tone mapping, since they don't even seem to know what HDR is!)

I was trying to help the OP see that she needed more exposures to HDR that properly... I think I made my point on that.

Yes it was mainly aimed at Catalano. In your first post however, your first sentence is a$$ backwards, in my opinion. Ive stated the lighting found inside the house is fascinating and needs HDR to really do it justice. Outside shooting for HDR is another thing entirely, and one I find not as interesting as interior. Im really tired of seeing exterior shots of dirty, depressing looking skies and Homer Simpson nuclear yellow green grass. That stuff aside under many circumstances great HDR images can be had outside. The fact is, HDR can be applied to almost anything. And I remember someone saying recently that HDR wasnt an art form, which I disagree with strongly. HDR is something unto itself. It produces more life like images than any single shot, it can also produce images which look different, a more artisitic look to them that you cant find in any single image. There is such a range of looks that go from great to hideous, but even hideous can have an application somewhere. Anywhere where there is a fall off of light from its source is a place for HDR.
By the way cpgibson I agree entirely with your second post.

I agree that HDR is an excellent medium for use in interior shots.. and have seen some phenomenal photos done that way. But if it is done, it needs to be done with adequate exposure range to capture all the detail. I am sorry you don't approve of the way I attempted to convey that to the OP.. as I am sure she got the message.

 

[Bellaluna]

Bynx... I hope that wasn't aimed at me! (If it was aimed at Catalano... that's OK!) I just get so tired of all the way over-processed crap we are seeing so much of.. mostly on subjects that don't even have high dynamic ranges! I like HDR when used properly... but I don't like HDR cartoons! (although a lot of that is more over done tone mapping, since they don't even seem to know what HDR is!)

I was trying to help the OP see that she needed more exposures to HDR that properly... I think I made my point on that.

Yes it was mainly aimed at Catalano. In your first post however, your first sentence is a$$ backwards, in my opinion. Ive stated the lighting found inside the house is fascinating and needs HDR to really do it justice. Outside shooting for HDR is another thing entirely, and one I find not as interesting as interior. Im really tired of seeing exterior shots of dirty, depressing looking skies and Homer Simpson nuclear yellow green grass. That stuff aside under many circumstances great HDR images can be had outside. The fact is, HDR can be applied to almost anything. And I remember someone saying recently that HDR wasnt an art form, which I disagree with strongly. HDR is something unto itself. It produces more life like images than any single shot, it can also produce images which look different, a more artisitic look to them that you cant find in any single image. There is such a range of looks that go from great to hideous, but even hideous can have an application somewhere. Anywhere where there is a fall off of light from its source is a place for HDR.
By the way cpgibson I agree entirely with your second post.

I agree that HDR is an excellent medium for use in interior shots.. and have seen some phenomenal photos done that way. But if it is done, it needs to be done with adequate exposure range to capture all the detail. I am sorry you don't approve of the way I attempted to convey that to the OP.. as I am sure she got the message.

Its all good! Like I said, I knew it wasn't the best shot to begin with, but I was excited to had done my first HDR shot. And the fact that it was 7pm, and I had nothing better to shoot (and I was trying to take a break on the awfully boring paper I had to write, which I have since finished...yay!) it was really a trial and error shot.

Now lets all stop fighting and get along!

 

[cgipson1]

Yes it was mainly aimed at Catalano. In your first post however, your first sentence is a$$ backwards, in my opinion. Ive stated the lighting found inside the house is fascinating and needs HDR to really do it justice. Outside shooting for HDR is another thing entirely, and one I find not as interesting as interior. Im really tired of seeing exterior shots of dirty, depressing looking skies and Homer Simpson nuclear yellow green grass. That stuff aside under many circumstances great HDR images can be had outside. The fact is, HDR can be applied to almost anything. And I remember someone saying recently that HDR wasnt an art form, which I disagree with strongly. HDR is something unto itself. It produces more life like images than any single shot, it can also produce images which look different, a more artisitic look to them that you cant find in any single image. There is such a range of looks that go from great to hideous, but even hideous can have an application somewhere. Anywhere where there is a fall off of light from its source is a place for HDR.
By the way cpgibson I agree entirely with your second post.

I agree that HDR is an excellent medium for use in interior shots.. and have seen some phenomenal photos done that way. But if it is done, it needs to be done with adequate exposure range to capture all the detail. I am sorry you don't approve of the way I attempted to convey that to the OP.. as I am sure she got the message.

Its all good! Like I said, I knew it wasn't the best shot to begin with, but I was excited to had done my first HDR shot. And the fact that it was 7pm, and I had nothing better to shoot (and I was trying to take a break on the awfully boring paper I had to write, which I have since finished...yay!) it was really a trial and error shot.

Now lets all stop fighting and get along!

hahaha... this isn't fighting! Really! lol!

 

[HughGuessWho]

I don’t think the OP was submitting what he thought was an award winning photograph. He simply stated that this was his first attempt at HDR and was wondering if he was on the right track. I don’t think composition was of any concern. His question was more like "is this how you do it?”. Isn’t that what this forum is all about? I truly don’t understand all of the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes.
OP – The main purpose for HDR (High Dynamic Range) is to be able to produce an image where range of lights and darks are beyond the effective range of you camera sensor. To practice HDR processing, look for a subject or scene where there is parts that are very dark and very light, such as an outside shot where there is a both bright areas and shadowed areas. Make sure you take at least three exposures; one exposing for the Bright areas, one exposing for the Dark areas and one exposed for the mids. Then process you HDR and keep playing around with it until the Bright and the Darks both look properly exposed.
I will also add, that when I first started playing with HDR, I always shot in RAW and then adjusted the exposure in ACR . That is a rookie mistake. If you shoot in RAW, DO NOT TOUCH exposure in ACR. That confuses and defeats the purpose.
Lastly, I am sure the “Pros” on here will slam my post for improper terminology etc, but my point is to help you out with what I had to learn on my own by trial and error. I may also mention that, though many on this forum do not like the “cartoon” look of some HDR’s, I might mention that although I don’t particularly like that level of processing, they are very popular and many who sell their work are laughing all the way to the bank with their proceeds from the sale of their “over processed, cartoon looking, technically incorrect, art”.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Would you call b/w art? How about acryllic paints?

HDR isn't art, it's a method... perhaps a medium... but not art in and of itself.

There's nothing wrong with that, and you can certainly produce wonderful art using that method, but simply rendering something with HDR hardly makes it art.

If photography is art, then HDR is art. Take the painter who uses traditional paints; is the painter who uses oils not creating art because he does not use traditional paints?

 

[Bellaluna]

I don’t think the OP was submitting what he thought was an award winning photograph. He simply stated that this was his first attempt at HDR and was wondering if he was on the right track. I don’t think composition was of any concern. His question was more like "is this how you do it?”. Isn’t that what this forum is all about? I truly don’t understand all of the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes.

Pretty much this, except that I'm a "she".

 

[Bynx]

Shooting for HDR I think goes beyond simple photography. Regardless what many think there is more work and planning that goes into an HDR image. Whether its a 3D like, clear as a bell image, or an over the top painterly look, I think both are an Art. Or rather an art form just beyond photography because its not pure photography and its not pure pixel pushing.
Hughguesswho, when people come into the HDR forum spouting off about how this shot or that shot doesnt need to be done as an HDR image, it ruffles the feathers of a few who just wish they would piss off and bother other people. The idea of the HDR forum is to post HDR images, be they good, bad, or ugly. Giving advice on how to make the ugly, bad, the bad, good is what we are here for, not to spout BS about what they know little of. As for the guy in question, at the moment, he doesnt like HDR yet he tone maps his portraits so they look like over the top HDR images. He used 4 sentences in his post and all but one was nonsense and the other his personal opionion. The image by the OP IS an HDR, there is nothing wrong with the composition. Whether its cutting it or not is, as I said his personal opinion, which I do agree with. I dont like the camera angle used. I can see the camera with a flash on top in the glass object on top of the mantle. HDR isnt used too much. Its a new world to most photographers and it takes a bit of time to learn not to overdo it. I am not sure if the last sentence was meant directly to the image posted or to HDR in general. It can never be used incorrectly. Any HDR image is better than any single shot. Ive never seen this proved otherwise. So to the OP just keep at it. Try the same shot again but take another couple shots more underexposed to bring up the details in the lamps, then post your results. If there is a big improvement, then you will understand why these sites are important to those who want to learn.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Shooting for HDR I think goes beyond simple photography. Regardless what many think there is more work and planning that goes into an HDR image. Whether its a 3D like, clear as a bell image, or an over the top painterly look, I think both are an Art. Or rather an art form just beyond photography because its not pure photography and its not pure pixel pushing.
Hughguesswho, when people come into the HDR forum spouting off about how this shot or that shot doesnt need to be done as an HDR image, it ruffles the feathers of a few who just wish they would piss off and bother other people. The idea of the HDR forum is to post HDR images, be they good, bad, or ugly. Giving advice on how to make the ugly, bad, the bad, good is what we are here for, not to spout BS about what they know little of. As for the guy in question, at the moment, he doesnt like HDR yet he tone maps his portraits so they look like over the top HDR images. He used 4 sentences in his post and all but one was nonsense and the other his personal opionion. The image by the OP IS an HDR, there is nothing wrong with the composition. Whether its cutting it or not is, as I said his personal opinion, which I do agree with. I dont like the camera angle used. I can see the camera with a flash on top in the glass object on top of the mantle. HDR isnt used too much. Its a new world to most photographers and it takes a bit of time to learn not to overdo it. I am not sure if the last sentence was meant directly to the image posted or to HDR in general. It can never be used incorrectly. Any HDR image is better than any single shot. Ive never seen this proved otherwise. So to the OP just keep at it. Try the same shot again but take another couple shots more underexposed to bring up the details in the lamps, then post your results. If there is a big improvement, then you will understand why these sites are important to those who want to learn.

Bynx, I guess I am confused now. Was this directed to me? Or someone elses remarks? Im on your side.

Seems as though many want to just slam people on TPF for asking questions and wanting to learn something new, yet they never provide anything constructive.

What I REALLY don't understand is why someone would come on the Digital Photography > HDR Discussions forum and talk abou how people shouldnt do HDR. Amazing

 

[cgipson1]

Hugh.. a lot of us use the "Active Topics" link.. so we see ALL current threads... and often comment on them. We do not come to the HDR discussions forum specifically. Some of us do try to offer constructive criticism... some of us don't. I don't think Bynx was aiming that at you... it was probably at Catalano, although it might have been at me too!