Post Your Best HDR Photo

[Jeff]

Just thought this would be fun to start... Post your favorite HDR photo you have taken!






<p align="center"]Jeff Allred Photography ("http://www.JeffreyAllred.com/)


http://blog.jeffreyallred.com/images/2007/05/modelt2.jpg

[anglefire]

Not sure its my best, but one of my latest and current favourite.


http://www.general.colston-online.co.uk/Elan Valley Reservoir.jpg


Another one is this one - taken in London the other week.


http://www.general.colston-online.co.uk/Lloyds of London.jpg

[Don Burkett]

This is probably my best but it's also one of my first since I just started dabbling with HDR.


It is "The Bean" in downtown Chicago. Properly called "Cloud Gate"





http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/107285325/original.jpg

[Bryan Carnathan]

Very nice work everyone. I've seen a lot of HDR images that I don't like - many of my own included. These are very nice.

[Daniel Browning]

Jeff, I love that photo. The car, man, and environment are just great.

[Oren]

Yeah... great HDRs everyone [:)]

[Jeff]

Those look great anglefire!


Very nice Don.... The warm tones give that image a nice feel.

[greggf]

love the HDR photos...have a few of my ownfrom Hawaii, but I can't figure out how to post a pic(help).

[Bryan Carnathan]

Greggf - Try clicking on the "Insert Media" button (looks like a film strip). You can link to an image hosted somewhere or upload one into your gallery here. Let me know if you need more help.

[greggf]

thanks Bryan...figured it out last night...Love the forum

[greggf]

oh yeah...my very first HDR..haven't played around with it too much...combined 6 shots into 1 through Photomatix...still learning, and I know it looks totally fake....tips please?? And please feel free to give feedback(good or bad). Thanx, Greggf/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_2-_5B00_1024x768_5D00_.jpg

[greggf]

it got cut off...here is a smaller version??/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_2-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg

[Jeff]

Looks great Greg!

[Oren]

Really great!

[Ken Schwarz]

Here's one...



http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/1237336634_9d0cdd7863.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-maestros/1237336634/)

[Tom Alicoate]

This is probably my best but it's also one of my first since I just started dabbling with HDR.


It is "The Bean" in downtown Chicago. Properly called "Cloud Gate"





http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/107285325/original.jpg
<p style="CLEAR: both"]


.


I love the photo of the bean. We are from the Chicago area, and its nice to see it without 50 people taking their pictures in it with P&amp;Ss. Also there is just enough detail to make it interesting without looking too HDRish.


Thanks,


Tom

[anglefire]

Thanks for the kind comments. This is another one- processed this afternoon.


Taken near Elan Valley in Wales. The bottom half is not HDR - it was too strong, so I used the +2EC shot to hold the bottom of the image.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/3163885783_5c6dd87c62_o.jpg

[Flaming]

Sorry for the ignorace, but what exactly is HDR?

[anglefire]

True HDR is when you take more than 1 image (Normally at least 3) but alter the exposure of each to be say 2stops over exposed, 2 stops under and the final image as metered.


You then combine the images inan editing program to create a 32bit image. Photoshop does do HDR, but arguably not as well as third party programs, such as Photomatrix. The resulting image is then tone mapped - that is the 32bit image is compressed to 16 or 8bits. The tone mapping is the bit that can make or break the final image - get it wrong and it looks dreadful - but get it right and they can look stunning!


Does this help any?

[Jeff]

True HDR is when you take more than 1 image (Normally at least 3) but alter the exposure of each to be say 2stops over exposed, 2 stops under and the final image as metered.


You then combine the images inan editing program to create a 32bit image. Photoshop does do HDR, but arguably not as well as third party programs, such as Photomatrix. The resulting image is then tone mapped - that is the 32bit image is compressed to 16 or 8bits. The tone mapping is the bit that can make or break the final image - get it wrong and it looks dreadful - but get it right and they can look stunning!


Does this help any?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I understand this may be a normal typo, but the program is actually Photomatix. No R.


I used photomatix for my HDR at the beginning of this thread and love the program. I had 4 images merged. The photo was taken at about 7:40pm May 20, 2007 with my 5D and 24-70. f/8 I do believe.

[anglefire]

Yep, you're right, no r. [:$]

[Derrick]

Here's one of the Braga Bridge in Fall River, MA





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/3164980118_abc4c0960a_b.jpg

[Tim]

Here's my first HDR. I took the pictures over the summer and finally got around to it in the past hour. So I suppose it's my best one.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.61/firstHDR.jpg

[Flaming]

That's a great help but I still don't understand what the desired effect is. Also is the idea with Photoshop you would lower the opacity of the images that are laid on top of eachother to get the desired effect? Finally am I talking to professional photographers or are you doing it as a hobby?

[Jeff]

That's a great help but I still don't understand what the desired effect is. Also is the idea with Photoshop you would lower the opacity of the images that are laid on top of eachother to get the desired effect? Finally am I talking to professional photographers or are you doing it as a hobby?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





When you use photoshop's merge to hdr option, it "reads" the tones
in each photo and puts together one photo with the range of tones,
basically. So yes, in a way they ware laid on top of each other, so to
say.


I work at F.E. Warren Air Force Base as a base photographer,
and I do weddings and senior portraits on the side. All my income is
from photography, just in a bit different situation than other
professional photographers. I get a consistent paycheck, and whatever
I do on the side is just extra :o)

[Tim]

HDR can better represent what the eye sees. We are able to see a huge range light intensities simultaneously, but a camera's sensor is limited. Therefore, by taking multiple exposures of the same scene, we can compile the different exposures so that the final image has a correctly exposed foreground and a correctly exposed background.


BTW, I do photography for a hobby, I think you'll find a mix here.

[Jeff]

That's a great way of putting that Tim. I've seen it explained closely to that before as well, and it's true. Our cameras can only "see" so much.

[Don Burkett]

I love the photo of the bean. We are from the Chicago area, and its nice to see it without 50 people taking their pictures in it with P&amp;Ss. Also there is just enough detail to make it interesting without looking too HDRish.


Thanks,


Tom
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Thanks Tom, if your interested a have a small gallery of Chicago and The Bean at www.pbase.com/dbrasco


I'm from Pittsburgh originally but have really enjoyed Chicago the last few years.

[Stefan Stuart Fletcher]

I hope you don't mind (you said you wouldn't), but your image makes me feel slightly ill at ease. I must admit I don't like HDR imaging that much, but can see the appeal for architecture photography. It's the whole unreal lighting, which a fine seascape like yours contrasts with. The Japanese colouring and motif are interesting, but the sea looks radioactive. Could you show us a non-HDR version? Hope you don't object to my totally subjective criticism.

[anglefire]

That's a great help but I still don't understand what the desired effect is. Also is the idea with Photoshop you would lower the opacity of the images that are laid on top of eachother to get the desired effect? Finally am I talking to professional photographers or are you doing it as a hobby?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






As has been said before regarding the use of Photoshop - though PS is a lot more subtle compared with PhotoMatix fo example.


I am amateur (I think!),though I do take a lot of photographs for work, its not my paid job. (Though I have been paid for some of them!). As a result I've had quite a few published in our works documentation for marketing as such like. So whats that make me [:D]

[Flaming]

Thanks guys, I think I understand now. [:)]


Don was there no one at the bean when you took that picture or is that one of the advantages of HDR?

[Jeff]

It's not a problem. Glad we could help.


When doing multiple exposures, it is best to have the same scene each time - without objects being in some photos and not others because the programs read the pixels within the images to line them up appropriately.

[maloner]

Not sure about my best, but this is one of my favorites. Although, strictly speaking, it was made from just a single exposure, but that didn't stop Photomatix.



Who said HDR needs to be in color?


http://www.artistlies.com/images/blogpics/main/Havasupai-590.jpg

[Jeff]

Not sure about my best, but this is one of my favorites. Although, strictly speaking, it was made from just a single exposure, but that didn't stop Photomatix.



Who said HDR needs to be in color?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Single exposure "pushed" and "pulled" = pseudo-hdr :)


HDR definitely does not need to be in color. If you want as many tones as possible from black to white, hdr is definitely the way to go.

[maloner]

If you want to get picky about semantics, then there isn't a single HDR image on this thread, just tone-mapped jpgs.



I'm not a fan of the "pseudo" term when the workflow I used to create this image is the exact same as what I would use with two, three, or ten exposures. It's one thing if you're using curves and layers and blending to try to make a jpg look like it's more than it is, because that process has nothing to do with HDR imaging, but a RAW file already has more data than can be displayed in it, so the pushing and pulling of a single frame is really quite the same as pushing and pulling multiple exposures.

[maloner]

That sounded a little more prissy than intended. OK, much more - it's still my favorite. :)

[ultima16888]

could you show us how to make a "real" HDR image? from the threads I've seen online, here and other places, bracketing is the only way I know so far. Is there any other way to produce a true HDR? I wonder how did Ansel did it.

[maloner]

At its simplest, an HDR image is just a photo that shows more of the shadows and more of the highlights than is possible in a standard shot. In computing terms, an HDR image is created when you make an image that contains quite a bit more data than a single exposure could hold.


With film, you need multiple exposures, although you can probably cheat it a bit (ahem, psuedo-HDR it a bit :) ) through dodging and burning, but that wouldn't give quite the same effect.


With digital, that's still the best way -- but the fact is a raw file already has more data than you can really show in a single exposure without compressing the dynamic range down a bit. You can blow highlights when shooting raw and recover them somewhat.


A true HDR image (in the digital sense) is generated when you load multiple exposures into Photomatix (or even just one exposure; it does the same process), before you tone map the final shot. If you view it on your screen, you'll see a really ugly mass of wildly overexposed and underexposed areas, usually with a little rectangle that floats around with your cursor allowing you to see a localized version that is mapped to your monitor so that you can actually tell what is there.


Another place to see them is in any high-end computer game. They all use HDR images because it allows you to see in dark areas and bright areas depending on where the character is standing/looking. Actually, that's probably the best example of true HDR use today (I would assume modern animated movies use similar techniques).

[Stephen Probert]

I am no expert, but I know the technique Ansel Adams used is called tonal mapping which has to do with mapping the tonal values of a scene, knowing which ones you can actually reasonably expose without them being too dark or blown, and then shooting based on that map that you have made (in your head once you are good at it). He may have also done some dark room masking, I am not sure (don't know a lot about his techniques...anyone else?).

[maloner]

I don't, but I'm still astounded by the fact that it was being done as far back as the 30s. When I first heard of the technique, I thought it was the first thing that could truly be described as a digital-only technique. Nope!



Those guys were geniuses.

[anglefire]

If you want to get picky about semantics, then there isn't a single HDR image on this thread, just tone-mapped jpgs.






How do you know?


The two images I posted are both created from 3 RAW exposures, 2 stops apart and using Photomatix. The second one just had the bottom half replaced with the +2EC image to reduce the strong tones.




I'm not a fan of the "pseudo" term when the workflow I used to create this image is the exact same as what I would use with two, three, or ten exposures. It's one thing if you're using curves and layers and blending to try to make a jpg look like it's more than it is, because that process has nothing to do with HDR imaging, but a RAW file already has more data than can be displayed in it, so the pushing and pulling of a single frame is really quite the same as pushing and pulling multiple exposures.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



There is some truth here, but surely its largely semantics? [^o)]

[maloner]

Sorry angelfire, I haven't figured out this message boad yet so I don't have your post quoted here - but to answer your questions:


1) Because a true HDR image has far more data in in than the 8-bit jpgs we see on this webpage. True HDR images can't be shown in all their glory by current display technology (not all at once, anyway). They need to have their massive dynamic range compressed into something much smaller, which is what happens in the tone mapping process. I wasn't saying that you didn't use more than one exposure, or that you didn't follow a standard HDR workflow - just that the output of that workflow is not, in the digital technical sense, an HDR file (although one is created in the process).


2) Lots of semantics; I'm a writer in addition to a photographer, so everything I do is semantics. It's fun! I'll argue with you about what a salad is, if you want. Seriously. Get a beer first; it'll be easier on everyone. :)

[Don Burkett]

Thanks guys, I think I understand now. /emoticons/emotion-1.gif


Don was there no one at the bean when you took that picture or is that one of the advantages of HDR?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I purposely went there an hour before sunrise to avoid people. The extra benefit was some pretty terrific early morning light. What HDR did for me on this shot was enable me to use a long exposure to capture the night's light, a shorter exposure to keep from blowing out the christmas and city lights and a normal exposure to retain the midtones.

[anglefire]

Sorry angelfire, I haven't figured out this message boad yet so I don't have your post quoted here - but to answer your questions:


1) Because a true HDR image has far more data in in than the 8-bit jpgs we see on this webpage. True HDR images can't be shown in all their glory by current display technology (not all at once, anyway). They need to have their massive dynamic range compressed into something much smaller, which is what happens in the tone mapping process. I wasn't saying that you didn't use more than one exposure, or that you didn't follow a standard HDR workflow - just that the output of that workflow is not, in the digital technical sense, an HDR file (although one is created in the process).


2) Lots of semantics; I'm a writer in addition to a photographer, so everything I do is semantics. It's fun! I'll argue with you about what a salad is, if you want. Seriously. Get a beer first; it'll be easier on everyone. :)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






Took me a bit to see the quote button - which appears after you've pressed the reply button to a message, just below the one you reply to - assuming that you don't quick reply (I assume!).


Ok 1) I understand the bit about the resulting image that gets displayed as being not HDR - however, I thought the whole point of programs like Photomatix was that they created a HDR from multiple (For what is traditionallly a true HDR) exposures and then was tone mapped to keep the extremes of the range back into an image that can be displayed properly.


2) Bit early for a beer now (Its 5:15am as I write this!) But I'm game. :)

[Don Burkett]

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





This is an awesome shot.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thanks Greg, I have a few others from the bean here, http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/the_bean if your interested.

[Don Burkett]

I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.

[maloner]

Took me a bit to see the quote button - which appears after you've pressed the reply button to a message, just below the one you reply to - assuming that you don't quick reply (I assume!).


Ok 1) I understand the bit about the resulting image that gets displayed as being not HDR - however, I thought the whole point of programs like Photomatix was that they created a HDR from multiple (For what is traditionallly a true HDR) exposures and then was tone mapped to keep the extremes of the range back into an image that can be displayed properly.


2) Bit early for a beer now (Its 5:15am as I write this!) But I'm game. :)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Ahh, there we go!


1) That is what Photomatix does -- the image it shows you after you load all of your exposures (which will surely show some ugly scene with massively blown "highlights" (in areas that aren't even highlights) and "shadows" (in areas that aren't even shadows). That's your real HDR image right there -- your screen can't show it, but that file has all the image data from the darkest shadows you recorded up through the brightest highlights. And it has them at their actual values! So it's more the way your eye would actually see it -- and if you view it through the little floating window in photomatix, it will show you an actual localized image based on wherever you point, which lets you see through the blown highlights/shadows. This is how 3d gaming and animation works, too -- they use HDR images to simulate real vision; if your character walks into a bright area, then the highlights come into view; if you walk into a dark area, then the highlights get blown and the shadows come into view.


What we often call an HDR image now, the tone mapped version of an actual HDR photo, actually has much LESS dynamic range than one of these real HDR images. But that's what makes them so interesting to look at (and sometimes offensive).


2) Ha -- maybe I'll just drink your beer instead, since it's still early over here? Well, early NIGHT, that is. Still, if you want to join, by all means! :)

[Jeff]

I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Well thank you. I do like the more real looking HDR images, rather than the painterly ones. Although certain situations can lend itself to one way over the other. I hope to do more HDR work soon.

[anglefire]

I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Well thank you. I do like the more real looking HDR images, rather than the painterly ones. Although certain situations can lend itself to one way over the other. I hope to do more HDR work soon.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Thanks for the kind words.


I must admit that I too generally prefer the results that are more true to life - but I have a few on my website that are a bit more striking!


Such as this one.


http://www.mark.colston-online.co.uk/HDR Images/slides/Castle.jpg


This is actually Dover Castle on the south coast of England.


Mark

[Jeff]

That's a nice image too, angelfire. The sky plays such a big role in it. Very well done.


The only thing I dont care for is the parking lot. But the path leading the eye in is a nice touch.

[anglefire]

Thanks Jeff, I do agree the carpark is a bit of a distraction - but I liked the sky!


Just to add another to the mix, is this one, taken in Paris - its actually 6 shots - to create the pano and the HDR.


Oh, I should also say that I rarely use a tripod when I do the HDR shots. Aught to do it a bit more!


http://www.mark.colston-online.co.uk/HDR Images/slides/Paris.jpg

[Mads]

This is my first HDR picture.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.16/IMG_5F00_4935_5F00_6_5F00_7_5F00_tonemapped.jpg

[Michael James]

HDRI is pretty much the only way I shoot/edit.


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/images/digitalcoastimage.jpg

[Michael James]

This one is probably my favorite interior shot


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7ssm_img_10/fullsize/02_living_fs.jpg

[Michael James]

My favorite night shot (HDR, not a long exposure)


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7ssm_img_11/fullsize/01_pools_fs.jpg

[Michael James]

And finally, my favorite bedroom shot...


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7ssm_img_2/fullsize/01_bed_fs.jpg

[Michael James]

O.K... one more...


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7ssm_img_4/fullsize/02_dine_fs.jpg

[Michael James]

really, really, really, last one. I love this one too! I can't choose one!


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7ssm_img_10/fullsize/01_living_fs.jpg

[Oren]

Dude, those images are great! You have to write a tutorial for us on how you make your HDRs... really amazing pictures you've got there [H]

[varok]

Here's a couple of mine during my Utah/Arizona trip last fall


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/3176947429_ff4720dabf.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/3180455738_3835c7807b.jpg

[Oren]

Also amazing... great HDRs!

[anglefire]

Michael, the interior shots are super. Look to be very subtle HDR.


I also love the Utah/Arizona ones too - makes me almost want to come over to America!

[aZhu]

This isn't my best HDR but it's the most recent one. [H]


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.88/_5F00_MG_5F00_8395.jpg

[Michael James]

Thanks [:D]


I'm still fighting to get it more realistic and less "stylized" as they tend to look. Interiors are a bitch. Tungsten inside and daylight outside with color spill through the windows. It is toughest dealing with 5000-6000 temps flowing into interior spaces with 2800-3600 temps. Those color spills are rough!


And of course the DR is insane between the interiors and glaring sun coming off the ocean.


The realtors, builders, and such love it though. Especially the builders.

[Oren]

I'm still fighting to get it more realistic and less "stylized" as they tend to look.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Don't, that's why they are so amazing and different - IMO at least.

[Michael James]

I know it may look amazing and cool to us... but my clients hate it. They want realism. The worst case scenario has already happened. They show a property that someone from out of town viewed online and then they got there and it didn't look as surreal and cool to them in person. I lost business with certain realtors because I was having a hard time making them more photo real. Tonemapping does some weird things to colors, etc.. and it is a work in progress to get to where I am now. My clients demand realism.


I've gained back lost clients (realtors) because I'm getting more photoreal now. All that I posted is older work of mine. The stuff I've done recently captures the full DR, but looks far more real and less "stylized".

[Colin]

You know, aside from this whole thread having some really, really cool images, I was thinking.


I'm assuming that HDR means 'High Dynamic Range'. Please tell me if it's otherwise.


Multiple exposures makes sense if the camera can't capture the dynamic range of the image. If you look at the histogram of a single shot, and it's clipping the top or bottom, or you want to push the noise floor down, multiple exposures makes sense. However, what the defining parameter is, is the dynamic range.


Correct me gently, if I'm wrong, but as I understand it,


'8 bit' images 256 possible levels for each channel. With A/D and D/A converters, each bit doubles the dynamic range, or in photography terms, increases the dynamic range from lowest to highest by one stop. So, a 12 bit A/D converter is already going two stops up, and two stops down. But that's kind of beside the point.


If the image itself actually has content which exercises extreme dynamic range (night time with lights, direct sunlight and heavily shaded areas, etc.), then regardless of what you're able to capture, there is one relevant issue. The display medium, be it a monitor, or the print medium, doesn't have nearly the contrast ratio to actually make use of that image if it's 'accurate' by any objective measure. It then becomes a matter of a technical art, to take that HDR original content, and massage it into an image that looks, in the intended output medium, as we'd like to represent the experience. If you mess with the curves, they can look surreal and very cool, or plain ridiculous, or, if you are very careful, still 'realistic' even if you're sacrificing the accuracy of the linearity to maintain the detail of the experience.


The experience itself can open up a whole other can of nightcrawlers. The fact that the eye, and the way that we see, isn't really like a camera, but rather weird scanner that uses a camera, outside of the whole color space issue, makes the job of the camera, and the presentation of an image, technically kind of ridiculous. Luckily, our brains are really good at filling in.


But, as for the important stuff, I'm really glad that Bryan opened this up. I've seen some truly inspiring images. I hope to see more!

[Jeff]

varok - beautiful images. That first one is done really nicely.





And Brian - haha thanks for putting me on the spot on your News page LOL. [H] This type of thread has taken off on another forum I am part of. Over 1,000 replies and the last I looked, some 130,000 views.

[Jeff]

Michael - your architectural work is gorgeous too! It's awesome to be able to see what's outside. The beach front home on the last page is really nice. The wood work in that home is stunning.

[Michael James]

Thanks Jeff :)


And yes.. that beach home is gorgeous. Working in locations like that is a treat. Then I have to go back to my little townhome (reality check) LOL! But it is nice to be able to frequent such beautiful homes for a living. I just try to create images that capture their beauty.

[Michael James]

Just thought this would be fun to start... Post your favorite HDR photo you have taken!



Here's mine:


http://blog.jeffreyallred.com/images/2007/05/modelt2.jpg






Jeff, the lighting on this is tremendous. If you hadn't told me it was HDR based, I wouldn't have known. I tend to prefer staying away from surreal looks with tonemapping and to keep it as real as possible. This is a gorgeous image!

[John]

Michael, these interior shots are gorgeous. As someone who photographs mainly hotels and restaurants, I really appreciate seeing this done well. Are you using a tilt shift lens, or just correcting the perspectives in CS? I'd be curious to know what gear you are using for these shots. Are you using purely natural light, or supplementing this with strobes, etc?

[Michael James]

Michael, these interior shots are gorgeous. As someone who photographs mainly hotels and restaurants, I really appreciate seeing this done well. Are you using a tilt shift lens, or just correcting the perspectives in CS? I'd be curious to know what gear you are using for these shots. Are you using purely natural light, or supplementing this with strobes, etc?






John, I do corrections in Photoshop for lens distortions. I wish I had a TS, but opted for various primes to cover a range of focal lengths.


Gear? Various. Depends on situtation.


Canon 5D, 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and 24-70mm f/2.8 L


Nikon D3, 14-24mm f/2.8G; 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s; 35mm f/2.0D, 50mm f/1.4 Ai-s; 85mm f/1.4D


Sigma SD14, 10-20mm f/4-5.6; 30mm f/1.4; 50-150mm f/2.8





I mostly use the D3 - 14-24mm combo. But you can't put a filter on that lens so when I shoot interiors at night with tungsten I use the 5D - 16-35m combo so I can use blue filters and custom white balance to feed the blue channel rather than losing DR and increasing noise otherwise.





The lighting question is where this all began. It took every penny I had to buy the 5D - 16-35mm. I had nothing left for lighting. Hence why I looked into HDRI. The rest is history. I'd still like to be able to use lighting, but when I was ready to start purchasing really good high end lighting, I fell in love with the D3 and that sharp as hell 14-24mm combo. So I sold all my video equipement to buy it and had nothing left for lighting!!!! So I just kept shooting brackets and pushing it through a HDRI pipeline and I'm still wanting to get good lighting someday when I can afford it.


My wife has been looking for work for almost a 9 months now so I haven't been able to save any money for lighting and keep using HDRI workflows in the time being. My clients like the look though. There are times though when lighting would really enhance a shot, but I can't tell them that I have no lighting so my mantra is "Well, I really think it looks better just using natural light." LOL!


Hope that helps a bit to answer questions. (off to shoot... bbl)

[John]

Michael, thanks for the in-depth reply! Interesting that you use both the 5d as well as the D3...


Seeing as the widest TS lens that I know of is only about 24mm, using the 14mm and correcting the perspective in CS should work just fine, and looks like it does.


Do you run into noise issues with the shadows at all using the HDR?


Also, do you blend exposures manually, or do you use a dedicated HRD software?

[Aaron Carlson]

So I haven't been playing with HDR much, but here is one from the Arenal Volcano in Costa Rica:


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.21/40D_5F00_IMG_5F00_1626.jpg


It is an HDR composite of 3 images with my Canon 24-70 on a 40D. The scene didn't need much help in dynamic range, but the extra was appreciated in the sky and the trees.

[Michael James]

John, I'm about to shut down and head out to shoot, but real quick...


The HDR tonemappers pull the shadow data from the over exposures and there is less noise there... unlike attempting to pull up shadows from a normally exposed image which does reveal noise in the shadows.


And I mostly use software to tonemap the HDRs created from multiple exposures, but there are times and situations where it is far faster to just use one, two or three of the exposures and either mask in/out or paint in/out areas of the frame. That is only really possible when nothing is in front of windows (meaning interior objects are not sitting in front of a window such as a light fixture, etc).


I love the 5D. I prefer it's color rendition over the D3. I'd go on, but no time. I went to the D3 for two big reasons. I do some "run and gun" shoots for some realtors that don't need or want to pay for higher end work, but want better shots than they can get on their XTis. And the D3 fires off 9 bursts for AEB. 4 under, 1 at, 4 over. The 5D only has 3. I would have bumped up to the 5D markII if they would have at least allowed it to do 5 AEB. The 3 AEB sucks. When shooting with cars passing, wind moving trees/leaves, and such... I really need at least 5 and often 7 exposures one full EV apart.





Gotta run!!!!

[Michael James]

damn.... the second reason I forgot to mention. The 14-24mm f/2.8G is the sharpest beast. I had to get the D3 for that thing. I've tripoded off from the same location with the 5D - 16-35mm f/2.8 L II against it and was unable to beat the D3 - 14-24mm combo. And the 14-24mm is amazing at handling glare compared to canon's. And when I am shooting into windows overlooking the ocean... it destroys the 16-35 in comparison tests.


That said. I prefer the 5D for landscapes, weddings and portraits.


Really gone now. Got a 5/5 overlooking the gulf to shoot today and it's sunny.





~~~poof~~~

[peety3]

Correct me gently, if I'm wrong, but as I understand it,


'8 bit' images 256 possible levels for each channel. With A/D and D/A converters, each bit doubles the dynamic range, or in photography terms, increases the dynamic range from lowest to highest by one stop. So, a 12 bit A/D converter is already going two stops up, and two stops down. But that's kind of beside the point.





I think there's some non-linearity in the bit-mapping, such that the top half of the possible levels are used to represent the brightest stop of dynamic range. Therefore, 12-bit conversion doesn't really add as much dynamic range as you might otherwise suspect if you're thinking of binary numbering. I think camera histograms tend to display a four-stop range; assuming that's the case, 12-bit conversion (4096 values) puts the top 2048 values in the brightest stop, another 1024 in the next darker stop, another 512 in the next darker stop, and the last 512 values in the darkest areas. Changing to 14-bit would mean 2048 values in the darkest areas, a significant improvement; 8-bit JPEG means you'd have only 32 values in the darkest areas.

[John]

Here's one of mine from last year. I don't shoot a lot of HDR photos for pleasure, but this was one situation in which the only real way to make it work was an HDR...





here's a smaller version!





http://www.pbase.com/johnhudson/image/108354603.jpg

[jbpfran@free.fr]

Hi,


lots of great pictures here


I like to use HDR with a B&amp;W compositions as you can see in these pictures from a shoot in Paris


This is great to capture clouds details too


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.24/IMG_5F00_2928_5F00_7_5F00_9_5F00_tonemapped-_2D00_-pro-contrast-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.24/IMG_5F00_1675_5F00_6_5F00_7_5F00_tonemapped-_2D00_-Version-3-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.24/IMG_5F00_1621_5F00_2_5F00_3_5F00_tonemapped-_2D00_-Version-2-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg

[David Selby]

For you HDR masters out there...


I'd like some advice on this particular shot...





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3210794197_3771a1c6a6_b.jpg





My question is, i shot this in raw with a 50d... Do you think this shot could benefit from HDR technique? I hate the soft cgi appearance.. . i'd do it only to increase details. any thoughts or advice?

[John]

David,





First of all, nice shot of Atlanta, a classic angle on my favorite city.





Night shots are kind of a favorite of mine.


My recommendations would be to shoot it right after sunset through until its totally dark. I always try to get some color in my skies, usually a nice dark blue, or sometimes purple, etc. Depending on how bright the sky is, you could use a kind of HDR to blend the various exposures. I would also shoot several shots in a row of the same exposure to get a variety of car trails on the road below, and then blend them in photoshop using "lighten" mode to get a good amount of car light trails on the road. Finally I would probably shoot using f22 or so to get some nice star points on those lights, but that's a personal preference.





Hope that helps.

[Michael James]

Ocean is way too rough to shoot :( I'm back.


John, I love that shot! Where is that? East coast sunset or west coast sunrise?


And I got an email message about what my website is, but I can't figure out where I'd see that here on the site. So anyway... I don't have my latest work up yet because I've been too busy shooting/editing, but it is:


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com


I really need to pull some older shots off and update them with my newer work which is getting better as I refine my workflow.

[Michael James]

After looking at your shot again John I realized I'm probably wrong on both fronts. The angle of that sun in relation to the shore line has me unsure where it could have been taken.

[peety3]

For you HDR masters out there...


My question is, i shot this in raw with a 50d... Do you think this shot could benefit from HDR technique? I hate the soft cgi appearance.. . i'd do it only to increase details. any thoughts or advice?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





What were your initial settings? I suspect one of the issues could be diffraction because of too small of an aperture. According to Bryan, cameras with a pixel spacing as tight as the 50D's are limited to sharp shots at f/7.6 and larger.

[John]

Thanks Michael. The location is Kiawah Island, SC...a "sunset", or almost there.

[Dennis Evertse]

<span class="postbody"]http://www.dennisevertse.com/fora/v8power/mooiste2008.jpg

Sorry for the big &copy; on the picture, but its nessecary on some forums I come... [:(]

[Michael James]

In case anyone doesn't know... in Photomatix, if you are having trouble getting a photo to bring out some of what was a brighter area of the sky, there is a way to bring that back gently. Under the S/H tab the top slider "Highlights Smoothing". If you drag that slider to the right it will begin to brighten the areas that were brightest in the over exposed images.


You'll find that after doing so you might want to return back to the main sliders to retweak. Each image is different. That slider may show no results until the final section on the right or it might start lightening spots with just a small move to the right. But it is there and quite useful if you haven't touched it before.

[40Doodle]

I had never heard of this whole HDR thing and have to say that I like the images shared in this thread very much. I can't get into pixel counting with anyone or debating what HDR is or isn't, but I know what I like and this stuff is very cool. It doesn't have to be done to every photo and I wouldn't want to do that, but these pics are terrific IMO.


Hat's off to all of you who shared your creations! I downloaded the Photomatix trial-ware and gave it a run on some of my own photos. I took 4 photos of the same subject that varied in exposure from 2 to 3 exposure settings. Tried all 4 in Photoshop CS4 using the Photomerge capability and then took the same photos over to Photomatix. The Photomatix results were much better than what Photoshop produced. These photos were not intentially taken to use in an HDR method, so the results in both applications were nothing to share here, but I was able to see what Photomatix could do and it was pretty cool.


Thanks all for sharing your knowledge and the great pics.


Rick

[Jeff]

Jeff, the lighting on this is tremendous. If you hadn't told me it was HDR based, I wouldn't have known. I tend to prefer staying away from surreal looks with tonemapping and to keep it as real as possible. This is a gorgeous image!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Thank you. Granted, I could have used a fill light, but with it being about 25 degrees with wind (this photo is totally deceiving when it comes to warmth lol) I just put it on the tripod and took 4 shots and merged them. I am very happy with the results. I'm also a fan of more realistic HDR images.

[Alan]

I would appreciate it if those of you who posted the HDRs would describe your workflow to get the final image. Thanks.

[varok]

The most common problem you will encounter with HDR is noise. Controlling noise will produce a better HDR image.


I use Photomatix, CS4 and Noiseware Pro.





First, I use ACR to convert RAW to 16 bit TIFF's. Then I open them in CS4 then apply noiseware pro plug-in using default settings and save them again as TIFF. I then import all images in Photmatix and do my tone-mapping setting after which I save it as 16-bit TIFF. Open the file again in CS4 then apply another noiseware pro pass if needed then tweak the final image (levels, curves, USM).

[JLynch]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.53/fountain_5F00_large.jpg

[Alex Bishton]

Superb composition.

[molamola]

Wow, Lloyds of London has a very shiny, CG look to it, as though it's a screen shot from a computer game or straight out of Star Wars. And the first one looks like it's from a modern remake of Myst. I need to learn how to do HDR...

[Aaron Carlson]

JLynch, Where is this?

[Alan]

varok, when you open your ACR, do you leave those settings all at "zero?" Any adjustments in ACR before you open it to the 16 bit TIFF?


What settings do you change in Photomatix? Do you change any of the brightness settings, white/black point, etc.?


I have Photomatix and it looks as if the many images posted are processed with the "details" tone mapping setting.


Thanks.


Alan

[varok]

The only thing I change in ACR is the camera profile. Everything else are defaults.


In Photomatix, I rarely change those settings. I mostly play around with strength, microcontrast, luminosity and light smoothing. I do all colors and levels adjustment in CS4. You have a lots more control if you use detail enhancer.

[maapu]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.61/2663900578_5F00_a936e274ee.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.61/2660980794_5F00_8f3f772019.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.61/2449030198_5F00_d52b6b639d.jpg


I love HDR &amp; here are some of my favourites. The images are from a small, very beautiful village in England.


I used the Canon 40D and 17-85 kit lens. all these HDR's are 3 images merged\tonemapped in photomatix. You can find me @ www.mauroof.com


cheers!

[Alan]

varok, here are my defaults for the Mk 2: blacks, 5, brightness +50, contrast +25, sharpness 25, radius 1.0, detail 25, noise reduction 25.


I want to make sure I'm doing things right.





maapu, you've got my vote! Those were done in the details tone mapping, but they sure look stunning!





Alan

[Michael James]

My workflow is way too dependent on the shoot. Exterior, Landscape, Interior, etc... Honestly it would take me way too long to detail why I use certain apps for certain shots. In short though...


Raw through ACR and I "DO" make adjustments here. Export to 16 bit TIFFs and off to one of two tonemappers. If I am doing landscapes and want that extra pop in saturation then I use Photomatix. But for more photo real looking images I ONLY use Essentials HDR.


Essentials HDR is hands down the most realistic looking tonemapping app as of today. I couldn't do what I do without it. It takes me a fraction of the time in Essentials HDR than it does farting around with sliders in Photomatix to get a more realistic image.


And Essentials has a "Fast Toner" and a "Details" version. You can actually switch between the two on the fly. And you can view images "two up" either horizontally or vertically and make changes to each to toy with looks. This is a huge benefit to me because it really speeds up my workflow.


The Details Enhancer though is insane. It creates a micro contrast in a different way than photomatix and the resulting images out of Essentials HDR are wicked sharp, whereas I always need to sharpen up stuff out of Photomatix.


Once I export out a tonemapped image I then take it back to Photoshop for detail work and other tweaks.


Essentials HDR is here:


http://www.imagingluminary.com/


-Michael James

[Alan]

Michael, thanks for that link.


I'll guess spending money never ends with photography!


Okay....I'm going in! What's another 50 bucks, eh?


Alan

[Michael James]

Ain't that the truth!!! There is always that "one more thing" needed.


Anyway... it is well worth the money. The best spent $50+ bucks IMO.





I really need to do a video screencapture of that to show why I love it. It is pretty easy to use too. Very different than photomatix in sliders. Of course, like usual... I'd like to frankenstein the two and take what I like in photomatix and add it to Essential HDR or vice versa!


Michael James

[40Doodle]

Could I slip-in a few of newbie questions?


I've seen a couple of references to something called "detail enhancer". Is this some feature within CS4 or a separate software utility?


I've also seen the term "ACR" and wondered what that acronym means?


What do you folks think about the "Topaz Labs" products ("Adjust", "DeNoise", etc) for this kind of creative work? I downloaded the trial of both Adjust and DeNoise and played with them on some of my photos in CS3. They kind of appear to so some of the same things that Photomatix does without having to use 3 or more photos/exposures.


http://www.topazlabs.com/ ("http://www.topazlabs.com/)


Rick

[rgravel]

Here is one of my first attempt, although I don't know if it can be called HDR since its all done from one file. ACR, CS3, 40D, EF 17-40


http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/108038882/large.jpg

[Alex Bishton]

This is my very first attempt at an HDR image. No tripod, poor light, very very cold and no gloves. Using a 40d and the cheap and cheerful ef-s 17-85.


Does anyone have any tips on taking night shots with HDR?/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40/n517624388_5F00_1410472_5F00_886.jpg

[Alan]

Rick, ACR means Adobe Camera Raw.


The "details enhancer" is one of the ways a HDR image can be processed in what is called the tone mapping process. The details enhancer brings out more details, hence, the enhancer....





Al

[Michael James]

A true HDR is multiple exposed shots. And the purists will correct me further, but I don't care. I'm not going for a PHD in this stuff. And even though technically does not fall in the definition of a tonemapped HDRI... it is STUNNING nonetheless. Love it!


Michael James

[Michael James]

that post of mine was to rgravel

[rgravel]

Thanks Michael. Nice of you to comment [:)]

[40Doodle]

Alan, thank-you for the explanations...I had a "duh moment" when you told me what ACR was...


Alex and rgravel...nice! I don't know how you arrived at the results, but they look good to me. Classic HDR or not, those are cool photos that I would be proud to create.


Rick

[gdclark77]

http://photos.gdcgallery.com/img/v3/p826665119-2.jpg

[Alan]

Alex, as for night shots, I'm still learning what is the proper way to do this. For me, what I've found to be helpful, is to do an auto exposure bracket but not one that is +/- 2 EV around a properly exposed image. HDR gurus recommend this, generally.


I do an AEB but have the properly exposed image, then -1 EV, and another one at -2 EV for the completed bracketed shots.


Depending on the lighting situation, you might find that a +/- 2 EV around the center point gives too long of exposure on the bright side, and give blown hightlights, despite the HDR's ability to tone it down. Plus, if there is movement, you run a greater risk of blurry HDR images, unless you're spending time to correct it.


I tried HDR with Christmas light displays. They're tough to do correctly, and I'm still trying different things with them.


Here's an example, using Photomatix, with 3 images bracketed as above.

[Alan]

Let's try that again. I blew the image size. Sorry!


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.34/Hopkins.jpg

[Alan]

(Bryan, if you will, delete that first picture from the post. Thanks.) Bryan, never mind, Jeff informed me on how to edit my posts. I should pay more attention.





Thanks, Jeff.





Alan

[Alex Bishton]

Alan, thanks for the advice.
I'll give it a go with your method.
Still trying to find something more interesting than a pond to take pictures of.

[Jeff]

Bryan, if you will, delete that first picture from the post. Thanks.





Alan
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Alan, you can click on the "More" button and then select edit, and remove the photo without Bryan's help ;)

[Alex Bishton]

I've just been for a walk and I think I've almost got my technique sorted out.

[John]

Alan, this is a really beautiful image. very well done. If its HDR, its very natural looking as well.

[Alan]

John, yes, this is an HDR. I did it with Photomatix, using the "tone" process (the "details" gave too much color noise, which I find to be the case with night shots, in many examples I've tried).


I used auto exposure bracketing (0, -1, -2 EV), then did the blending to an HDR. Tone mapped it, then brought it into CS4, sharpened it with the USM, then a slight curves adjustment.


Sometimes, using the tone adjustment with Photomatix can saturate the colors a bit too much, and I'll have to back it down some. I could do the adjustment in Photomatix, but I usually don't, and bring the image into Photoshop to touch it up.





Alan

[Fink_Studios]

This was shot durring Thanksgiving of 2008 in Great Falls Virginia/Maryland


1D MarkIII, 24-105mm, Flashpoint Tripod, (at 45mm, 1/6sec, @ f13, @jpg 6)


/resized-image.ashx/__size/600x400/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.59/Great_5F00_Falls_5F00_MD_5F00_067_5F00_072_5F005F0 0_WEB.jpg

[District_History_Fan]

Here's one of mine... It was done with Dynamic Photo HDR.


large version http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2455908074_8b45b820a3_o.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2455908074_8b45b820a3_o.jpg)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2455908074_4749f2ca54.jpg

[TheRoff]

<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]This thread and the HDR photos intrigued me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I downloaded Photomatix and am beginning to play around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] For my first effort, shown below, I just sent the 3 RAW files right into Photomatix.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Does anyone do any processing on the RAW files before processing in Photomatix?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I was tempted to play with the color temperature to balance the tungsten and outside light better, but then I thought I should let the software do its thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Any guidance? (The photo was done with a 30D and the <span style="mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; border: windowtext 1pt; padding: 0in;"]EF-S 10-22mm.)


<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]<span style="mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; border: windowtext 1pt; padding: 0in;"]


<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]<span style="mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; border: windowtext 1pt; padding: 0in;"]http://i.pbase.com/o6/62/861962/1/108544422.HTPJp8jm.HDRwide.jpg

[Sean Setters]

Ok, seeing all these really nice HDR images has made me want to try it myself. Being a portrait photographer (who's constrained by subject movement and the 50D's 3 shot AEB), it's been rather challenging. However, I was doing a shot of my grandmother painting the other day using strobes, but I pulled the strobes and shot a couple of AEB shots of her to try an HDR image. This was the result:


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_2971_5F00_2_5F00_3_5F00_2-small.jpg


Not fantastic, but I tried not to go too over-the-top with it. I'll probably try some shots buildings once it starts warming up and using more images (by manually adjusting the exposure compensation).

[Alan]

TheRoff, you should not allow certain tonal adjustments to occur. It is recommended that you only do noise reduction, chromatic abberations and white balance. If your image is off on exposure, you can correct all three the same amount. Color temp is okay, too.


You could skip the noise reduction, and use an aftermarket program later on in the final HDR correction, in Photoshop, for example, or Noise Ninja, etc.


Things like brightness, contrast, saturation, sharpening, and a few others are not recommended.


These are further done in the Photomatix program, then polished up further in Photoshop.


At least, that's what the experts recommend.

[maloner]

OK, here's one I did just last week.


http://www.artistlies.com/images/blogpics/main/superstitionFoothills-090121-1.jpg

[Mike Ancient]

I don't know if this is the absolute best, but it is a personal favorite:


&lt;a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeancient/2658907519/ ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeancient/2658907519/)" title="Katot by MikeAncient, on Flickr"&gt;&lt;img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2658907519_254a236be3_b.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2658907519_254a236be3_b.jpg)" width="677" height="1024" alt="Katot" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

[Mike Ancient]

Ok... that didn't work out too well... I'll try the other one:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2658907519_254a236be3_b.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2658907519_254a236be3_b.jpg)

[Sean Setters]

I tried shooting another HDR the other night. Here's how it came out:


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_3126_5F00_33_5F00_34_5F00_35_5F00_36 _5F00_37-copy4-small.jpg

[Oren]

Really great!

[znxlegion]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.98/IMG_5F00_2843_5F00_1_5F00_2.jpg

[JamesG]

I'm not fond of obviously overtly photoshopped photography to be honest, and for more innocent reasons than the usual boring critics might come up with, whose brains aregenerallystuck in the past; but what has been posted above is simply wonderful. Top stuff!


I work at the Zoological Society of London, and simply can only use more earthly, simple images, simple as that

[Sean Setters]

Being a huge fan of flickr, I ran across this guy's photostream ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/) and he has some AMAZING HDRs. Take a look.

[I chase light]

Awesome thread, amazing pictures. Michael James (and everyone else) -you have given a master class here and I appreciate it very much. Maloner...all I can say is wow!

[I chase light]

Okay, I downloaded the "community" (free) version of Essential HDR, and is it just me, or doesthe appintroduce a ton of noise to the output image? I am an HDR newb...

[Michael James]

The process with most of the apps that do tonemapping introduce (amplify) noise to various extents. How much noise will be determined largely by your sensor and ISO your camera was set at. When you use tonemapping to extract more details, the amount of existing noise in your raw image will be enhanced as well.


-Michael James

[I chase light]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/RiosRanchosAppleStand1stHDR.jpg


So, here is my first try. This one was with the Photomatix free download, which I found to be a little better for me.


I will post this at the critique section as well.

[yulia]

What is the lens that you used?

[pnelson3]

This is my first post on this forum. There are a lot of great HDR shots posted, so I thought I would add one of mine. I don't know if it's my best, but it's one of my favorites....

[40Doodle]

I really like that shot and application of HDR. I would love to see "before and afters" of some fo these HDR images. Good job and welcome to the Forum.


Rick

[I chase light]

What is the lens that you used?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Sorry I took so long to answer. I used a 17-40L at 17 as close as I could get wihtout missing the small evergreen on the left.


Thanks for all the nice responses.

[Alan]

pnelson3, where was this taken?


I think it's great!!

[pnelson3]

pnelson3, where was this taken?


I think it's great!!






Alan, thanks for the nice comment. The Avon Theatre is in the heart of downtown Stamford, CT and this picture was taken on a busy Saturday night last summer. I had to wait while cars streamed by to shoot the half dozen exposures for the HDR.

[Alex Bishton]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40/3.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40/2.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40/1.jpg


These were taken with a 40D and an EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS.
I started out with Photomatix but I now prefer Dynamic Photo HDR as it allows more control over the post processing.

What are other forum members' preferred choice of software for HDR?

[Colin]

Way cool images!

[Alex Bishton]

Thanks [H]. All hand held as well. I guess that'll serve me right for leaving my tripod in another continent!

[Rob Gardner]

Thought I'd contribute an interior shot or two:


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/Kitchen1_5F00_crop_5F00_1000.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/Scrivner_5F00_foyer.jpg





Canon 1Ds with Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX HSM

[Sean Setters]

Electrolyte-


Thank you for the kind words regarding the photo of my grandmother...I'm trying to take as many of her as I can so that I capture her exactly how I want to remember her. ;-)

[Alan]

Rob, that kitchen shot....it looks like I'm standing right in the kitchen, it looks so natural. HDR imagery does a great job on this shot.

[HiFiGuy1]

Michael James,


I am extremely interested in your shots of the interiors. I think they don't come across as surreal, but maybe "better" than real. I understand that your realtor clients don't necessarily appreciate this, and I understand why, but as an amateur, and one who would do this kind of work for my company, I am very interested in understanding how you do this.


I appreciate your odysseywith trying to own high-end lighting, too, and I admire your ability to excel despite technical hurdles. I would like to use natural light anyway, so this is the path I would choose, even though I also want to learn how to use umbrellas, etc., in the future.


Would you mind if I contacted you privately to discuss your techniques?

[Michael James]

Would you mind if I contacted you privately to discuss your techniques?






I don't mind, but I also don't have a solution/workflow that lends itself to email or otherwise. I get a lot of requests both online and offline to share my approach, apps and workflow (from capture to final output).


I would create a DVD or training CD if I had the time, but thankfully this workflow has created a name for myself and I have been slammed shooting real estate for over a year. I haven't had three days off in a row since 2007 and believe me... I am not complaining about it at all.


I've thumbed through the rocky nook books on HDRI while at Barnes and Noble and none of what they show is my workflow. When I went down this path I didn't have anyone (couldn't find anyone) that was using the techniques and apps for real estate. I'm sure they were out there somewhere, but I couldn't find them online or off to pick their brains. And I couldn't find any courses that taught the subject either.


I do want to create a training product that would show step by step how I deal with interiors and mixed lighting issues without using flash, but I just have not had any slowdown to do so. As soon as I do I'll put one together. I've done a lot of video in the past (corporate training vids) so I have experience in that realm as well as screen captures to showcase software. I have the capabilities to teach/show what I do.... just gotta find the time to actually produce it.


Michael James - http://www.digitalcoastimage.com

[HiFiGuy1]

I would love to see you do it. I would definitely be interested in purchasing that DVD. I may contact you through your website for a few beginner pointers in the meantime.


Do you think that my current EF17-40 Land 40D will be useful in this endeavor? I see that you use FF, and I know just from a short romance with a 5D that it takes some wider shots for sure with my lens.

[maloner]

Here are a few I took recently





http://www.artistlies.com/images/blogpics/main/superstitions-peralta-trail-090214-242_3_4.jpg?1236228288


http://www.artistlies.com/images/blogpics/main/superstitions-peralta-trail-090214-161_2_3.jpg


http://www.artistlies.com/images/blogpics/main/wupatki_wukoki_ruins_blend1.jpg

[Alan]

Top drawer! [Y]

[steve_m]

I like the second one the best. It starts in the foreground and seems to go on forever. Great job.

[Alex Bishton]

Excellent images. I notice you said you used Photoshop. Are there any benefits to using Photoshop over a bespoke piece of HDR software?

[maloner]

Thanks, everyone. The first was my favorite at first but I like the 2nd a lot more now as well.


Alex, I didn't tag the post correctly - each one was processed in Photomatix off of three bracketed exposures, + and - 2 stops. I did then proceed to play with the generated photo in Photoshop (and Lightroom) to get them a little less aggressively HDR in look.

[Tim]

Great photos, and I love the fact that there is snow in the last one. Great contrast cold and hot.

[Alex Bishton]

Maloner, understood. I've been using Photomatix and I agree that it makes the images look too processed. I guess fiddling around in Photoshop would rectify some of the damage caused.

[maloner]

Sometimes what I'll do is blend it as normal in Photomatix, then take the middle exposure and paste it on top as a separate layer, then use whatever blending options make the most sense for that particular photo (it varies a lot). That way you can keep your dynamic range but also restore a more natural look to the photo. I try to get as much of that done in Photomatix itself, but I find that the preview window it shows is not really close enough to the real output to trust it completely.

[John]

Here are a couple I did yesterday and the day before that. This is Cologne, Germany.





http://www.pbase.com/johnhudson/image/109980001/large.jpg





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3339638160_5073360766.jpg

[Madison]

Loving the third one Maloner. It's really great.

[Don Burkett]

I haven't shot many HDR since the tread began but here are 2 from yesterday that I am pleased with. Hope you enjoy. They are from the Chicago Botanic Garden,


Regenstein Center


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/110221515/original.jpg


Japanese Garden


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/110221516/original.jpg

[HiFiGuy1]

Here is one of my first attempt, although I don't know if it can be called HDR since its all done from one file. ACR, CS3, 40D, EF 17-40


http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/108038882/large.jpg



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






It is a beautiful shot! It seems very natural, just the way our eyes would see it, which is what I am looking to accomplish, too. I have the same camera and lens, and I would like to know how you would do this without having multiple images. Is there some way to simulate under/over-exposure in DPP? IJUST bought the Essentials HDR (thanks Michael James) for their under $50 introductory price, but haven't even gotten the key for the download yet. I have a couple of shots that I think would be candidates, but didn't know about HDR and bracketing when I took them. I don't really care if it is "proper" HDR or not, if the results are like you have shown here.

[HiFiGuy1]

Why wouldn't a single RAW shot, with copies made to be underexposed and overexposed in a RAW processor, be just as good as multiple shots? Is the reason for having multiple shots to give more sample data to the image processing software?


Also, I am imaginingthe advantage of 7bracketed shots versus 5 or 3 iskind of like having a 14 bit image versus a 12 or 10 bit image. Is that conceptually sort of the right perpective? More for the image information for the processing software to use for decision making?

[Michael James]

I'm disturbed that you didn't get the key from them already (software). I really hope these guys didn't vaporize. I sent them an email a couple of weeks ago and didn't get any response (non-critical communication). Keep us posted here when you get it to see if there is some kind of long delay. I'd be less willing to recommend them if that is the case. I got my key in under 48 hours (FYI).





Michael James


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com

[Michael James]

More data.


I've shot 9 frames 1EV apart shooting a high DR scene and then tonemapped with all 9 and then pulled frames 2, 4, 6, 8 and just tonemapped 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 which of course are 2EV apart. The difference is a smoother transition in tones. I posted finals somewhere else online about a year ago to show the difference. I should have kept those test images to show here.


I'd imagine for lower DR scenes, it might not matter. But the example scenes I shot were very high DR scenes with blaring sun coming into much darker interiors like the image I've attached. The middle exposure had completely blown out windows and you couldn't see the emerald green and blue water at all and you could barely tell there was furniture on the balcony.


I probably tuned down the outdoors TOO MUCH here because it was a brite sunny day. But this was just a MLS listing for a realtor and I would have retweaked the edit if it was a builder or architect's shot for a portfolio. The realtor's don't pay enough for over editing shots.


When you shoot just one RAW, you only have the range captured in that one shot. Which means that the shadows and highlights will not have a ton of data compared to if you shot three RAWs.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/640x480/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.80/02_5F00_livingRmWest.jpg

[HiFiGuy1]

I'm disturbed that you didn't get the key from them already (software). I really hope these guys didn't vaporize. I sent them an email a couple of weeks ago and didn't get any response (non-critical communication). Keep us posted here when you get it to see if there is some kind of long delay. I'd be less willing to recommend them if that is the case. I got my key in under 48 hours (FYI).





Michael James


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






LOL!! No, I've got it now. When I say JUST, I mean JUST. Like "I-ordered-it-in-another-tab-of-my-browser" just. [:)] It actually came to me within 5-10 minutes. I haven't had a chance to download it yet, but will do that this afternoon I am sure. I hope they respond to your e-mail. They still have contact stuff on their site. Maybe give that a chance again?

[HiFiGuy1]

More data.


I've shot 9 frames 1EV apart shooting a high DR scene and then tonemapped with all 9 and then pulled frames 2, 4, 6, 8 and just tonemapped 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 which of course are 2EV apart. The difference is a smoother transition in tones. I posted finals somewhere else online about a year ago to show the difference. I should have kept those test images to show here.


I'd imagine for lower DR scenes, it might not matter. But the example scenes I shot were very high DR scenes with blaring sun coming into much darker interiors like the image I've attached. The middle exposure had completely blown out windows and you couldn't see the emerald green and blue water at all and you could barely tell there was furniture on the balcony.


I probably tuned down the outdoors TOO MUCH here because it was a brite sunny day. But this was just a MLS listing for a realtor and I would have retweaked the edit if it was a builder or architect's shot for a portfolio. The realtor's don't pay enough for over editing shots.


When you shoot just one RAW, you only have the range captured in that one shot. Which means that the shadows and highlights will not have a ton of data compared to if you shot three RAWs.





What I would give to have my "half-hearted" processing look half that good! I am excited to start using the Essentials HDR software that you recommended.


I do understand what you are saying about the multiiple images, and I was sort of asking from a devil's advocate perspective. I see where the software can do a better job with more data points, and I certainly understand that the point of HDR is to use the darker areas of the overexposed shots to gain detail, while using thebright areas of the underexposed shotsfor the same purpose.


Since I have a 40D which normally only has three "data points" how far apart would you suggest I bracket them? I think I have 1/3 EV spacing incrementsavailable. Is +1/0/-1 good, or should I go for -2/0/+2, or go for something in between?


I have been giving some thought to overcoming the limitations of the camera by controlling shooting from my PC with the camera on a tripod, and changing on the fly so that Itheoretically have -2, -1 2/3, -1 1/3, -1, -2/3, -1/3, 0, +1/3, +2/3, +1, +1 1/3, +1 2/3, +2. That would be 13 points!!


I need to look, but I think I could do the same thing by 1/2 steps, as well, which may be more than adequate. Actually that would still be nine steps. Would that extra effort be too much sugar for a dime?


EDIT: I just realized what you were saying about the "1EV apart" referred to 1EV per step. So my fractions of an EV per step may be slicing the breada little thin. Again, I need to learn my camera better, butI think it can only do from -2 to +2 without recentering "0".

[Michael James]

"It depends"


Unfortunately that is the only answer. Even shooting interiors varies greatly. When shooting a scene that allows light to flood in directly, it could take me 10-12 frames at 1EV per. Some scenes only need 7 frames even though there are windows in the scene and usually because it is woods in frame and no surfaces to bounce light into the property.


Outdoors I usually only need 3-5 frames for 90% of the shots. When I'm standing under a portch with a balcony I might need to go 7 just to bring out the darker shadows within the porch area.


And on a daily basis I'll mix it up. There are times I'll shoot an interior with no windows in frame that has a harsh overhead light that causes deep shadows in the room. Even though I could take one shot and then pull up shadows and bring down highlights in post... it is better to shoot 3-5 frames at either 2/3rds or 1/3rd between each because the colors in the shadows and highlights come out better than pulling them up in say LightRoom. And of course there is less noise in the shadows and less wash out in the highlights.


I can't go +/- a full 2EV. The Nikon D3 allows 9 frames, but a max of 1EV between each. I've shot with Canon's and that 3 AEB annoys me to no end!!!


I also shoot with the Sigma SD14 and it allows 3 frames using AEB and up to +/- 3EV steps and that often is too far apart. I'll use 2 1/3rd as a max when using the SD14. I mostly use the SD14 outdoors so those scenes need less frames anyway and the 3 AEB is usually just enough.


The answer is ... there is no definitive answer.


I've been doing this for almost 3 years and have shot around 400 properties with about 15-20 shots per property. I don't know how many thousand exactly... probably close to 7000. It took me about 1000 or so to really understand which settings to use for which scene right out of the gate. And now I know how to shoot certain scenes while on site that will make my life easier in post.


Michael James


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com

[Michael James]

The 40D has three "C" modes. What I would recommend is pre-prepping them so that in the field you can set up a shot to capture quickly with just the flip of the dial.


Like have the first one C1 setup with the camera settings so that it begins with a negative exposure compensation and C2 with a positive exposure compensation so that you can put the camera in AEB mode and fire off three AEB in C1 and then turn the dial to C2 and immediate fire off three more.


I'd imagine if you used C3 as well you could use all three settings to work out 9 exposures, but at the expense of having to touch the camera twice (once each time you turn the dial). A very steady (rock solid) tripod is crucial if you intend to touch the camera. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to change the alignment touching the camera even lightly.


If you do the math based on the steps between each frame of your AEB, then you can very quickly end up with 6 frames equally spaced using C1 and C2 (9 if you also use C3). The only challenge you will have in post is that they were taken separately so the software may ask you to input the steps you used manually after you have selected the images to use when merging to HDR.


Michael James


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com

[HiFiGuy1]

Michael,


Thank you for the replies. Of course, experience is a great teacher. I am the kind of guy who wants to get it right out of the gate, but I will have to be patient. I do enjoy learning by doing, so this should be a great adventure.


I wonder if the 1D Mark II or Mark IIIhas more points for AEB. I want one of those for other reasons anyway, so this might put me over the edge. I'd have to wait on the Mark III, but might go after a Mark II immediately. I'll look into it. I don't want to risk moving the camera.

[HiFiGuy1]

rgravel,


Out of curiosity, what is the EV spread of your "images"?

[Michael James]

I know the 1Ds mark III does up to 7 for an AEB sequence and +/- 3.0 to boot. I heard from someone online that you can even program in a much higher number of frames as well. I'm not sure about the 1D series.


I never really looked at the 1Ds series because it was out of my price point when I first looked. I'll tell you though. That Canon 17mm T/S is looking a must have for me. Nikon has a 24mm, but that 17mm offering by Canon would be really beneficial to me.


There are about a dozen times a week where I can't get a decent shot off of a room because of optical issues relating to where I can even stand (tripod). And most of these rooms require me to be from 16-18mm because they are condos or smaller homes.


The thing that makes me cringe is the 3 AEB of Canon (ughhh!!!).

[peety3]

Why wouldn't a single RAW shot, with copies made to be underexposed and overexposed in a RAW processor, be just as good as multiple shots? Is the reason for having multiple shots to give more sample data to the image processing software?


Also, I am imaginingthe advantage of 7bracketed shots versus 5 or 3 iskind of like having a 14 bit image versus a 12 or 10 bit image. Is that conceptually sort of the right perpective? More for the image information for the processing software to use for decision making?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





The 14-bit capture uses designated ranges across the 4096 values for different sub-ranges within the sensor's dynamic range. Some sub-ranges (say 18% gray to one stop darker) get a higher number of values (perhaps 2048 of them) than other sub-ranges (say 8 stops darker to "black", getting perhaps 256 values total across those 1-3 stops worth).


Using a single image file to perform HDR becomes a manipulation of the brightness values of the file's pixels to create a file with details not otherwise as visible. Doing so involves perhaps boosting some pixels from a range where there's little detail. Using multiple files of varying under/overexposure provides more detail in those various brightnesses to create the end file. Is single file bad? Nope, at least to me. How about the hybrid method mentioned above? The data is, in the end, the same whether the software gets to work with a single image file or copies that have been brightened/darkened.

[devsalvi]

A couple of HDRs :


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.65/IMG_5F00_1456.JPG

















/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.65/IMG_5F00_3063_5F005F00_0_5F005F00_1_5F00_tonemappe d_5F00_ls.JPG

[Colin]

This was rendered in Raw Shooter Essentials.


I don't know if it's HDR. Well, in terms of high dynamic range, it was very much so...


It looks totally artificial, but I like the effect. Kind of sickening [:)]


http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n87/boujiluge/20080228_Skyline_001.jpg

[Rodger]

Im hopping on the HDR wagon. Well, you could say Imrunningbehind it right now. :P


I've read most of this thread and from that I know is that HDR is done with multiple shots that have different exposures. (Im lost on thetechnicalities).


I took three shots for this: Exposure compensations of [-2, 0,+2] I used Essential HDR Community Edition because it was free. I just hit the "merge and align photos" button and then after that finished I hit "tone mapping" and played with the sliders for a bit. Anyy input at all is welcome.


I'm a complete novice to HDR. Are there certain scenesthatwork better for it? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_QRGWuXF8tks/SgOXZL05PMI/AAAAAAAAA-k/EkjYwCOm1xc/s800/Birdnest HDR 2.jpg

[Michael James]

I'm going to cover Essentials HDR on my blog. I'm launching the blog this week. It is up but without posts as of tonight.


http://www.hdriblog.com


I speak briefly about the app here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogex5stQ2vg


Michael James


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com

[HiFiGuy1]

Michael.


Congratulations on the blog.


Interesting introductory tutorial. What are these HDR monitors you mentioned? I haven't heard of them before.


There is a television technology in my business with like a 1M:1 contrast ratio. The name escapes me right now, but it is only about 30" diagonal and cost like $10k a year or two ago. It uses LCD, but with an LED backlight.


EDIT: It is the BrightSide brand. It is a 37" called the DR37-P. The dynamic range is shown to be 200,000:1 and the price was listed as $49k. I don't have one personally, if you're curious. [:)]


Ialso see OLED monitors being pretty high performance in the near future, along with my personal favorite, which is SED or SCED, though that has stalled commercially for the time being over some intellectual property rights hassles.


BTW, on your recommendation, I did purchase Essentials HDR. I have played with it a little, and like it pretty well, but don't really know how to utilize it to its fullest yet. That might be an interesting blog topic/YouTube video for you to do. Also, I would like to know how you see shots in the real world that make you think, "hey, that's gonna be a great candidate for HDR!"

[Michael James]

Actually Dolby Digital purchased BrightSide and absorbed them. They are actually working on a 47 inch right now with higher specs:


&bull; Display: LCD panel and power LED BLU (2,206 high-power LEDs) plus HDR technology
&bull; Peak brightness: &gt;4000 cd/m2
&bull; Resolution: 1920 &times; 1080 Full HD
&bull; Contrast ratio (full on/full off): Infinite (over 1000000:1)
&bull; Full 16-bit processing (65,536 shades per color) and widest range of displayable colors


To be released this year (no pricing yet)


http://www.sim2.it/home/en/node/1961

[Colin]

I wonder why Dolby would want them... Going to be licensing video technology now?

[Michael James]

Colin,


I would have to guess they want to be known as a high end display maker as they are well known for their sound. I don't know exactly why, but maybe there is a reason that will make sense to us as they bring the technology forward.


It could be they are looking out to the future and believe this is potentially a lucrative space to be in.





Michael James


http://www.digitalcoastimage.com

[Max_Delale]

What about HDR movies ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkbQ2FwZvYk

[alex]

This is definitely the best I've got in the last 5 months with the XSi. It takes such great pictures that I haven't done a lot of HDR recently!


This is an outdoor landscaped water feature located along the city's walking path along the river.


Xsi, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, f/9.0, 17mm, ISO 100, 6 shots of variable shutterspeed, done with Details Enhancer in Photomatix Pro 3.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.73/Night-Shot-DE-web-edit.jpg





C &amp; C welcome!


Alex

[Oren]

Pretty cool alex, it looks like those HDRs which I call "natural HDR" since it is really hard to tell just by looking at it that it's an HDR (to me at least).

[John]

Here's one I did a little while ago





http://www.pbase.com/johnhudson/image/114718732.jpg

[Maleko]

My contribution:

http://portfolio.maleko.co.uk/images/portfolio/scenery/scenery_39.jpg





http://portfolio.maleko.co.uk/images/portfolio/scenery/scenery_40.jpg

[canonmonster]

http://www.canonmonster.com/photos/613894715_gNjkW-M-1.jpg

[canonmonster]

http://www.canonmonster.com/photos/613894729_eqxM3-L-1.jpg

[jusap]

you guys have posted amazing pictures!


I was actually thinking of doing my first HDR last weekend but Mother Nature said otherwise. it rained :(


Maybe this weekend then :P

[greggf]

here is a BW HDR. Tell me what you think Gregg/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/rock-and-clouds-_5B00_1600x1200_5D00_.jpg

[Groundfault]

Gregg, I love it

[greggf]

Thank you Groundfault. been playing with aspect ratio for this forum. trying to figure out what looks best for displaying pics here...thanks again.G

[greggf]

here is another BW HDR/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/Bw-Road-_5B00_1600x1200_5D00_.jpg

[TheRoff]

A lot great work here. This is one I did recently.


http://www.pbase.com/roffee/image/116034475/original.jpg

[greggf]

that's an awesome shot Roff. What lens did you use? it almost looks like the Sigma 12-24...great colors on the plane. Thanx for sharing.G

[TheRoff]

that's an awesome shot Roff. What lens did you use? it almost looks like the Sigma 12-24...great colors on the plane. Thanx for sharing.G






Thanks for the compliment. The lens was Canon's 10-22 on a 30D. I used Photomatix to make the HDR.


Larry

[anglefire]

I've not been on here for some time - but this is one I took when I was over in Ireland last week.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3821872555_d4cc77190c_o.jpg

[anglefire]

Another one, also Ireland, but from June this year.


Only the sky has been HDR'd as the beach didn't work!


http://www.mark.colston-online.co.uk/Ireland/slides/IMG_0765%205D.jpg

[bgood]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.53/Museum-of-the-Rookies-small.jpg


Here's an early attempt at HDR...

[Oren]

Welcome bgood!


Note that the max width for a picture on this forum is 800px. Your image is wider than 800px and thus its right side is trimmed.


Anyhow, you HDR is pretty cool. What software did you use to make it?

[MrGreenBug]

Great photo bgood! I will try this one out someday..

[bgood]

Thanks Oren. I used Photomatix to create the HDRI and tonemap it. I then used Photoshop to iron out a few hot spots and get the levels how I liked them. I thought it turned out ok given that it was handheld using AEB (I didn't have a tripod with me).

[bgood]

Thanks.

[Don Burkett]

Haven't contributed to the thread in awhile but thought this was worth sharing. Hope you enjoy. It's a single shot conversion as I couldn't get a decent result from 3 with the wind blowing the leaves around.


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/116329690/original.jpg

[bgood]

Great shot greggf!

[bgood]

Here's another experiment...


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.53/Blodgett-small.jpg

[jusap]

Here is my first HDR.


The flare is authentic as I'm shooting directly in the sun :P It would have been better if the tree on the right wasn't there.





http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs49/i/2009/233/9/7/Good_Morning_Nuvali_by_jusap.jpg

[Alex Bishton]

I like this but I think it looks too processed, the second one on the other hand looks more natural.





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40.new/IMG_5F00_135re.jpg





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.40.new/IMG_5F00_139re.jpg

[steve_m]

Please give feedback on this one. My first attempt at HDR. XTI body, 24-105L 24mm. It was a foggy morning last Saturday.


http://i27.tinypic.com/2el8j7s.jpg

[Oren]

Looks great. The HDR effect is very weak and that's how I like to see HDRs.

[Maleko]

Like it Steve, love the trees in the distance behind the fog.





I always like to see a before shot of HDR photos :P

[steve_m]

I'll post the before HDR shots when I get home after work today. Thanks for the comments.

[Alan KE]

agreed, but knowing when to "turn it up" (the effect that is) is also key. some look great subtle and others really "pop" when the effect is applied well. i generally try to turn up the HDR effect as high as it can go without the halo effect appearing.

[steve_m]

Here's the before HDR images as promised.


XTI, 24-105L, 24mm, f8, ISO 100, 1/13 sec, 1/20 sec, and 1/30 sec exposure. I didn't use AEB. I just manually shot three diff. exposures.


I wish I had because it would have been a little sharper. Manually changing the exposure probably moved the camera very slightly. Then photomatix has more work putting them together.


http://i32.tinypic.com/289y42c.jpg


http://i28.tinypic.com/20rtk0.jpg


http://i31.tinypic.com/1zx5bna.jpg

[Maleko]

always nice to see! thanks for that :)

[asmodai]

Alex--- My word, that first one is breath-taking. Nicely done.





Here's one of my favorite ones-- despite the tell-tale 'horizon glow'.





http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3748911276_7f4210de04_o.jpg

[Stephen Probert]

Just dabbled in HDR a bit. Here is my favorite so far. Wirepass canyon in UT, in the Paria canyon area.


http://stephenandjessica.proberts.com/wordpress/wp-content/main/2009_09/HDR1_1200.jpg?w=840


EXIF:<span class="photoQExifValue"]Canon EOS 5D|<span class="photoQExifValue"]27 mm|<span class="photoQExifTag"]ISO<span class="photoQExifValue"]400

[jcmeza_21]

I LOVE this one!!!! Dude, awesome job.

[Jon Ruyle]

Sweet!

[steve_m]

Yep, that's very nice!

[Keith B]

These were taken in a rush. There wasn't anytime to set up lights so I figured I HDR them. I usually light these kinds of shots, but I may rethink that. It took me way less time and sweat to stitch these together than actually lighting them.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/SeaWatch1sm.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/SeaWatch2sm.jpg

[Alan KE]

They look good to me keith, natural light and shadows :-)

[Alan KE]

@asmodal, i love your cliffside hdr photo it is ethereal.

[Keith B]

They look good to me keith, natural light and shadows :-)






Thanks!


Yeah I was trying to keep it natural instead of the supernatural.

[mattsartin]

only my second successful attempt. 3 images at 18mm F/8 ISO 100


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/Ss3cXen6HqI/AAAAAAAAIks/OiEtFYpufDQ/s720/bench hdr 2.jpg

[Don Burkett]

Another use for tonemapping....


This is a signifcant crop from color shot taken at the Miami Metro Zoo. After the BW conversion, I applied a red filter which still seemed to leave the tonality a little flat. So, I created 3 frames one stop apart and used Photmatix to improve the contrast and give me the tonality I was looking for.


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/117783040/original.jpg

[HiFiGuy1]

Don,


Great-looking shot! It appears to have a 3D quality to it with the beautiful background blur and sharply-focused head. Very nice work.

[brendanmcd22]

This is my first HDR attempt. Hope to havea "best" one soon.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2600/3999401013_5314b66fa2.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2623/4000160880_22f286e427.jpg

[Don Burkett]

What a great city to learn HDR in. I learned HDR up on Mt. Washington shooting sunrises.


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/107550074/original.jpg

[Rodger]

Brendan, I still like the first one. It's got sort of a sketch feel to it. Almost like concept art you'd see on "disk two" of a dvd. At least that's what it made me think of haha. And the second one looks sweet!


Don, great image! Are you local to Pittsburgh?


-Rodger

[Don Burkett]

Sort of. My roots are there but I've been working out of Chicago the last 6 years.


Thanks for the comment, in this shot, the sky is the actual color and texture of that morning. HDR brought back all the detail from the city which otherwise was in complete silhouette.

[mattsartin]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/StCn91aXPeI/AAAAAAAAIlw/zDKGbuxSK5w/s576/_MG_1012_3_4_tonemapped.jpgtaken in a creek in my back yard. at 18mm f/8 ISO 100


would love to know your thoughts, thanks! just ignore the watermark and the top left corner!

[Rodger]

My roots are there but I've been working out of Chicago the last 6 years.





Cool cool. I lived in Chicago for about three years (two hours north is still considered "Chicago land" much easier than telling people "Crystal Lake" and getting confused looks haha).


That's a wonderful shot of the burgh though. I love it.

[btaylor]

Here's one I got yesterday evening- we call this "The Junction" as it's where the Leichardt River meets Lake Moondarra but really it's just part of the river. This is an 8 shot HDR tone mapped in Photomatix Pro. It was nice to actually have some clouds for a change.


I personally like to use HDR to increase the dynamic range of an image back to something similar to what the eye sees. I think it's easy to over-use but it's a great tool in moderation. This is about as far as I like to push the limits of HDR.


Canon 40D, Canon EFS 10-22mm @ 10mm and f/8. ISO 100. I'm still in love with that lens.


Cheers, Ben.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/Moondarra-HDR_5F00_TDP.jpg

[Rodger]

That's sweeet!! Ahh wish I took it hahaha :D


What a great shot Ben!

[Don Burkett]

My roots are there but I've been working out of Chicago the last 6 years.





Cool cool. I lived in Chicago for about three years (two hours north is still considered "Chicago land" much easier than telling people "Crystal Lake" and getting confused looks haha).


That's a wonderful shot of the burgh though. I love it.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Unreal, that's the area I live in now.

[Don Burkett]

taken in a creek in my back yard. at 18mm f/8 ISO 100


would love to know your thoughts, thanks! just ignore the watermark and the top left corner!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I like the idea of this shot quite a bit and the colors are good. You might want to fiddle with the contrast a little bit by pulling down the midtones with a curves tool. That will also tame the highlights on the branch which are on the verge of being blown. It's worth the effort this shot has some serious potential. BTW, if you ever buy the license, there's a utility in Photomatix that will remove the watermarks on any photos you processed during the trial. Very cool on there part, saved me a lot of work.

[btaylor]

Cheers Rodger.



BTW, if you ever buy the license, there's a utility in Photomatix that will remove the watermarks on any photos you processed during the trial. Very cool on there part, saved me a lot of work.


I did not know that... bugger. That really would have come in handy [:'(]

[mattsartin]

<div>









You might want to fiddle with the contrast a little bit by pulling down the midtones with a curves tool. That will also tame the highlights on the branch which are on the verge of being blown.


Thanks! i had noticed that myself but wasn't really sure how to fix it, i'm new to photomatix and just trying to learn the ends and outs of it, i will be buying the license soon so that's also good to know about removing the watermarks, thanks again!
</div>

[Rodger]

My roots are there but I've been working out of Chicago the last 6 years.





Cool cool. I lived in Chicago for about three years (two hours north is still considered "Chicago land" much easier than telling people "Crystal Lake" and getting confused looks haha).


That's a wonderful shot of the burgh though. I love it.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>





Unreal, that's the area I live in now.



Haha small world! I wish I would have gotten into photography before I moved back east. Crystal Lake was a great location. Even if the lake wasn't exaclt "crystal" clear haha.

[mattsartin]

3 shots at 18mm f/3.5 ISO 400, handheld. Grunge effect in Photomatix appled


Interior of a very, very nice Boss Mustang


Too much HDR? I like it, but very much would like a different opinion


http://lh3.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/Stvz3RFKHPI/AAAAAAAAIqk/6L2IPIY5hSI/s720/_MG_1304_5_6_tonemapped.jpg

[Mark Elberson]

Did this one over the weekend. I used 1 RAW file and processed it into 5 16 bit TIFF files at 1 EV spacing. I really cranked up the effect for this one because I felt like it added a lot of drama to a somewhat marginal composition :-)


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.13/2009_2D00_10_2D00_24_2D00_15_2D00_11_2D00_27-HDR.jpg

[anglefire]

I'm pretty sure you would get the same effect with photomatrix with just the one RAW file.


Quite a nice effect though.


And the previous car is brilliant!

[Joel Bookhammer]

Not sure if I would call this HDR or not but it is a shot of New River Gorge in West Virginia, processed from one image


/resized-image.ashx/__size/600x400/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.61/IMG_5F00_6814.jpg

[Daya]

Nice one Joel.


The clouds in the valleys look like they were placed there for this pic :) Feels like soon King Kong's gonna pop outta this dense forest.

[Alan KE]

Not sure if I would call this HDR or not but it is a shot of New River Gorge in West Virginia, processed from one image





I think its classed as "ToneMapped" when its from one image, but my understanding is that if you do it from a RAW file there is additional luminance information that can let you give the impression of a "higher" dynamic range. Either way loving you work! :)

[Alan KE]

i had this in a lonely thread than never got looked at :'( sniff. Thought i would drop it in to this thread :D, very slight "HDR Effect" just to pull out the highlight and shadow details. 3 Exposures...etc etc, Photomatix...etc.





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.84/Morgan1_2D00_3-_2800_1_2900_Medium.jpg

[Dan Fleming]

Single shot jpg taken on an XTi, 28-105mm @3.5, 30.0s. I enjoy the painted look to the final doc, more than the quality of the photo


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.08/upbc-copy.jpg


Edit: I meant to say that this image feels somewhat thomas kinkade - ish to me.