Discussion
A couple of people were asking about this photo on another thread:
And a few others contacted me before when I posted other HDR shots.
Which is odd... I'm just a newbie and some people on this forum post stunning HDRs, so I don't know why I'm being picked on
But anyway, what I do:
For a picture like the bridge, where there are very dark areas under the arches and relatively bright areas in the sky, I normally take 7 exposures in manual mode, so a steady tripod is a must!
I start by setting a low ISO (100) and choose an aperture (IIRC around f/10 for above image). Then I take a picture at the shutter speed that the camera says gives "ideal" exposure. Then speed it up by a stop and take another shot, etc. So I end up with 1 "ideal", 3 underexposed and 3 overexposed.
Sometimes I only take 3 if there isn't that much difference between the bright and dark areas.
And I've also gotten away with just one slightly underexposed shot, where I adjusted the RAW file to give a range of exposures. It gives slightly more grainy results, but for HDRing something that moves, there isn't much choice.
The reason I'd underexpose for shots like that is because there's a lot more detail in underexposed areas than overexposed!
Then, once I have my exposures, I stick them all into Photomatix and start getting creative!
I use "Details Enhancer" mode, which gives you lots of sliders to change various values.
What I do is literally work down the sliders one by one, and set it to a value that looks closest to what I want. This varies completely for each picture so there are no "default" settings.
When I get to the end, unless the picture looks exactly like I want, I usually go back to the top and start fine-tuning.
Then save, and that's pretty much it!
I use an old version of Paint Shop Pro to do simple things like resize and sharpen, but that's pretty much it.
Some other examples (click for bigger):
7 exposures:
1 exposure:
And the "overdone" look
:
And a few others contacted me before when I posted other HDR shots.
Which is odd... I'm just a newbie and some people on this forum post stunning HDRs, so I don't know why I'm being picked on
But anyway, what I do:
For a picture like the bridge, where there are very dark areas under the arches and relatively bright areas in the sky, I normally take 7 exposures in manual mode, so a steady tripod is a must!
I start by setting a low ISO (100) and choose an aperture (IIRC around f/10 for above image). Then I take a picture at the shutter speed that the camera says gives "ideal" exposure. Then speed it up by a stop and take another shot, etc. So I end up with 1 "ideal", 3 underexposed and 3 overexposed.
Sometimes I only take 3 if there isn't that much difference between the bright and dark areas.
And I've also gotten away with just one slightly underexposed shot, where I adjusted the RAW file to give a range of exposures. It gives slightly more grainy results, but for HDRing something that moves, there isn't much choice.
The reason I'd underexpose for shots like that is because there's a lot more detail in underexposed areas than overexposed!
Then, once I have my exposures, I stick them all into Photomatix and start getting creative!
I use "Details Enhancer" mode, which gives you lots of sliders to change various values.
What I do is literally work down the sliders one by one, and set it to a value that looks closest to what I want. This varies completely for each picture so there are no "default" settings.
When I get to the end, unless the picture looks exactly like I want, I usually go back to the top and start fine-tuning.
Then save, and that's pretty much it!
I use an old version of Paint Shop Pro to do simple things like resize and sharpen, but that's pretty much it.
Some other examples (click for bigger):
7 exposures:
1 exposure:
And the "overdone" look
:
rasputin said:
I'll be glad when people accept that everyone's taste differs 
.
This, +1, whatever. .Rasputin, many thanks for posting. I'm not a fan of hugely "overdone" HDR myself, though it can produce a striking effect - but it's very useful to see the process as used by other people; 's all subjective, innit. Unless anybody seriously believes that in the halcyon pre-digital days, nobody ever manipulated an image in the darkroom...
itsnotarace said:
I'll be glad when HDR has gone out of fashion and everyone goes back to getting the exposure right in camera & uses filters where required
Heavy HDR might go out of fashion, but HDR won't die until we get cameras capable of 20 odd stops of light in a single exposure (the same as the human eye can see by adjusting very quickly around a scene)CivicMan said:
That Ansel Adams.... - now THERE'S a photographer who never manipulated an image, and look where it got him.
p.s. this is intended as an ironic comment for those it may bypass.....
In camera yes, but they all manipulated the print in the dark room..dodge & burn, different grades of paper etcp.s. this is intended as an ironic comment for those it may bypass.....
Have you seen any of his prints up close? I was quite surprised how small they where, almost 10x8 contacts, even most of the big ones where smaller than A3
Yes, saw a giant retrospective exhibition in Venice about 20 years ago. The print quality was stunning, many images up to, as I remember, to about 20x16 inches.
As an enthusiastic BW printer in those days, I was blown away by his image manipulation in the darkroom - some very very complex and clever work that I could only aspire to.
HDR, by comparison, is a piece of piss to do, which is why I embrace it so happily!
As an enthusiastic BW printer in those days, I was blown away by his image manipulation in the darkroom - some very very complex and clever work that I could only aspire to.
HDR, by comparison, is a piece of piss to do, which is why I embrace it so happily!
itsnotarace said:
I'll be glad when HDR has gone out of fashion and everyone goes back to getting the exposure right in camera & uses filters where required
Sorry but there is no difference from someone using exposure and filters on camera than there is to computer processing to make a HDR.Thanks for the write up mate, some lovely HDR work youve got there 
Ive tried HDR but for some reason my shots come out very grainy and soft, even after ive tried playing around with them in photomatrix for ages.
Ive tried HDR but for some reason my shots come out very grainy and soft, even after ive tried playing around with them in photomatrix for ages.
rasputin said:
I'll be glad when people accept that everyone's taste differs .
Couldnt put it better myself, would be a very boring subject if we did everything the same way..Edited by Allyc85 on Friday 11th December 22:14
stigmundfreud said:
when the 24bit sensors arrive you'll be getting close to human eye for tonal range
With all tones crammed into one fixed image, I wonder if the images will seem to lack contrast? The human eye only concentrates on 1-2% of the image at a time and adjusts 'exposure' instantly and automatically to deal with extremes of light and shade. That's quite a different prospect from a fixed recorded image.So we shall have to devise interatcive images that change depending on where you look at them...
rasputin said:
so I don't know why I'm being picked on
This post now ammended... keeping the bit belowAs you know I use HDR much of the time, but use it in a different way to many on here. I have absolutely no problem with people creating the fabulous images that appear here (on a daily basis these days).
...but sometimes, IMHO, perfectly good images are spoilt by over-use of HDR. I mean check out 5 of 8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
It's a joke! - yet it's one of the winners in Landscape photo of the year!
On the other hand... HDR or not : http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/national_...
Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 12th December 15:31
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff