HDR Pictures

[Nate P.]

Eh, they don't do much for me... it's a great first attempt though (assuming those are your first attempt). They look a little blurry though. Did you take them handheld?

[Kosior]

My 2nd attempt

[Magnj]

Here's a few I forgot about, click for large

My buddy at the shore


Brosef


Car, bad crop but a good proof of concept

[Soulburner]

Guys,

While single tonemapped images can be neat, they are not true High Dynamic Range. What it means to create an HDR image is to properly expose all areas of a scene by taking multiple shots at different exposures. This is done using Aperture Priority and varying the shutter speed, ideally by using the camera's bracketing feature. This captures a much greater range of detail than a single exposure is capable of, since cameras aim for a middle-grey exposure as a compromise by design. Single images cannot hope to create this detail as the data simply is not there.

Unfortunately this means that true HDR images must be still-only. Taking three or more pictures means every image has to be virtually identical in composition and movement, thus HDR cannot be used for action shots. A great example of a true High Dynamic Range image is shown below:



This image is credited to herc182 @ DCResource.

[Magnj]

Shooting RAW, you can adjust exposure and create 3-5 images from one shot. Though its not perfect...it's pretty close.

[Soulburner]

You're right, you can do that. However, you aren't creating any new data, only manipulating what you have. What really needs to happen is for the dynamic range to be captured optically at the scene through different exposures. Anything else is technically fake-HDR.

The biggest reason is, you can't bring back blown highlights and you can't bring back lost shadow details in software, it had to be captured in the exposures or the data simply isn't there to work with.

[Magnj]

Since RAW isn't setting exposure data though is is not better than a JPEG when creating a "fake" HDR? I'll try a few with bracketing today :p

[Cold Fussion]

Shooting RAW, you can adjust exposure and create 3-5 images from one shot. Though its not perfect...it's pretty close.

The exposure control in RAW is unrelated to the camera exposure.

[Magnj]

The exposure control in RAW is unrelated to the camera exposure.

care to elaborate?

[Cold Fussion]

care to elaborate?

Exposure is how long the shutter stays open which in turns regulates how much light is let in. The Exposure in raw its more like a brightness and contrast in photoshop. It doesn't create any new data.

For example; if you take a 2 shots of the sky on a bright cloudy day, 1 at a lower exposure and one at a normal exposure, you will see the lower exposed picture will show the detail in the sky while the normal will wash it out. Now if you plug it into camera raw and adjust the exposure, you will see the detail of the clouds isn't recaptured.

What im saying is, exposure isn't a post processing thing. The raw function doesn't capture the exposure details across the entire exposure spectrum.

[Magnj]

Exposure is how long the shutter stays open which in turns regulates how much light is let in. The Exposure in raw its more like a brightness and contrast in photoshop. It doesn't create any new data.

For example; if you take a 2 shots of the sky on a bright cloudy day, 1 at a lower exposure and one at a normal exposure, you will see the lower exposed picture will show the detail in the sky while the normal will wash it out. Now if you plug it into camera raw and adjust the exposure, you will see the detail of the clouds isn't recaptured.

What im saying is, exposure isn't a post processing thing. The raw function doesn't capture the exposure details across the entire exposure spectrum.

I gotcha. Thanks

[Soulburner]

This is a quick half-assed HDR...not really sure if I like it. This was taken as the sun was coming up after the storms last night and this morning.



B&W for something different:

[Soulburner]

I'm getting better results from Photoshop CS3 than Photomatix.

[Soulburner]

Photoshop CS3 is giving me better results in creating realistic looking HDR images. Here are my thoughts:

1. Similar results can be had from both programs, however there is more adjustability in Photomatix if you want a surreal look. PS CS3 has better adjustability for realism - you can adjust the tone curve which Photomatix can't do at all.

2. When adjusting images to be nearly identical, the Photomatix result has less contrast and a light gray haze. Blacks are better from the CS3 result. Post-processing can close the gap but they still aren't the same. Color is similar when you don't overcook the saturation.

3. CS3 HDR Merge yields lower noise. Photomatix seems to amplify noise, even when using maximum light smoothing and 0 strength.

4. When done merging in CS3, I am still in Photoshop so I can continue my work. When working in another program such as Photomatix, I have to export to do any further editing which adds a step to the workflow. I really like being able to work straight from Bridge. I load all of my exposures into Adobe Camera Raw, adjust the white balance, color, defringing, slight sharpening and noise reduction and sometimes miscellaneous other things. I load the images into Photoshop and merge to HDR from there - it is all seamless and there is no saving, exporting, importing into another program, exporting back, etc.

5. PS CS3 aligns images much better than Photomatix, which has problems with this.

On the downside, Photoshop is slower and consumes your system of all of its memory. On a 2GB system I actually started getting errors though I run a lot of programs at once...4GB is on the way for this kind of work.

With that said...I don't have a use for Photomatix anymore. CS3 just gives me better aligned images, with a much cleaner merge and better realism, with the proper exposure taken from each image and applied into one without any strings attached or ugly surprises. It gives me images that look like they should when considering what HDR merging is actually trying to achieve, and not overcooked images that I see so often called HDR (sorry guys). Next I will compare this rounds winner with Paintshop Pro X2 which I hear is very good as well.

[Mr.Guvernment]

so many awsome pics in this thread, suck my house was broken into and my $3500 inb gear stolen!


40D coming in JUne...


so those of you who have posted, tell us your technique,........... software? settings


[EDIT]


okay FAR too many pics to multiquote..


can any / most of you post your pics with high res? like 1600 x + or higher? just tooss your name / sig on it , make some awsome wallpapers, some serious talent in here.

once i have my 40D and if i can get all the gear i want, should see some awsome macro HDR stuff (mmm mp-e)

[LordofDoom]

I think I'm going to try this soon. I just got a Cannon Rebel XT (stock lens) for my birthday and my brother just got a Nikon D40 (stock lens) for his Bar Mitzvah

[Soulburner]

Of the hundreds I have to go through...here is the first one I'll post.

How about a little handheld HDR. 3 shot bracket, processed in Photoshop CS3 with a touch of "Clarify" from Paintshop Pro X2 added at the end. The alignment is nothing short of magic.

This is in Downtown Denver, CO.



Original +0 EV image:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...isc/Church.jpg

I spent so much time looking at it while working on it, that the original just looks horrible now.

[Nate P.]

I love that sunrise one, Soul.

[eva2000]

In body processed HDR levels - so only 1 photo taken hehe

No post-processing, straight out of camera into Lightroom for export as 80% JPEG -> resize for thumbnails and larger 1200px width copy - keeping EXIF info intact.

Click thumbnail for larger version:

• Camera Make: PENTAX Corporation
• Camera Model: PENTAX K200D
• Image Date: 2008:06:20 13:56:40
• Flash Used: No
• Focal Length: 40.0mm (35mm equivalent: 60mm)
• Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)
• Aperture: f/6.3
• ISO equiv: 125
• White Balance: Manual
• Metering Mode: Matrix
• Exposure: Manual
• Exposure Mode: Manual

originals and HDR level 1 vs 2 vs 3 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=191789

[Cold Fussion]

That isn't HDR eva.

[Markicks]

This is the best of my first attempts this afternoon. What do you guys think? -1, 0 and +1 EV, my camera can't go lower and higher (Nikon P5000).

[eva2000]

That isn't HDR eva.

still a newb. LOL

tried -/+ 0.3EV CS HDR merge and got this



and



guess need more practice and use -/+ 2EV ??

[Cold Fussion]

Photoshop CS3 is giving me better results in creating realistic looking HDR images. Here are my thoughts:

1. Similar results can be had from both programs, however there is more adjustability in Photomatix if you want a surreal look. PS CS3 has better adjustability for realism - you can adjust the tone curve which Photomatix can't do at all.

2. When adjusting images to be nearly identical, the Photomatix result has less contrast and a light gray haze. Blacks are better from the CS3 result. Post-processing can close the gap but they still aren't the same. Color is similar when you don't overcook the saturation.

3. CS3 HDR Merge yields lower noise. Photomatix seems to amplify noise, even when using maximum light smoothing and 0 strength.

4. When done merging in CS3, I am still in Photoshop so I can continue my work. When working in another program such as Photomatix, I have to export to do any further editing which adds a step to the workflow. I really like being able to work straight from Bridge. I load all of my exposures into Adobe Camera Raw, adjust the white balance, color, defringing, slight sharpening and noise reduction and sometimes miscellaneous other things. I load the images into Photoshop and merge to HDR from there - it is all seamless and there is no saving, exporting, importing into another program, exporting back, etc.

5. PS CS3 aligns images much better than Photomatix, which has problems with this.

On the downside, Photoshop is slower and consumes your system of all of its memory. On a 2GB system I actually started getting errors though I run a lot of programs at once...4GB is on the way for this kind of work.

With that said...I don't have a use for Photomatix anymore. CS3 just gives me better aligned images, with a much cleaner merge and better realism, with the proper exposure taken from each image and applied into one without any strings attached or ugly surprises. It gives me images that look like they should when considering what HDR merging is actually trying to achieve, and not overcooked images that I see so often called HDR (sorry guys). Next I will compare this rounds winner with Paintshop Pro X2 which I hear is very good as well.

If you do it in photoshop you can always use the photomatix tonemapping plugin for photoshop. What options are you getting in pscs3's merge to hdr thing? I only have that 1 slider.

[Soulburner]

What slider are you referring to?

[Soulburner]

Compared to the rubbish originals, I get much more life-like shots with HDR.