HDR (high dynamic range)

[jfulcer]

Out of curiosity - can you do that with a Canon S5? I have Paint Shop Pro XI.

I have the trial version of Photmatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/) for making HDRs. It's $99. I don't use it often enough to justify the $99, but it works pretty well.

 

[jfulcer]

sure, use exposure bracketing mode. I am not sure if you can set it to 5 pics or just three. Use a tripod and the timer or a remote.

I do not know if PSP XI will do the process though.

Mikeeee

I've got the S2 and it brackets 3 pictures. That's what I used for the cathedral pictures.

 

[handicap18]

sure, use exposure bracketing mode. I am not sure if you can set it to 5 pics or just three. Use a tripod and the timer or a remote.

I do not know if PSP XI will do the process though.

Mikeeee

You don't have to use a bracketing feature. You can set it to manual and after each picture change the shutter speed. Might be easier this way for people not all familar with the bracketing feature on their camera or for those that don't have bracketing.

So long as the camera has a Manual mode then you can do an HDR. Set the aperture to a mid range (f/8 or so on a PnS and then what ever you think is your sharpest f/stop on your lens for your dSLR, maybe f/5.6). Then each picture only change the shutter speed. This will keep the depth of field the same on each image. Start slightly over exposed, then end up slightly under exposed. 5 images is usually best, though many can be done with 3. Oh and use a tripod this will keep the composition the same for each image.

 

[bob100]

Start slightly over exposed, then end up slightly under exposed. 5 images is usually best, though many can be done with 3. Oh and use a tripod this will keep the composition the same for each image.

yes, if you don't use a tripod the alignment will be off! here is a three exposure pic using Photomatrix, the alignment is slightly off but I kept it because I liked the lighting when combining the pics with Photomatrix,

and here is one pic NOT combining different exposures but just using an "HDR" filter in Photoshop (some consider that cheating!)

 

[moonpie85]

DSLR means a digital single lens reflex camera.

Here is a Nikon D60:

A detailed HDR explanation (and some incredible photos) is at

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

Thanks! I think I'm going to order that one.

 

[moonpie85]

It is complicated, and it isn't. It's like riding a bike - once you've done it it's easy enough. DSLR means a Digital Single Lens Reflex Camera. It's a couple steps up from the standard digital point and shoot that you'd buy at Best Buy/etc. It allows the photographer to control a little more about how the photo is taken. Well, it's more than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

I was playing with taking some pictures for HDR when I visited Washington DC a week ago. I took some pictures inside of the National Cathedral. This is a good example of a 'normal' photo you might get:

This is an HDR version of that same photo:

Notice how you can see MUCH more arch detail underneath the stain glass windows on the left of the pictures and you can see the detailing in the arches quite a bit back on the right. It makes a big difference in what you see. Sorry the pictures are not 100% clear - I was doing these without a tripod - I forgot to grab it when I left to go on the trip.

I looked for the POR HDRs. Can you post a link to them?

Those are beautiful!

Here's that post..
http://disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1730158&page=25

 

[Groucho]

Nearly any camera can do it. Most cameras, even the cheapest, have Exposure Compensation control... (sometimes shown as a square with a + and a - in it.) This is all you need. Well, that and some sort of tripod or other very stable way to hold the camera. (A monopod or similar probably won't work with cheaper cameras as you'll have to be changing settings, and you're unlikely to be able to do that without moving the camera on a monopod.)

You'll probably also want to use a 2-second (or 10-second if 2-second isn't available) timer, that way the camera won't be moving from you pressing the shutter button. So take the initial photo, then set the exposure compensation to -1, take it again, set it to +1, and take it again. That's all you need. If there's really big variances in brightness, you can do -2 and +2, but photos with that much range can tend to make very unrealistic-looking HDR shots.

It's all a matter of taste, but IMHO the unrealistic shots are neat the first time you see them but quickly become gimmicky... the trick is to make it so that you don't know that it's an HDR shot.

edit: just looked at the POR photos. Those are waaaaay over the top! That kind of the opposite look from what I'd tend to go for, but different strokes for different folks.

 

[handicap18]

It's all a matter of taste, but IMHO the unrealistic shots are neat the first time you see them but quickly become gimmicky... the trick is to make it so that you don't know that it's an HDR shot.

edit: just looked at the POR photos. Those are waaaaay over the top! That kind of the opposite look from what I'd tend to go for, but different strokes for different folks.

I completely agree Groucho. Those HDR pics of POR are nice, but they are more like paintings. Cool look, but IMO, not for photos.

Gdad did a WONDERFUL job with HDR in this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1869973

 

[jfulcer]

Those are beautiful!

Here's that post..
http://disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1730158&page=25

One more (again without the tripod):

And in all honesty that's pretty close to how I remember it. I don't remember the deep dark shadows and I remember the hanging fabrics having color like in the HDR photos. And, well, the people didn't look like ghosts, but you get the idea.

 

[wenrob]

So essentially it's merging 3-5 pictures of different exposures together? I have PSPx2 and it will do this but do I do any editing to the pics beforehand? I have a picture of my kids and hubby where, DH and oldest DD are underexposed and the little ones are overexposed. Would this technique have 'fixed' it if I had bracketed the shot?

 

[thomas998]

So essentially it's merging 3-5 pictures of different exposures together? I have PSPx2 and it will do this but do I do any editing to the pics beforehand? I have a picture of my kids and hubby where, DH and oldest DD are underexposed and the little ones are overexposed. Would this technique have 'fixed' it if I had bracketed the shot?

Well the first problem is your monitor and photographic paper wont actually show HDR photos are they are unless you have a 5,000 HDR monitor you are only seeing simulation of HDR....

At the most simplistic form you could have a scene that is half shadow and half bright light... you could take a picture with perfect exposure for the bright and one with perfect exposure for the shadows... Now copy the perrectly exposed shadows and lay them onto the other picture (just the shadows though not the overexposed bright part of the picture)... now you effectively have an HDR.

Most of the HDRs you see here are going a step beyond using special software that tries to pull the right parts of a series of photos and then tweaks things sometimes putting lightened areas between borders of dark and light areas to enhance the boundaries between light and dark...

What you are talking about in theory would have worked but in reality it doesn't usually do very well on people. It works best on building and things that don't move because you aren't taking all the photos at the same time people tend to blink or breath or move and any movement causes problems. HDR is more of a cool toy that depending on your point of view either looks very cool or just over the top bad.

 

[Experiment_626]

I've never used my D80's auto-bracketing feature, but as I'm interested in trying my hand at HDR, I thought I'd give it a whirl this weekend at WDW. After I read the section on auto-bracketing in the manual, I see that I can set it to bracket three shots. It allows me to set the increment between each shot to anywhere between a third of a stop to two full stops. At first, I was thinking I'd go one full stop. But I realize I just don't know whether that would be best. So, I thought I'd throw it out here and ask -- those of you who have done HDR, what would you do? Do the RAW files have enough latitude that I should go for an even wider increment?

SSB

 

[MonoManBlue]

My response won't help, but I also have a D80 and have yet to use the AutoBkt feature. This august when I go back, I am going to try some of these HDR things....so I am also looking forward to an answer! I only shoot in Jpg though, should I use RAW?

 

[Experiment_626]

My response won't help, but I also have a D80 and have yet to use the AutoBkt feature. This august when I go back, I am going to try some of these HDR things....so I am also looking forward to an answer! I only shoot in Jpg though, should I use RAW?

Once I learned the incredible power of RAW, I've never shot JPEGs again unless it is a rare case where I'm running out of room on my card (and my other card is full) and I still have photos I want to take right now, so I don't have time to download. RAW gives you so much more latitude in post-processing.

In fact, I'm not even sure if you can create HDR images with JPEGs. I think the high bit-depth of a RAW file is required. Not 100 percent certain of that, though.

Going to bed now -- I'll check responses in the morning before we leave. I have a five-hour drive to see a mouse about a dog tomorrow ... plus, I'm officially out of italics as of now!

SSB

 

[bob100]

In fact, I'm not even sure if you can create HDR images with JPEGs. I think the high bit-depth of a RAW file is required. Not 100 percent certain of that, though.
SSB

you can create HDR with jpeg, no problem. I use three exposure brackets in many outdoor pics and combine them with photomatrix, even without special "HDR" processing such as color saturation it creates a better lighting effect, here is a before & after -

before:









after:

.

 

[ukcatfan]

There is no magic number to use. It depends on the individual situation. That is why you should do multiple shots with different increments. I have my camera set to +-1, but that would not always work. You might also want to shoot manual and do more than three shots. It is not very difficult or time consuming to just change the shutter speed and shoot five to seven or even nine shots. When doing this, just be sure to have the middle shot be what you consider the correct exposure if not doing HDR.

 

[Experiment_626]

you can create HDR with jpeg, no problem. I use three exposure brackets in many outdoor pics and combine them with photomatrix

Okay, I see. Maybe Photoshop's HDR process requires RAW (or at least 16-bit TIFFs). I plan to get Photomatrix anyway, but I'll stick with RAW.

SSB

 

[Experiment_626]

There is no magic number to use. It depends on the individual situation. That is why you should do multiple shots with different increments.

Somehow, I knew someone would say that. It's never easy, I suppose. It makes sense that the answer depends on the dynamic range of the scene. So, I think my shrewd strategy on this trip will be to guess.

SSB

 

[handicap18]

With the few that I've done I go with 1 stop incriments. I find a shutter speed that works best with what I think is the best f/stop (typically f/5.6-f/11 depending on the lens). Once I get my f/stop, then I take the "correct exposure". I'll go down 2 full shutter speeds, then go up 2 shutter speeds to give me my 5 images.

There are my $0.02. Don't spend in all in one place....

 

[thomas998]

It really depends on the dynamic range of the scene your trying to capture. In some scenes you can use 3 shot at 1/2 stop over and under... other will require more variation... Just remember that the more photos you have in the bracket the longer the processing time you have, I once tried to do 15... and I say tried because my computer started the process and after a few hours I just killed it and decided that it wasn't worth it.