image post processing

It is difficult to tell if our photos are 'off' from what we see with our eyes. Everyone's vision is different, my color vision and brightness perception is different in each eye!
Ha! That's funny, I've had the same issue for several years at leas (if not forever.) I see slightly different hues between my two eyes. I wonder if that's why 3D movies haven't been as effective for me the last few years.
 
Hello :)

I was just over at the resort boards & I saw these beautiful photos that looked more like paintings. Someone commented that they were "HDR photos." I know nothing about photography, but can someone explain what an HDR photo is & what HDR stands for? Does it require a special camera or is it edited this way?

Thanks!:flower3:
 
Hello :)

I was just over at the resort boards & I saw these beautiful photos that looked more like paintings. Someone commented that they were "HDR photos." I know nothing about photography, but can someone explain what an HDR photo is & what HDR stands for? Does it require a special camera or is it edited this way?

Thanks!:flower3:

google HDR
High Dynamic Range - combining different exposure pics in a program so you see more "dynamic range" in the light, sometimes it can look good but many times it comes out looking ... odd ! I think it takes skill to make an HDR photo look good, unfortunately when I experimented a while back my results were inconsistent, maybe I'll revisit it
 
These may not be absolutely correct numbers so please forgive if I am off.

The human eye can see about 12-15 stops of light. THe normal photo only shows about 2-3 stops of light. By electronically combining several photos of the same subject at different settings of light you can achieve a photo that can see around 9-11 stops of light.

My best description is to try to take a picture of the inside of a very ornate church. Most of the time you are dissapointed because a lot of the detail is lost because of the low light available. An HDR picture can pick up a lot of that detail bescause it under exposes and over exposes the same picture as well as a properly exposed picture to give you that detail.

Yes HDR's can look very painting like if not processed properly. I think done proplery that look amazing.

And for all you photo people out there, I intentionally tried to make this very not photo jargon specific so don't rip me a new one please!
 

Essentially, a HDR image combines multiple images to create an image where no detail is lost. If you take a standard (metered) metered image, then over expose (to get shadow detail) then under expose (to get highlight detail), then use a program like photoshop or photomatix to combine them, then you'll get an image where, while there will still be shadows in highlights, neither are that strong, and the entire scene can be viewed.

132136431_3347fb3a1d.jpg
 
These may not be absolutely correct numbers so please forgive if I am off.

The human eye can see about 12-15 stops of light. THe normal photo only shows about 2-3 stops of light. By electronically combining several photos of the same subject at different settings of light you can achieve a photo that can see around 9-11 stops of light.

My best description is to try to take a picture of the inside of a very ornate church. Most of the time you are dissapointed because a lot of the detail is lost because of the low light available. An HDR picture can pick up a lot of that detail bescause it under exposes and over exposes the same picture as well as a properly exposed picture to give you that detail.

Yes HDR's can look very painting like if not processed properly. I think done proplery that look amazing.

And for all you photo people out there, I intentionally tried to make this very not photo jargon specific so don't rip me a new one please!

I appreciate the non-photo jargon thank you!!:flower3:
 
We have had some good explanations of HDR, and it gets even deeper. ;)

The sensors in our cameras can capture 7 or 8 stops, some can do a little better, the really good ones maybe 10 or 11 stops. A real life scene can have a much greater range. Our eyes are continuously varying their "exposure" so we pretty much see it all, from the midday sun down to dim stars at night.

In order to capture a greater range we take multiple exposures and blend them. But it isn't quite done yet. What we see on our monitors is *not* HDR, we call it that for convenience. Very few monitors (none that we can afford) can show HDR so what we do with our HDR is "tone map" it to fit the range our monitors can handle. This tone mapping is where the real art is, where we can go gently and no one will even guess it was HDR (like deletedpenguin's example), or we can play around a little and create something that is not like a photograph (like my image of Epcot's France pavilion).
http://www.suzieandbob.com/wdw/feb_09/HTML/

HDR does not require a special camera, almost any dSLR can do it and many P&S can. It works best with a tripod so the three (or 5, or 7, or more) images align better. There are a number of software packages that work with HDR, from Photoshop to Photomatix, and at least a few more. It is fun to play with and some of the images can be quite imaginative. Others can look really bad, but you are not likely to see my bad ones posted! ;)
 
/
I only got as far as St. Augustine so no Disney, unless you count the Disney store at the outlet mall! ;)

After about 6 months of serious HDR practice I find that as time goes on I tend to go for a more subtle approach for most subjects. Some images still respond better to a more wild treatment but these are rare. Here are a few recent ones:

pearson_3065_59_61_62_63_64.jpg


Pearson's Falls - waterfalls are notorious for a wide dynamic range, the white water is often blown out and shadows are full of noise. HDR is a great solution and it is easy to add 4 or even 8 stops without making it look like any digital processing was used.

raffle_3841_39_40.jpg


Raffle Car - I didn't carry a tripod but a nearby grand piano worked just fine! The three exposure AEB was enough for this indoor scene, where a single exposure would never capture all the detail of a black car with chrome trim.

pool_3887_89_90_88_92.jpg


Pool - this was a tough one. I was in the pool drinking a beer after a long hot day when the lighting was at it's best and just didn't want to get out! ;) The sky was completely dark by the time this was taken, a little dusk light might have taken much of the red out. Oh well, just another excuse to try again!

concours_3810_08_09.jpg


Concours - This one got a heavy treatment to help make the cars look like models and to stand out from the background. This was taken handheld but at a fairly fast shutter speed so Photomatix had little trouble aligning the three images.

lighthouse_3631_29_30.jpg


Lighthouse - a classic example of where we would ordinarily have to make a choice between a blank sky or a seriously underexposed subject. With HDR we can have it all, sort of. There is still a fair amount of manual correction and masking done to clean up HDR haloes and other artifacts.


Capturing the images:
On an entry-level or mid-range Canon it is easy to get a 3 step HDR using the AEB mode, that will get us up to 4 extra stops of range. For more range I use AEB *and* Av to first take exposures of 0, -2, +2 at -2 Av, then three more at +2 Av. This gives exposures at -2, -4, 0, and +2, 0, and +4. Only one of the two identical exposures can be used or the Photomatix software will choke. I have found some very rare scenes where even more range than the 8 extra stops would help, mostly night scenes with bright light sources (like the pool with the tiki torches).
High-end Canons allow more steps and wider exposure ranges, making it easier to capture HDRs. Hopefully this will trickle down to the more affordable Canons soon.
 
Nice Lighthouse, I have one of it myself. Not HDR but enjoyed it nonetheless.

196.jpg
 
I saw some of your HDR shots in your online gallery, and I think seeing your shots makes a very persuasive argument for the use of HDR as another tool in the photographer's "bag". I honestly have to say that you have some of the best HDR I have ever seen.

I think a common problem with HDR that is done realistically is it often lacks contrast or looks "grey." You have avoided that problem!

As for the whole "To HDR or not to HDR" debate, I think some of the "old timers" who don't like the technique often don't like it simply because they don't understand how to do it. It's easier to arbitrarily dislike something than to learn to use it! (These are the same people who think everything should be "through the lens"...well, even in the film days people did edit their shots.)

Conversely, there are a lot of people who use it, and use it not as a "tool", but use it judiciously and for just about every shot they process. I know everything is a matter of personal preference, but it can be annoying to see tons of over-processed shots that could look good if not for poorly applied HDR. HDR for the sake of HDR and no other reason can be a bit annoying. I think that might be where a lot of people are put off by HDR. I will admit that it is a bit irritating when I show friends images that I know are my over-processed HDR work (and poorly, at that) and they prefer them over images that I perceive to be my really good "normal" work. I think this happens a lot in the "Disney photo" community, too, as you have a broad mix of people looking at the shots. There are those with extensive photography skills, and those who just love Disney.

Anyway, off the tangent. All of these shots are really good. I especially like the indoor pool shot.
 
Bob - I really like your waterfall and lighthouse shots; they support the subtle use of HDR as you stated and look very natural. The Raffle Car is another great example; HDR seems to enhance the situation appropriately. I can't make my mind up about the pool scene but it is very atmospheric. The Concours' sky definitely bugs me but that's just me since I rarely photo "metal" outside of Disney. ;)

You give some convincing evidence for Photomatix, especially now that I finally have a dslr. Guess I'll have to save up and learn the basics with my Xsi.

Thanks for keeping us inspired!
 
Very nice series- I love the first three. Definately the type of HDR examples I enjoy. Thanks for the insight on your process.
 
Bob, GREAT pictures (as always!) You are one of the key photographers on here that I always enjoy looking at pictures taken. I know that you did all of these with Photomatix, but I wonder if a photographer can do HDR with Topaz also? :confused3 Right now I'm torn between which of the programs I would like to buy (and can't afford both right this second.) Anyway, again great shots!!


-Robby
 
Very nice shots! I agree that HDR has a time and place in the "bag of tricks", but that said, I am not a fan of the "overly" HDR type shots. Your shots show that it is possible to use HDR as a tool to solve a problem and have the end result look like a photo and not an art project. Great work!

I loved the Corvair pictures! My Father had one when he was in college and I have been toying with finding one to restore as a gift for him. Those shots were just more fuel for the fire!
 
Bob, GREAT pictures (as always!) You are one of the key photographers on here that I always enjoy looking at pictures taken. I know that you did all of these with Photomatix, but I wonder if a photographer can do HDR with Topaz also? :confused3 Right now I'm torn between which of the programs I would like to buy (and can't afford both right this second.) Anyway, again great shots!!


-Robby

Not to complicate your decision any further, but I've used both Photomatix and a program called Dynamic Photo HDR, and I prefer the latter. I also think it's cheaper.
 
I hate to be critical, Bob, but you're doing HDR all wrong. Your colors look too natural. Your missing the classic halos. They just look like regular pictures.
 
Yeah, what Mark said. Just imagine how nice they would look if you had a decent camera!

So what are you doing in Florida without going to Disney? You did not tell me you were going!
 
When I'm doing shots from WDW, I often like to go with a relatively extreme HDR effect, especially from places like Future World, Tomorrowland or Fantasyland. I think the colorful, fanciful settings really lend themselves to such interpretation. If I'm at Animal Kingdom in Africa or Asia -- or a state park -- I find I often prefer a more natural-looking result. It's art, anyway, and I have come to regard my photography as photographic impressionism. I do it to please myself first and foremost -- it isn't possible to please everyone.

I like Photomatix, but sometimes I get my best results by first using Photoshop's "Merge to HDR" feature under the "Automate" menu, then opening the resulting file in Photomatix for tone-mapping. Photoshop usually does the best job of fixing minor misalignments in images, while Photomatix is better once you go beyond that point.

SSB
 





New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top