image post processing

[pgowder]

From Stuck in Customs:
HDR is short for High Dynamic Range. It is a post-processing of taking either one image or a series of images, combining them, and adjusting the contrast ratios to do things that are virtually impossible with a single aperture and shutter speed.

Read more on his website:
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Trey has done some incredible HDR shots in WDW and around the world. He is one of the main advocates for HDR right now.

 

[ssanders79]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page on HDR

I just created my first HDR image last week. It was a rainy day last Thursday and the original shot looked quite blah. I ended up using just one exposure and created various exposures in Lightroom. I shot a consecutive shots in the park, but I moved a little to much leaving me with no choice but to work off just one source image.


see on flickr

 

[mrcricket]

From Stuck in Customs:
HDR is short for High Dynamic Range. It is a post-processing of taking either one image or a series of images, combining them, and adjusting the contrast ratios to do things that are virtually impossible with a single aperture and shutter speed.

Read more on his website:
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Trey has done some incredible HDR shots in WDW and around the world. He is one of the main advocates for HDR right now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/459418289/

I second Trey's site. It is a really good starting point to learn HDR. And the Photomatix program he recommends is really easy to use. Much better than Photoshops in my opinion.

 

[Groucho]

Note that there is certainly controversy around HDR and there are many people who do not like the unnatural look of HDR. (And yes, we can tell even mild HDRs.) Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn how to do.

Signed, Groucho, happily HDR-free since 1971

Seriously, though, I think the concept is OK but the results are too unreal for my tastes (they generally do not match what the eye will see.) I much prefer pulling in extra range out of a single RAW file and having the camera produce more DR from the outset - I really like the concept of the old Fuji DSLRs that specialized in this. Hopefully this will be an area of future sensor development along with lower noise levels.

 

[mom2rtk]

I have really enjoyed the shots I've seen at Disney in HDR, but can't think of many other applications where I would like it. Same for me with a fisheye lens. There's something about the surreal, almost animated look, that makes it seem just perfect for Disney!

 

[mrcricket]

Note that there is certainly controversy around HDR and there are many people who do not like the unnatural look of HDR. (And yes, we can tell even mild HDRs.) Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn how to do.

Signed, Groucho, happily HDR-free since 1971

Seriously, though, I think the concept is OK but the results are too unreal for my tastes (they generally do not match what the eye will see.) I much prefer pulling in extra range out of a single RAW file and having the camera produce more DR from the outset - I really like the concept of the old Fuji DSLRs that specialized in this. Hopefully this will be an area of future sensor development along with lower noise levels.

Groucho, I agree with you on the "Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn" statement. HDR takes times. Sometimes a lot of time. And I think it's definitely a taste thing and a passion thing.

As for being controversial, I just don't get that. As a Creative Director at an Ad Agency for 25+ years, I don't really care how the shot is made as long as it is great. And most professional photographers retouch their shots to make them better. Even the greats like Ansel Adams manipulated plates and dodged and burned to get the prints just right. I think HDR just takes retouching to another level. But with that said, I'll second your statement that HDR isn't for everyone. Just like some people don't like B&W and some don't like sepia and some don't like fisheye shots and some do. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's the beauty of photography. It can be many things to many people. The main thing about photography — just keep shooting. Your work will get better the more you shoot.

 

[Coach81]

Note that there is certainly controversy around HDR and there are many people who do not like the unnatural look of HDR. (And yes, we can tell even mild HDRs.) Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn how to do.

Signed, Groucho, happily HDR-free since 1971

Seriously, though, I think the concept is OK but the results are too unreal for my tastes (they generally do not match what the eye will see.) I much prefer pulling in extra range out of a single RAW file and having the camera produce more DR from the outset - I really like the concept of the old Fuji DSLRs that specialized in this. Hopefully this will be an area of future sensor development along with lower noise levels.

Thanks for your input.. I'm just putting my toes in the water here.. I don't know enough yet to even have any opinion

I have really enjoyed the shots I've seen at Disney in HDR, but can't think of many other applications where I would like it. Same for me with a fisheye lens. There's something about the surreal, almost animated look, that makes it seem just perfect for Disney!

And I LOVE DISNEY!!!

Groucho, I agree with you on the "Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn" statement. HDR takes times. Sometimes a lot of time. And I think it's definitely a taste thing and a passion thing.

As for being controversial, I just don't get that. As a Creative Director at an Ad Agency for 25+ years, I don't really care how the shot is made as long as it is great. And most professional photographers retouch their shots to make them better. Even the greats like Ansel Adams manipulated plates and dodged and burned to get the prints just right. I think HDR just takes retouching to another level. But with that said, I'll second your statement that HDR isn't for everyone. Just like some people don't like B&W and some don't like sepia and some don't like fisheye shots and some do. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's the beauty of photography. It can be many things to many people. The main thing about photography — just keep shooting. Your work will get better the more you shoot.

I plan on doing just that.. shoot, shoot, shoot!!!

 

[Coach81]

Hmmm wondering which software program would best fit my "newbie" needs..

I have Microsoft Picture It, and Photoshop Elements 7..

I've heard of the Photomatix, something called Picaso, and some other program from Corel..

Any suggestions/recommendations.. should I just go with what I have.. if so.. can I goof around with HDR with either of my current programs.. or do I have to invest in another program?

 

[NateNLogansDad]

Elements does HDR....saw it on youtube.

 

[mom2rtk]

I appreciate this thread. While I may not be ready to create my own HDR shots, I want to be sure I come home from Disney with the "raw" material I need to create them when I have time to figure it out (or get the right program!)

 

[TheGoofster]

I'm using Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo Ultimate X2, and it does have the HDR merge feature, but it doesn't give you a whole lot of editing features with it. I imagine that some of the other editing programs might give you even more editing power with your HDR merged shots.

But I will say that for the price (you can get it for about 40 - 50 dollars), Corel does give you a lot of bang for the buck, and if anyone asks me, I do give it a good recommendation.

 

[SrisonS]

I'm pretty much a fan of HDR. But I can definitely see why some people don't like it. I think a lot of HDR pics out there just look too unreal. For one thing, it isn't always needed. And some people just "overcook" the pics when they do the processing. This overcooking is what made me hesitant about trying HDR at all. I was scared my shots would look too fake; but I decided to give it a try anyway.

As far as it being something that really takes time do, I can make adjustments fairly quickly. I use Photomatix (and if you ask how much I paid, I'll just tell you how much it cost ), but I'm not sure how other programs handle. It did take a few attempts to really get things down; but Photomatix saves the setting from the last picture processed. So I keep the levels set pretty much the same, with only making slight adjustments here and there.

Here are a couple of my shots that I think are more on the realistic side (I hope):




....And maybe this one. HDR helped me get a nice exposure balance between the sky and Stitch (because the topiary was mainly in shadow).

 

[Jamian]

Another vote for Photomatix. It would have been impossible to pick up the range of highs and lows in this scene without HDR:

 

[Groucho]

Groucho, I agree with you on the "Don't feel like it's something that you have to learn" statement. HDR takes times. Sometimes a lot of time. And I think it's definitely a taste thing and a passion thing.

As for being controversial, I just don't get that. As a Creative Director at an Ad Agency for 25+ years, I don't really care how the shot is made as long as it is great. And most professional photographers retouch their shots to make them better. Even the greats like Ansel Adams manipulated plates and dodged and burned to get the prints just right. I think HDR just takes retouching to another level. But with that said, I'll second your statement that HDR isn't for everyone. Just like some people don't like B&W and some don't like sepia and some don't like fisheye shots and some do. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's the beauty of photography. It can be many things to many people. The main thing about photography — just keep shooting. Your work will get better the more you shoot.

I use the word controversial because I think of it as more of a "Photoshop trick" (using Photoshop in a generic, digital-post-processing sense), not unlike selective coloring or other "tricks." Like Jamian's shot just above this - that looks very unlike the naked eye would see it. It's fine if you like that but I can't help thinking how much better it would look to my eyes without HDR. SrisonS's aren't as "HDR-like" but they still clearly have the overly vibrant "HDR look". I might humbly suggest that fill flash would probably have worked better for the Stitch topiary shot. The World Showcase shot is very nice though, and about as mild as you can get with HDR.

Hopefully I'm not offending anyone here - I'll state again that these are just my opinions, and others are free to not care for fisheye or Lensbaby shots and I will be fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that the OP didn't think that HDR was necessarily a "must-learn" feature the way aperture/shutter priority modes, white balance are, and shooting Raw and using decent Raw processing software for when you're ready to take the next step. In fact, many photographers go in the opposite direction - as they progress, they take their camera off the crowd-pleasing "vivid" mode and move into more natural (and hence a little flatter) colors.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I tried a little HDR myself a few minutes ago. A guy I work with picked up a new Harley this morning. It's got less then 25 miles on it right now so I wanted a shot before it gets dirty

Out front isn't very well lit and the lighting we do have it that ugly orange light that seems to be everywhere now. I took 8 different shots and merged them in PS CS3. Please, any criticism is more than welcome.

Edit: The reason I went by the way of HDR was mostly the lighting. It was hard to see everything by just looking at it let alone with a camera. When I tried a longer shutter it blew out with the reflections, and a faster shutter lost a lot of detail. I ended up going with a 1/20 and bracketed the exposure as much as possible.

 

[mrcricket]

I use the word controversial because I think of it as more of a "Photoshop trick" (using Photoshop in a generic, digital-post-processing sense), not unlike selective coloring or other "tricks." Like Jamian's shot just above this - that looks very unlike the naked eye would see it. It's fine if you like that but I can't help thinking how much better it would look to my eyes without HDR. SrisonS's aren't as "HDR-like" but they still clearly have the overly vibrant "HDR look". I might humbly suggest that fill flash would probably have worked better for the Stitch topiary shot. The World Showcase shot is very nice though, and about as mild as you can get with HDR.

Hopefully I'm not offending anyone here - I'll state again that these are just my opinions, and others are free to not care for fisheye or Lensbaby shots and I will be fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that the OP didn't think that HDR was necessarily a "must-learn" feature the way aperture/shutter priority modes, white balance are, and shooting Raw and using decent Raw processing software for when you're ready to take the next step. In fact, many photographers go in the opposite direction - as they progress, they take their camera off the crowd-pleasing "vivid" mode and move into more natural (and hence a little flatter) colors.

Groucho,
I wasn't offended at all. Hope you didn't take my reply as that. That's the trouble with message boards, email, texting, etc., tone of voice just doesn't come through the keyboard. Maybe someday some smart computer genius will figure that out.

I understood what you meant by "controversial". I just don't get it. To me, whatever it takes to get the shot that makes sense to the photographer is okay and not "cheating" or "tricky". I agree with you that photographers should learn the basics first. I did in college some many years ago. But I don't think techniques or tricks are bad - Photoshop or otherwise. They can be used poorly just like someone can take a poor photo or have poor composition. But the process itself isn't bad or good. It's just a process. I've seen, and made, many BAD HDRs. I'm still learning. But I've seen some stunning HDRs that just can't be made with regular photography and I think that's pretty doggone amazing.

Groucho, I enjoy your posts and your insight. Keep em coming.

Mr Cricket

 

[princess.chell]

I'm finding this discussion very interesting. In my independent photo class a few of us have been trying to teach ourselves how to create HDR photos. I love my photo teacher to death but he's a little behind. Plus its a independent class so he just tells us to look it up.
Thanks much for the link to site at the beginning of the thread and for the interesting discussion. I love reading what you all have to say on photography.

 

[oregondaddyof2]

After reading this thread, I was a little interested to try this out... I found a free plugin for CS3 and gave it a try... They are not very good, but I thought I would share a few that I came out with...

Like I said before, they are nowhere close to being perfect, and these are the first try at using a free plugin, so be kind....

 

[boBQuincy]

Dynamic range is not quite as simple as it seems and "HDR or not HDR" is not clear cut. Of some currently available dSLRs dynamic range can be from 13.7 stops down to 10 stops, in other words a single exposure from the first camera would cover about the same range as the second camera would if set up for HDR with +/- 2 stops!

Further, the maximum dynamic range is only at the lowest ISO and gets progressively smaller as ISO goes up, dropping to about 9 stops at 1600 ISO. Because of this it is not feasible to look at an image and clearly say "HDR" or "not HDR" since the same scene can be rendered very differently by different cameras or even by the same camera at different settings.

We are not privy to the information about the original dynamic range of the scene and can not know if an area was unlit, lit by a reflector, flash, or other light source, or if it was lightened by dodging. To always point it out as HDR is an oversimplification. HDR is really no more than a form of dodging and burning, to compress the range of the scene into a smaller space. The saturated colors are not HDR, just the artist's choice of how to portray the image.

Our monitors are almost all 8 bit (or less) devices and even a normal single exposure must be compressed to fit within the range of our screens, leading to light values that are not always representative of how the original scene actually looked.


Of course when an image area that is lighted by another image area (such as ground and sky) is portrayed so the area which should be darker is in fact lighter we can then say for certain that this is HDR (or serious dodging, which is not that much different) and we can only hope that the effect is what was intended by the artist.

 

[MICKEY88]

Dynamic range is not quite as simple as it seems and "HDR or not HDR" is not clear cut. Of some currently available dSLRs dynamic range can be from 13.7 stops down to 10 stops, in other words a single exposure from the first camera would cover about the same range as the second camera would if set up for HDR with +/- 2 stops!

Further, the maximum dynamic range is only at the lowest ISO and gets progressively smaller as ISO goes up, dropping to about 9 stops at 1600 ISO. Because of this it is not feasible to look at an image and clearly say "HDR" or "not HDR" since the same scene can be rendered very differently by different cameras or even by the same camera at different settings.

We are not privy to the information about the original dynamic range of the scene and can not know if an area was unlit, lit by a reflector, flash, or other light source, or if it was lightened by dodging. To always point it out as HDR is an oversimplification. HDR is really no more than a form of dodging and burning, to compress the range of the scene into a smaller space. The saturated colors are not HDR, just the artist's choice of how to portray the image.

Our monitors are almost all 8 bit (or less) devices and even a normal single exposure must be compressed to fit within the range of our screens, leading to light values that are not always representative of how the original scene actually looked.


Of course when an image area that is lighted by another image area (such as ground and sky) is portrayed so the area which should be darker is in fact lighter we can then say for certain that this is HDR (or serious dodging, which is not that much different) and we can only hope that the effect is what was intended by the artist.

thanks for mentioning dodging and burning,, I was thinkihat early this morning but was too tired to post, it basically is the same as dodging and burning that photographers have done for many years in the darkroom...

and with paint shop pro photo I've tried that route a few times and it's fairly simple... but since purchasing the topaz bundle I find it's so much easier and quicker to use adjust to get the same effect