image post processing

[SrisonS]

See, the issue I have this type of HDR is that you're not capturing how it looks to the human eye, you're going well beyond there. The final image is, for better or for worse, quite a different image than one gets when actually standing there in person.

The flower shot is closer; actually it looks more like a normal shot taken with a circular polarizer. The problem is that the HDR process has done strange things to the bokeh, especially around the rightmost lightbulb and spires of the castle. I think your middle exposure of that shot should have all the information necessary to produce a very similar shot as your HDR, only without the halos. (Psst - don't tell anyone, but in a shot with these colors, you can also play specifically with the blue channel to give you a nice deep blue. )

SrisonS - nice work on the car shot. You seem to have a real deft touch with the post-processing - that shot is fairly close to what you'd see in person, albiet with a bit more saturation but not cartoonishly so. Though even here, the middle exposure certainly looks like it has all the information, it's just a matter of bringing it out. The only obvious gain in exposure is the front tire - which actually seems like the one spot that is distractingly HDRed.

I was actually gonna mention something about that front tire. Of everything in that shot, that was the one thing I was most anal about. It actually didn't look too bad at first, but the tire didn't stand out as much as I wanted. So I think I just used a brush too to adjust the lightness. So that's why it looks like it does. A bad give and take, I guess.

 

[Groucho]

I was actually gonna mention something about that front tire. Of everything in that shot, that was the one thing I was most anal about. It actually didn't look too bad at first, but the tire didn't stand out as much as I wanted. So I think I just used a brush too to adjust the lightness. So that's why it looks like it does. A bad give and take, I guess.

Well, I'm just one guy and my opinion about what makes a good photo certainly doesn't always match up with everyone else's. That being said... I think if I had to make an adjustment to the final image, I might try using the adjustment brush on the tire and turn down the saturation (or maybe vibrance) a little - maybe even close to black and white. That should leave it clear to see but maybe a little less "HDR-looking". Just a thought.

 

[KYCruiseCrazy]

Hmmmm, how are HDR photo's taken? I could always "learn" more

 

[disneyboy2003]

Hmmmm, how are HDR photo's taken? I could always "learn" more

HDR stands for "high-dynamic range" photography.

When you take a regular picture with your camera, you'll sometimes notice that the bright areas (like the sky) are way too bright, and sometimes the shadow areas are way too dark. Yet, when you look at the scene yourself (without the camera), you can see everything okay (ie. the skies look good, the shadows have details, etc).

That's because your camera can only capture a limited "dynamic range". The difference between the bright areas and dark areas is about 5 stops of exposure. On the other hand, our eyes have a dynamic range of about 10-14 f-stops for any 1 particular scene.

HDR attempts to capture the details in the brightest bright areas and the darkest dark areas. What you do is take 3 pictures in succession: 1 at the normal exposure, another picture that's 2 stops darker (underexposed), and another picture that's 2 stops brighter (overexposed). You can also take more pictures with more exposures, but the minimum is usually 3 photos. And it's usually best to use a tripod so that all 3 pictures look exactly the same. (There's more detail to this technique, but you can learn more about it later...)

You then bring the 3 pictures into a software program. The most popular is HDRSoft's PhotoMatix. You can also do this using Photoshop, although PhotoMatix is commonly considered better than Photoshop for HDR. (apparently, the newest version of Photoshop - Photoshop CS5 - is much better at HDR than previous versions, and might be close to rivaling PhotoMatix)

The program takes the best parts of each image, and combines them into a brand new image.

Here's an example from the PhotoMatix Web site:

you take these 3 photos above, and combine them into the photo below:

So the result above shows that the bright sky is no longer "blown out" and you can see the details of the sky. In addition, the flowers in the shadow areas are brighter.

That's why you see that everyone on this board posts their 3 original photos and then their final HDR-processed image.

There's also a way to use 1 properly exposed photo and do HDR using that single image, but I'll let someone else explain.

 

[KYCruiseCrazy]

HDR stands for "high-dynamic range" photography.

When you take a regular picture with your camera, you'll sometimes notice that the bright areas (like the sky) are way too bright, and sometimes the shadow areas are way too dark. Yet, when you look at the scene yourself (without the camera), you can see everything okay (ie. the skies look good, the shadows have details, etc).

That's because your camera can only capture a limited "dynamic range". The difference between the bright areas and dark areas is about 5 stops of exposure. On the other hand, our eyes have a dynamic range of about 10-14 f-stops for any 1 particular scene.

HDR attempts to capture the details in the brightest bright areas and the darkest dark areas. What you do is take 3 pictures in succession: 1 at the normal exposure, another picture that's 2 stops darker (underexposed), and another picture that's 2 stops brighter (overexposed). You can also take more pictures with more exposures, but the minimum is usually 3 photos. And it's usually best to use a tripod so that all 3 pictures look exactly the same. (There's more detail to this technique, but you can learn more about it later...)

You then bring the 3 pictures into a software program. The most popular is HDRSoft's PhotoMatix. You can also do this using Photoshop, although PhotoMatix is commonly considered better than Photoshop for HDR. (apparently, the newest version of Photoshop - Photoshop CS5 - is much better at HDR than previous versions, and might be close to rivaling PhotoMatix)

The program takes the best parts of each image, and combines them into a brand new image.

Here's an example from the PhotoMatix Web site:

you take these 3 photos above, and combine them into the photo below:

So the result above shows that the bright sky is no longer "blown out" and you can see the details of the sky. In addition, the flowers in the shadow areas are brighter.

That's why you see that everyone on this board posts their 3 original photos and then their final HDR-processed image.

There's also a way to use 1 properly exposed photo and do HDR using that single image, but I'll let someone else explain.

Look's like this could be fun.

 

[mojo55000]

These are amazing pics!!

 

[scrappymel]

wow... thanks for those amazing narratives. i learn something new here all the time.

 

[shafke]

(apparently, the newest version of Photoshop - Photoshop CS5 - is much better at HDR than previous versions, and might be close to rivaling PhotoMatix)

PS5 is much better at HDR than the previous versions.

These two HDR images were created using PS3




Using the same files in PS5

 

[SorcererGrandma]

When faced with a scene that you want to capture and convert to HDR, I'm never sure what part of the scene I should be metering for? Is it the mid-range that will give me the best results? I set my camera to do 3 shot bracketing with +2 and -2ev.

Do you always try for the midtones? Does your choice matter in the final result?

 

[zackiedawg]

Generally, most cameras that do automatic exposure bracketing will work best if your primary shot that you are metering for is the 'average' - try to expose it properly right up the middle...that way the +2 and -2 exposures are going to be underexposed enough to provide controlled highlights and overexposed enough to provide shadow detail.

 

[tinkabella627]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me how to get the HDR effect on pictures? I am using picnik right now to do it because I have no idea how else to do it. I have aperture and am looking towards getting PSE8. Is it possible on either of those programs? TIA

 

[ssanders79]

I use Photomatix from hdrsoft. CS5 has HDR built in.

I did a google search and found a tutorial for PSE8. http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/creating-hdr-images-with-adobe-photoshop-elements-8/

 

[disneyboy2003]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me how to get the HDR effect on pictures? I am using picnik right now to do it because I have no idea how else to do it. I have aperture and am looking towards getting PSE8. Is it possible on either of those programs? TIA

I checked the picnik Web site regarding HDR. I see that you can edit your photos directly online through picnik. In the end, I'm not sure that's the best way to edit your photos.

The HDR-ish button on picnik isn't real HDR. It tries (poorly) to simulate the HDR effect.

Typically, when photographers create HDR, they use programs like Photomatix Pro (link) or Photoshop CS5. You can also do HDR in earlier versions of Photoshop, but CS5 has made significant improvements.

You can also do a work-around to create HDR in Photoshop Elements 8. Here's a tutorial that shows how to do this in PSE8: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/ele...igh-dynamic-range/hdr-high-dynamic-range.html

What is HDR?
HDR stands for "high dynamic range." Sometimes, there are scenes that have very very bright areas AND very very dark areas (ex. a bright sunny day with harsh shadows). This is where the "dynamic range" is very high, whenever there's a HUGE difference between the brightest bright and the darkest dark in a particular scene.

Even though our eyes can see details in both these areas at the same time, our cameras unfortunately can't process both at the same time. That's why if you try to take a picture of such a scene, you'll get either highlights that are "blown out" or shadow areas that are super-dark / pitch black. This is where HDR comes in.

The first step in taking pictures for HDR is to set your camera to take at least 3 consecutive photos: 1 photo that's underexposed, 1 photo that's properly exposed, and 1 photo that's overexposed. It's best to use a tripod so that all 3 photos properly align with each other.

The underexposed photo provides all the details in the highlight areas. The properly exposed photo provides all the details in the mid-tone areas. And the overexposed photo provides all the details in the dark / shadow areas.

You then bring all 3 photos into your HDR software program (ex. Photomatix Pro). The program will automatically "merge" all 3 photos to get 1 HDR photo. There's a whole lot of tweaking you can do to this HDR photo to make it look photorealistic or grungy or fantasy-like or out-of-this-world, etc.

In the end, though, you end up with 1 HDR photo that shows details in both the highlight areas and shadow areas.


It takes time and effort to make good-looking HDR photos. It's actually relatively simple to create bad-looking / outrageous HDR photos. It looks like Picnik makes it easy to simulate a bad-looking HDR photo.

I think what Picnik is doing is blindly brightening the shadow areas and blindly darkening the highlights. There are lots of "halos" (bad) around different parts of a Picnik HDRish photo. The HDRish photo looks pretty grungy.

I think Picnik's HDRish effect probably works for certain images, but it's not a one-size-fits-all effect.


I'm certainly no HDR expert, so others will have to chime in for more information.

 

[photo_chick]

HDR combines 3 or more exposures to make one image with greater dynamic range than you'd get in camera. Usually the exposure values are a stop or so apart for each one.

Download the free trial for Photomatix and play. See if you like it.
http://www.hdrsoft.com/

 

[tinkabella627]

Thanks for the help and links... the picnik effect is working for me for now just to play around with it. Someday I might be more advanced to be able to really get the pictures right.

 

[poplover777]

I have some photos that I took in raw image. Is there somewhere I can send them for pp and printing. I haven't dappled much with pp and would like them done by an expert. Thanks in advance.

 

[photo_chick]

Labs don't generally offer RAW processing. But you can get someone like me, who would do it for a small fee.

The thing with getting someone else to process them is you really don't know if they are an "expert" or not. There are a lot of people out there who will take your money and simply batch process those files on an auto setting.... which is something you can do yourself with the software that came with your camera.

 

[Shutterbug]

Why not post process them yourself? Raw editing is not hard actually.
You mentioned you have dappled in it. Are you not getting the desired results you want?

IMO, post processing is something that is an "eye of the beholder" type thing.
How someone else post processes your image may not be how you wanted it to look like in the end.

 

[Pineapple Whip]

Try downloading google's picasa client, you might be pleasantly surprised at its ease.

 

[Groucho]

Instead of paying somebody else, it might be worth buying (or borrowing, if you can find a copy at a local library) a book on Lightroom and try using the trial version. The right software makes a huge difference.

As the others mentioned, much of it is "eye of the beholder" - maybe you might like one photo in b/w, another with very saturated colors, and another with an edge cropped off.

If you just want them to be "done" like on a film camera, the raw processing software that came with your camera should be able to give you jpgs that are virtually the same (probably slightly better) than if you took jpgs originally. You can then have those jpgs printed by Snapfish or another online or local printer.