photo sharing: HDR

[KrazyPete]

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure you can't make an HDR image from one photograph. All the ones I've seen are made by combining several photos of the same subject taken at different exposures. That's how you get the amazing detail in the light places and the shadows.

It sounds like your program is similating an HDR look by doing some kind of automated curve adjustments in the background.

If you look at the high-res version of the castle in the OP you'll see the same guy in red repeated three times on the bridge. That's because the people where moving so they were in different places in each of the three different images used to make the one HDR image.

 

[Gdad]

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure you can't make an HDR image from one photograph. All the ones I've seen are made by combining several photos of the same subject taken at different exposures. That's how you get the amazing detail in the light places and the shadows.

It sounds like your program is similating an HDR look by doing some kind of automated curve adjustments in the background.

If you look at the high-res version of the castle in the OP you'll see the same guy in red repeated three times on the bridge. That's because the people where moving so they were in different places in each of the three different images used to make the one HDR image.

^^ Correct.

 

[ukcatfan]

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure you can't make an HDR image from one photograph.

Mostly yes, but partly no. It will not yield the best results, but you can process a RAW file at multiple exposure points and combine those as a HDR. It would likely be the best to start out with a properly exposed shot. You could then lower and raise the exposure by enough to get two to four more images out of it. Then you would have three to five images to work with. I have never tried it, but have seen where others have and it looked pretty impressive, but still not as impressive as a true multiple image shot.

Kevin

 

[cazzie]

Oh well it's back to cataloging photos for me.

 

[cazzie]

I have just been playing and what it is actually doing is the smartcurves action. I took one photo an did the HDR button and then again with the smartcurves button and there was no difference in the results so in actual fact the HDR is not doing anything to the photo. Still I shall now play around with the smartcurves.

Thanks.

 

[ukcatfan]

Oh well it's back to cataloging photos for me.

I am not sure what your software has, but have you looked into Curves? I am just starting to get in to what they can do and it can really improve those shots that were just a little off. It will not work miracles and works better when it is done on a RAW file, but it is a great tool. If you are interested, you can read about them here: http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Kevin

 

[deletedpenguin]

You can technically take the same photo, copy it a few times and overexpose and underexpose copies of the original by altering the levels in Photoshop or similar programs, but it's still technically not a true HDR image.

Each pixel of an image has a certain amount of information stored in it to tell the computer what color to display, but if you have true whites or true blacks, you won't have alot of info for the computer to work with (as white has 100% of every color, and black is the absense of color), so if you have highlights or lowlights that are blown out, you could still adjust the levels, but you wouldn't get anymore information regarding color out of those areas. The idea of doing an HDR image is to be able to have a perfectly exposed image with as much info in all areas, be it bright white areas or dark black areas, hence taking multiple photos that pick up that information.

Here's an example I took:

The above image was created using five photos, overstopped and understopped a few times. The underexposed photos allowed me to get some of the information from the sky that would otherwise appear as a solid bright color, and I'd lose the clouds. The same applies to the headlights. There's actually details still visible in the bright Xenon headlights. Overexposed photos allowed me to pick up the information in the dark areas, for example the treads on the tires and in the bumper of the car.

It's really a great way to get a well exposed photograph.

 

[fitzperry]

Mostly yes, but partly no. It will not yield the best results, but you can process a RAW file at multiple exposure points and combine those as a HDR. It would likely be the best to start out with a properly exposed shot. You could then lower and raise the exposure by enough to get two to four more images out of it. Then you would have three to five images to work with. I have never tried it, but have seen where others have and it looked pretty impressive, but still not as impressive as a true multiple image shot.

Kevin

Stupid question alert . . . . AFAIK, PSE does not have any kind of hdr action or process. I've attempted to do what you are describing by creating a layer for each version of the image and then varying the opacity of the different layers. But I honestly can't tell if I'm getting a result that would be different than I could have gotten with different settings in a single version of the image (does that make sense?) Should I be selecting different areas of the image for different exposures?

 

[deletedpenguin]

Stupid question alert . . . . AFAIK, PSE does not have any kind of hdr action or process. I've attempted to do what you are describing by creating a layer for each version of the image and then varying the opacity of the different layers. But I honestly can't tell if I'm getting a result that would be different than I could have gotten with different settings in a single version of the image (does that make sense?) Should I be selecting different areas of the image for different exposures?

Fitzperry, try Photomatix. The non-pro version is free and still allows you to do what you're trying to do. You can't layer the different photos and blend them correctly in PSE.

 

[fitzperry]

Fitzperry, try Photomatix. The non-pro version is free and still allows you to do what you're trying to do. You can't layer the different photos and blend them correctly in PSE.

Thanks! I'll give that a shot.

 

[ukcatfan]

Stupid question alert . . . . AFAIK, PSE does not have any kind of hdr action or process. I've attempted to do what you are describing by creating a layer for each version of the image and then varying the opacity of the different layers. But I honestly can't tell if I'm getting a result that would be different than I could have gotten with different settings in a single version of the image (does that make sense?) Should I be selecting different areas of the image for different exposures?

I think it is one of those Photoshop CS only things, but please let us know how that other software turns out.

Kevin

 

[deletedpenguin]

I think it is one of those Photoshop CS only things, but please let us know how that other software turns out.

Kevin

CS2 and 3 have HDR capabilities, and Photomatix does exactly the same process, except it's freeware. It's what I use, and used on the photo I posted.

 

[photo_chick]

Mostly yes, but partly no. It will not yield the best results, but you can process a RAW file at multiple exposure points and combine those as a HDR. It would likely be the best to start out with a properly exposed shot. You could then lower and raise the exposure by enough to get two to four more images out of it. Then you would have three to five images to work with. I have never tried it, but have seen where others have and it looked pretty impressive, but still not as impressive as a true multiple image shot.

Kevin

I have done this in layers in photoshop. Mainly to get the sky to not be blown out when the kids were properly exposed. But my understanding was this method could not be used to create a true HDR image in Photoshop since Photoshop uses the images EXIF data to process it. Changing the settings on the same RAW file 3 times will still lead to 3 jpg files with the same EXIF data in the end.

 

[Anewman]

I have done this in layers in photoshop. Mainly to get the sky to not be blown out when the kids were properly exposed. But my understanding was this method could not be used to create a true HDR image in Photoshop since Photoshop uses the images EXIF data to process it. Changing the settings on the same RAW file 3 times will still lead to 3 jpg files with the same EXIF data in the end.

Well yes and no...

Yes photoshp uses Exif data to determine where to place the images.

But you can strip the exif data and when merging them to HDR you will be prompted to assign exposure value to each photo. The process will create a true 32 bit HDR image. While some prefer TRUE BRACKETING, this technique is prefered by some when shooting subjects that are not entirely still.

 

[deletedpenguin]

Anewman, although this is somewhat true, it still may not retain the necesarry information required to process a true HDR image. I went over it in a bit more detail on the previous page.

In a nutshell, if you have a true black or white pixel there is either no information in that spot or 100%, so overexposing or underexposing that particular area in post will have no effect on it. Therefore you actually have to have a true to life longer or shorter exposure to be able to combine that area in HDR and come out with info in that particular spot.

 

[Anewman]

Anewman, although this is somewhat true, it still may not retain the necesarry information required to process a true HDR image. I went over it in a bit more detail on the previous page.

In a nutshell, if you have a true black or white pixel there is either no information in that spot or 100%, so overexposing or underexposing that particular area in post will have no effect on it. Therefore you actually have to have a true to life longer or shorter exposure to be able to combine that area in HDR and come out with info in that particular spot.

You can technically take the same photo, copy it a few times and overexpose and underexpose copies of the original by altering the levels in Photoshop or similar programs, but it's still technically not a true HDR image.

While I agree with your point about data either being there or not(black or white), but that would be the case with true bracketing as well. Also in regards to copying the same photos a few times, IMO it is not the same as converting the same RAW file with a few different exposure settings.

HDR is HIGH dynamic range not ALL dynamic range, you can have some pixels that are not recovered and it would still be considered a true 32 bit HDR image. It is just about getting more range, YES I understand that the ideal situation would be a TRIPOD and 100% perfectly still subject.

 

[deletedpenguin]

HDR is HIGH dynamic range not ALL dynamic range, you can have some pixels that are not recovered and it would still be considered a true 32 bit HDR image. It is just about getting more range, YES I understand that the ideal situation would be a TRIPOD and 100% perfectly still subject.

This is true, I see your point. I suppose I consider HDR Images solely as a true, multi-shot combined image.

 

[fitzperry]

I think it is one of those Photoshop CS only things, but please let us know how that other software turns out.

Kevin

I downloaded the Photomatrix software and played with it a bit, and I clearly need to spend some more time with it. I really don't understand the tone mapping part of it. I just randomly played with the sliders until I got something sort of decent looking (high standards, I know )

Anyway, I started with a RAW file and used three different exposure points--one that was very underexposed, one overexposed, and one about right. Here is the "before" image (converted from RAW in PSE 4.0) . . . .

And here is the HDR version . . . .

The effect isn't as pronounced as I thought it might be, but the sky is brighter, and I can see more detail in the rooftops. Any suggestions from you experts out there? Maybe I didn't pick the best image for this technique, but I thought it might help with the overcast sky, which it did to some extent.

Here is one more I messed around with this morning. Again, I don't think the effect is all that obvious, but you can definitely see more detail in the globe and the trees, and the big shadow on the front of SSE is gone. I think the fact that I shot these in RAW to begin with probably helped the originals.

Original . . . .

HDR . . . .

 

[jfulcer]

Ok, so I didn't take pictures of trash cans, but for most of the times that I attempted to take these pictures, I just used a trash can - they are everywhere, and worked like a charm since I didn't bring my tripod. I think taking these pictures during 'off' times would be better, but some of the ghosting you get when people move through the exposures were cool. I took these with my S2. I ended up throwing away a ton more than what I'm posting here. Things that I thought would look good HDR didn't. Be kind.

 

[bostran1]

Great first effort! I like the colors of the Mission: space one.
But I think your Spaceship Earth one is the best. It has just the right amount of color and looks realistic (not too cartoony as some HDRs, although sometimes cartoony works great!). You've given me some good ideas for my HDRs when I'm down there.

PS I also love getting big clouds in my HDRs, the process does amazing things with clouds.