# To HDR or Not To HDR



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2011)

Getting a little boring now with the lack of good rumors. So, time to spice things up a bit.

What do people think about High Dynamic Range? 

Do you love it? Hate it? Never use it? Always use it? Find it annoying or the greatest thing since sliced bread?

When I first saw the effect a few years ago, I was intrigued. Some of the shots seemed very other-worldly and I wondered how they were made. Now, I admit, I'm getting a little bored with the whole look. Too many mediocre images hiding behind a special effect. I've never used it and when I've experimented with it, I've found I tend to like the "natural" look better.

So what do you think? Will this become the expected standard for all pictures or is it just a passing fancy?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2011)

unfocused said:


> So, time to spice things up a bit.



My S95 can do in-camera HDR, and I hope and pray that the 1DsIV offers that amazing feature. 

Seriously, it does have its place, but in general I prefer the natural look, and use HDR only when the DR of a scene truly exceeds the camera's capability.


----------



## IWLP (Jul 27, 2011)

I really enjoy using HDR as a digital grad ND on steroids - preserving details where a grad ND done digitally (which has its detractors as well) would simply darken an object.

The over-baked/surreal/painterly look is not my cuppa, personally. It may have its place, but personally, I haven't found it yet ...


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 27, 2011)

Coming from a film background, I always loved the zone affect... So to that extent, I view HDR as a way to achieve zone photography... but I like it to a very fine point... I like it when it's getting towards the zone affect... Just a kiss above what the camera can naturally pump out... when you start getting halo's and extreme HDR then i draw the line. On my homepage on my website, the castle picture was used with HDR... Not overdone in my opinion (no halos) and just enough to bring out additional detail that couldn't be drawn out otherwise... That's as far as i go with HDR.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jul 27, 2011)

HDR is legitimate term and technique to use in photography.
Unfortunately, thanks to Photomatrix and other, in reality very simplistic programs, HDR become now a "dirty word" describing products of those programs!
Misused and abused without sense and reason.
To bad, wish there were two separate names one for true HDR and one for cheap, plugin filter like products, with all the wired colors, embossed like feeling, haloes over every object that contrast tonally with surrounding BG etc.


----------



## lol (Jul 27, 2011)

To me HDR is just another tool to help out. How it is used and abused is up to the artist. I think it is an area that goes beyond photography after a point.

I guess I could sum it up in 3 levels: natural looking, dramatic, and overcooked.

Natural is what camera HDR tries to do, get you a decent amount of detail in both shadow and highlight regions. 

Dramatic is turned up a notch. It's beyond real, but without looking too fake. I love the threatening cloud effects you can get out of that, used in moderation. It can be a fine line between dramatic and the next category...

Overcooked is beyond that again. Too much saturation. Fake, artificial colours, and the biggest eyesore to me: haloing. Just say no!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> Misused and abused without sense and reason.



Anything can be overdone...


----------



## amarlez (Jul 27, 2011)

Exactly, neuroanatomist! Everything in excess is bad.

But with HDR, what's excess? The way I see it (pun intended?), the main idea of HDR was to get the camera closer to what the human eye sees. I always felt that's what the grandaddy of HDR, Ansel Adams, thought at least. Now, a camera on RAW has the majority of the dynamic range the human eye does in most situations (i.e. daytime landscapes). To go beyond what the human eye can see looks contrived, tacky and just plain bad. Not only that, but throw in the supersaturation HDRers like to use, and you actually start getting farther away from the human eye. I only HDR to give me those extra one, two, or maybe three stops on both sides of what properly exposed RAW image can give.

Sure you could say, "Well, that's my artistic prerogative," and you'd be entirely right. But then you could take a few torso-up portraits and fill the top with a rainbow gradient fill and suddenly call all those senior pictures you're going to make a couple hundred dollars on "art."

For me, the allure of photography is its commitment to reality.


----------



## V8Beast (Jul 27, 2011)

When HDR is used to bridge the gap in contrast between what the human eye sees and what the camera captures, I think it's a very useful technique. In some scenarios, it's almost mandatory to convey the essence of an image as it originally appeared to the photographer through the viewfinder. It's not that different from how ND grad filters were used back in the day. HDR just happens to be a much more precise method of achieving the same end result. 

On the other hand, I can't stand the over-the-top, cartoonish look in which HDR is applied to an otherwise ordinary or sub-par photo. There's a reason why you hardly see that style of HDR in print. With few exceptions. the only place you'll see that rubbish is on Flickr, and that's where it belongs.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jul 27, 2011)

amarlez said:


> Exactly, neuroanatomist! Everything in excess is bad.
> 
> But with HDR, what's excess? The way I see it (pun intended?), the main idea of HDR was to get the camera closer to what the human eye sees. I always felt that's what the grandaddy of HDR, Ansel Adams, thought at least. Now, a camera on RAW has the majority of the dynamic range the human eye does in most situations (i.e. daytime landscapes). To go beyond what the human eye can see looks contrived, tacky and just plain bad. Not only that, but throw in the supersaturation HDRers like to use, and you actually start getting farther away from the human eye. I only HDR to give me those extra one, two, or maybe three stops on both sides of what properly exposed RAW image can give.
> 
> ...


HDR comes from High Dynamic Range, which means no more and no less than ability to reproduce details in extremely bright areas and dark, without blowing off the whites or producing opaque detail less blacks in the shadows!
It does not mean wired bizarre or as some call "artistic" effects.
All that, I am saying is that legitimate, perfect technical term was reduced in to description of cheap effects produced by couple of simple programs.


----------



## fotoray (Jul 27, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> amarlez said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, neuroanatomist! Everything in excess is bad.
> ...



My objective when using HDR is just that: _"reproduce details in extremely bright areas and dark, without blowing off the whites or producing opaque detail less blacks in the shadows!"_ And I have found some success using Photomatix. However, my final images often come out flat with too little overall contrast, while also usually needing more saturation. Generally just dull looking. Can fix some of this in Photoshop, but results rarely live up to what my "mind's eye" visualized. Often when I get the final contrast similar to what I want, the result is much like one of my bracketed images. So I have gone to a lot of trouble when conceivably correcting the best bracketed image may have provided similar contrast - and a satisfying result. 

Can't avoid HDR that exists in many scenes we want to photograph. So the motivation to reduce the DR in the final image will always remain. In time, the HDR software and/or in-camera equivalent processing is only going to get better.


----------



## ers811 (Jul 28, 2011)

*Yes... maybe*

Funny, I've been browsing here forever, but registered because of this.

Me and HDR... we have a real love/hate relationship. I was sucked in by some really good examples. Then there is the really, REALLY terrible that just gives it a bad name.

I LOVE being able to something so quickly that used to be so difficult. Unfortunately with the software now available, it's also easy to hit "go" with default settings and get something that looks more like an artistic Photoshop filter. Seriously... go to Flickr and search "HDR"... the first page will be full of very scary results. To each his own... if you're calling it artistic, that's great. But if your goal is a great looking photo that just needs a bit of help to overcome lighting conditions and the limits of digital imaging sensors... well then I say practice-practice-practice, and go more mild than you are first temped to do.

I usually smooth enough that there is NO visible halo between the ground/buildings and the sky. Even after adjustments in the program I use, I still end up desaturating and reducing noise.

I like the end result to make you say "Wow, that's a great photo! There's just SOMEthing about it!"... just before the point where you can tell it's unnatural.

Eric


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2011)

HDR is a type of art. some art just grabs me and I instantly love it. Other art I don't care for. I think its a matter of communication between the artist and the observer. If the connection is made, you'll love it, if not, you may hate it.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 31, 2011)

I've recently started enjoying LDR (low dynamic range). It's the new HDR.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jul 31, 2011)

As others have said, it's horses for courses and a valid tool for the toolbox.

Doing landscapes, I also use Dodge & Burn (to avoid the eye being drawn to parts of the picture which are irrelevant), ND Grads, Ortofen or multi-exposure and then either blend or HDR. HDR is just another technique in your bag of tricks....

I personally like some of the "extreme" HDR as an artistic shot - it all depends on what you want to convey...


----------



## K-amps (Aug 11, 2011)

Yay to HDR... why not?

Its a tool like any other tool..., like a knife can be used to feed a family or do harm to someone... its just a tool. Don't hate the tool. 

You can hate some of the food prepared by some people, and thats ok. 

Standard Camera scan capture +/- 6EV's while some interior Shots require +/-14-18EV's, so it has it's place, there's legit reasons to have it.

A few years ago, PS was thought of as "Cheating" by the Pros, now the ones that don't use it are a minority, now they say HDR is cheating... I think it is just a phase.

Like someone the other day was lecturing me on how each shot should be perfect without the need for HDR... kind of reminded me of my school teacher that would not let us use calculators... 

People dislike things that they know less about and also things that take away a competancy they have. With HDR, hobbyists can sometimes take spectacular shots... stuff before only Pros could do.

The playing field "spread" is lessened by HDR I feel, but in no way am I saying that Hobbyists can shoot as well as pros.

I agree with the comment made above that some people overdo things sometimes, I think once it gets more mainstream and maturity sets in, everyone will grow and Photography as a whole will be richer.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 14, 2011)

I went with my gf to a few photo exhibitions on the weekend for the SALA Festival.

All she kept asking me was 'what's wrong with those photos? all the colours are weird.'
So I had to explain to her the whole 'idea' behind HDR, in capturing more range of light than the camera can handle in one shot.
Funnily enough, we went to the next exhibit, and she really liked the shots, mostly dark grey cloudy landscape scenes. i could tell that they were HDR too, but she had no idea, they just had that 'i like it' factor to the untrained eye. And isn't that what counts? If it makes the shot look good to the layman's eye, then use whatever tool you want to get the job done.

There just happens to be a lot of examples of 'bad' HDR around. but what i call 'bad HDR' (mainly with the fake-looking colours) someone else might really like. It's only a relatively recently-popular thing, give it a few years for people to calm down and figure out how to use it properly, then the proportion of 'good' HDR will increase.

K-amps is right, it's a tool. I'd reckon it more with an angle-grinder or a circular saw. You can build a house both with and without a circular saw. In the right hands, you can make a nice house. In the wrong hands, you're left with a useless pile of rubble where a house should be. There's nothing to stop you using whatever tools you come across, but they only make good work when they're used by the right hands...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 23, 2011)

I love the HDR look, even the "painterly" HDR look that puts emphasis on colorfulness instead of absolute fidelity to a scene. But it doesn't really fit my working style and that's OK. I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos.

A lot of the time, like the cloud photos dr croubie mentions, or even just birds on branches - I often curse the inability of the camera and lens to capture all that detail in one exposure, but I've given up on bracketing with an eye to future HDR'ing. Just peek the result and adjust if necessary. Dynamic range is something I want more than anything else in the next generation of cameras (well, sensitivity could go up a bump too, but I actually am about where I need to be even at ISO 400 with f/2.8 and faster lenses).


----------



## Sunnystate (Aug 23, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I love the HDR look, even the "painterly" HDR look that puts emphasis on colorfulness instead of absolute fidelity to a scene. But it doesn't really fit my working style and that's OK. I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos.
> 
> A lot of the time, like the cloud photos dr croubie mentions, or even just birds on branches - I often curse the inability of the camera and lens to capture all that detail in one exposure, but I've given up on bracketing with an eye to future HDR'ing. Just peek the result and adjust if necessary. Dynamic range is something I want more than anything else in the next generation of cameras (well, sensitivity could go up a bump too, but I actually am about where I need to be even at ISO 400 with f/2.8 and faster lenses).




This sounds really interesting to me: 

"I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos" 

But makes me crave to see it! 
I am new to this site, maybe everybody else knows your work, but it will be really logical in my mind if when a photographer describes their own work with words, would also post a small copyrighted sample of what they are talking about to, just to make things more understandable.
Thank you.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Sep 13, 2011)

I usually expose for the highlights and then use an exposure brush on a RAW file to brush back detail in the shadows. That provides a much more natural 'true to the eye' look than any plug in can achieve. 

I used this effect a lot in this series of photos where the sky would have otherwise been totally blown out:-

http://alipaul.com/misc/gower/

Would be great if dynamic range of full frame sensors would improve a bit sometime soon...

Otherwise I pretty much hate photomatix with a passion.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 13, 2011)

HDR like anyhing else can be really overdone, or it can be really awsome. I sell stock, and many of my images use HDR, but in a subtle way that does not stand out. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3686579818/sizes/z/in/photostream/


----------



## K-amps (Sep 13, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> I usually expose for the highlights and then use an exposure brush on a RAW file to brush back detail in the shadows. That provides a much more natural 'true to the eye' look than any plug in can achieve.
> 
> I used this effect a lot in this series of photos where the sky would have otherwise been totally blown out:-
> 
> ...



Very nice pics and a great idea, it has potential. 

The only thing I would do is try and reduce the grain/ noise visible in the clouds, it's a bit distracting for me.


----------



## pelebel (Oct 11, 2011)

Of the 500+ pictures I take per month, I go HDR for 1, sometimes 2 shots. It's a great technique, but it won't be enough for a lack of talent. The worst thing happening to HDR is mediocre pictures getting processed to impress the non-converted!

Here's my landscape/etc portfolio if you want to try and find the ONLY HDR picture that's hidden in it: http://www.pelebel.com/galleries/paysages/


----------



## K-amps (Oct 11, 2011)

pelebel said:


> Of the 500+ pictures I take per month, I go HDR for 1, sometimes 2 shots. It's a great technique, but it won't be enough for a lack of talent. The worst thing happening to HDR is mediocre pictures getting processed to impress the non-converted!
> 
> Here's my landscape/etc portfolio if you want to try and find the ONLY HDR picture that's hidden in it: http://www.pelebel.com/galleries/paysages/



Picture of intersection with sun peering through the trees and a bus on a stop...


----------



## pelebel (Oct 12, 2011)

Yup!
+1


----------



## GeorgeMaciver (Oct 23, 2011)

Good example there pelebel 8) That photo works with a little HDR. A few months ago I was toying with the idea of delving into ND filters and graduated filters, to try and get some decent contrast between dark landscape foreground and bright skies. Then I bought a G12 and found that with a tripod and sticking the thing in HDR mode, I could get properly exposed images. Not the arty HDRs, but properly exposed images. If using HDR techniques is cheating to properly expose photos, then logically, wouldn't using ND filters be cheating too? For me, personally, the biggest selling point of the 1DX is its multi exposure HDR capability.


----------



## 100 (Oct 23, 2011)

GeorgeMaciver said:


> For me, personally, the biggest selling point of the 1DX is its multi exposure HDR capability.



$6800 is a bit much if that's the feature you like most. You can get the same and more for al lot less on any DSLR for a couple of hundred with something like a Promote Control http://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html 

Or you can simply do it manually, that's what I do most of the time. Here an example (6 exposures 0.8 â€“ 50 seconds)


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 24, 2011)

Is it me, or is there an island and a fountain missing from the lake? (and aren't those towers finished yet?)
Love the shot though.

I've been messing with HDR lately, using Hugin on linux, and i'm coming up with a lot of good tips for myself. First one is that moving targets, waves on the beach, people walking past, wind blowing the trees, clouds moving position, etc, really mess up the shot. Just got myself an ND8 filter, i'll try some night-time long-exposures to minimise some of those problems when the weather gets better...


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 24, 2011)

My HDR is a ND grad, the thing which screws on the front of a lens... Sadly, when I tried to check the local camera stores for them (Fort Lauderdale area), NONE of the attendants knew what they were...


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 24, 2011)

A simple curves adjustment on the histogram can help expand the dynamic range without clipping, crazy color shifts, halos or added noise.


----------



## 100 (Oct 25, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Is it me, or is there an island and a fountain missing from the lake? (and aren't those towers finished yet?)
> Love the shot though.



The island and fountain are still there as far as I know, only just outside the frame. The date on the picture(s) is august 30, so the towers aren't finished yet (government buildings, so they cost twice as much and take three times as long to complete) 


dr croubie said:


> I've been messing with HDR lately, using Hugin on linux, and i'm coming up with a lot of good tips for myself. First one is that moving targets, waves on the beach, people walking past, wind blowing the trees, clouds moving position, etc, really mess up the shot. Just got myself an ND8 filter, i'll try some night-time long-exposures to minimise some of those problems when the weather gets better...



I know, days without wind are rare in Holland. Trees can become a problem, waves and moving clouds can be quite pretty if the exposure is long enough. Water gets a milky or misty quality that I like.



AprilForever said:


> My HDR is a ND grad, the thing which screws on the front of a lens... Sadly, when I tried to check the local camera stores for them (Fort Lauderdale area), NONE of the attendants knew what they were...



That works great for landscapes where you have a nice and even horizon, or shots where one side of the picture is dark and the other light, but if the light is scattered throughout the picture, theyâ€™re useless. 



pdirestajr said:


> A simple curves adjustment on the histogram can help expand the dynamic range without clipping, crazy color shifts, halos or added noise.



That only works if the data is in the (raw) file. 

HDR through multiple exposures is useful if the dynamic range of the scene is larger than the camera can capture. Crazy color shifts, halos or added noise can be avoided. Good HDR-images take time and skill in post processing. There is a lot more to it than one or two mouse clicks in Photomatix or other HDR software.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 25, 2011)

GeorgeMaciver said:


> Good example there pelebel 8) That photo works with a little HDR. A few months ago I was toying with the idea of delving into ND filters and graduated filters, to try and get some decent contrast between dark landscape foreground and bright skies. Then I bought a G12 and found that with a tripod and sticking the thing in HDR mode, I could get properly exposed images. Not the arty HDRs, but properly exposed images. If using HDR techniques is cheating to properly expose photos, then logically, wouldn't using ND filters be cheating too? For me, personally, the biggest selling point of the 1DX is its multi exposure HDR capability.



+1:

ND filters reduce the contrast, so does HDR. Remember the days when photoshopping was considered cheating too?

I too like the HDR feature of the 1Dx, but $6.8k is too much for me :-\


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 23, 2011)

pelebel said:


> Of the 500+ pictures I take per month, I go HDR for 1, sometimes 2 shots. It's a great technique, but it won't be enough for a lack of talent. The worst thing happening to HDR is mediocre pictures getting processed to impress the non-converted!
> 
> Here's my landscape/etc portfolio if you want to try and find the ONLY HDR picture that's hidden in it: http://www.pelebel.com/galleries/paysages/



i'm sorry to say its not really hidden it sticks out like dogs balls, not subtle at all. just my opinion though

when i first encountered HDR i was blown away purchased photomatix straight away and made my own attrocities now i rarely think about using photomatix, some scenes it works ok though. I have been searching for ways to get away from the epilepsy inducing tone mappings most slider based programs produce and the best I have found is the stuff from tony kuyper (http://goodlight.us/) this guys luminosity masks are amazing, this method is not quick, not easy at all but I think produces results. I'm still learning how to do it all but it truely has a feel of crafting something amazing. It would be good if it got developed further into a plugin that was easier to use, i think practice practice practice and it might speed up the workflow though.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 23, 2011)

I have to agree with wick, it stands out plainly. Mostly, I think it's the haloing.

That said, I still like the picture a lot. Great feeling and mood. For me, that's what pictures are about, and I don't care much how people get there.

When I try HDR I use Unified Color's HDR Expose. It provides a lot of control, but it's demanding of the processor and memory. They have an HDR Express product that is much faster and easier to use, but I haven't tried it.





wickidwombat said:


> pelebel said:
> 
> 
> > Of the 500+ pictures I take per month, I go HDR for 1, sometimes 2 shots. It's a great technique, but it won't be enough for a lack of talent. The worst thing happening to HDR is mediocre pictures getting processed to impress the non-converted!
> ...


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 23, 2011)

Like various people have already indicated in earlier posts, there is a lot of scope for natural looking HDRs to improve an image (also using Photomatix). However there are so many poor examples (soft, colour balance out, halo-ing, etc).

My preference is to use Photomatix for most of my HDR (which are usually landscape), and I use it to minimise any of the blemishes listed above. However there is the occasional time when I will need to use other photo post-processing software to undertake precision HDR work (eg using layers, etc).

As some others have written, if your preference is for 'natural looking' (ie as the eye sees) photography, carefully used HDR can have its place. 

All the best

Paul


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 23, 2011)

I use HDR when the camera cant manage - like this one where to get detail in the black floor the view through the window would be blown out.

I use Nik HDR-eFex


----------



## willrobb (Nov 26, 2011)

lol said:


> To me HDR is just another tool to help out. How it is used and abused is up to the artist. I think it is an area that goes beyond photography after a point.
> 
> I guess I could sum it up in 3 levels: natural looking, dramatic, and overcooked.
> 
> ...



I've never used HDR myself, but you can some people who use "Natural HDR" for celebrity/sports star portraits for magazines/newspaper supplements and it does make for nice punchy portraits without the "overcooked" feel. I'm not a fan of images with too much saturation or halo effects, but if that's what some people like who am I to judge.

At the end of the day, some people love it,


----------



## pelebel (Nov 27, 2011)

Wow! so much traffic on my website since I posted that link!


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Nov 27, 2011)

I love HDR but I know it doesn't work on all photos. I was also intrigued when I first saw such photos. They were breathtaking.. at least the first few I saw. Later, I observed HDR photos that were too overdone but that didn't make me hate it. 

I don't think it will be an expected standard for all photos as it just doesn't work on all photos. Personally, I do not like the effect on people but on landscapes, it can be amazing.

I tried dabbling in HDR. I use Picturenaut (a free program) to merge photos but then I edit in PSE7 as I am not too familiar with all the tools in Picturenaut..

This is the 3rd hdr attempt i ever did... haven't really gotten a chance to try this effect more as now I do portraits.. xD


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 29, 2011)

LR/Enfuse http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

Exposure blending software, is donation-ware (cheap) plugin operates in Lightroom. No nasty HDR effects. 

Highly recommend.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 29, 2011)

I think that's a good suggestion for folks who want to try HDR (and have LR). That's the first thing I used when I began to play with HDR. It has it's limitations, but it's a good (and inexpensive) place to start.





wtlloyd said:


> LR/Enfuse http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php
> 
> Exposure blending software, is donation-ware (cheap) plugin operates in Lightroom. No nasty HDR effects.
> 
> Highly recommend.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 29, 2011)

I've been playing around with HDR for the last few days, I found some shots in my collection that i'd taken at +-1/3EV for the purpose of choosing the best exposed one. But now I thought I'd just HDR the brackets anyway.

I'm a Linux user, so all my software is 100% free, some of it you may be able to get for win/mac.
- Hugin Panorama Creator, it can auto-align but I prefer manually, it can output both HDR stacks and panoramae, in TIFF and EXR. This program has a lot of quirks sometimes (like the tendency to vignette all photos to a tiny spot and blow-out the barrel-distortion to a balloon), i've found out how to get around them all quickly, hit me up if anyone needs tips.
- Luminance HDR. This program can create HDRs from tripod-mounted bracketed scenes, but can't do panoramae, even differences in framing handheld it struggles with sometimes, so I tend to stitch everything into EXR using Hugin.
But it tonemaps nicely, the beauty is that you can choose the size to do, so I create a lot of 500x300 sized previews until I get the colours right, then do a full 18MP version once. It's also got a huge selection of different algorithms to use, some look a lot better than others in different situations.
(My biggest gripe with this program is that it uses only 1-core cpu power at once, so my hex-core PhenomII is being wasted a bit, tone-mapping a full-res scene can take 10-15 minutes or more, which would be 2-3 minutes if it used all 6 cores). It's recently started doing a weird thing, sometimes it tone-maps to an entirely black-scene, not sure if that's a problem with the scene or the input file though.

Anyway, here's one of my efforts from last night. Luminance (or Hugin) also doesn't handle blowouts well, the top-left corner turned into weird colours, I'm trying to fix it by masking out the blowouts in the +EV shots going into the Hugin-stitched file, but i'll share it anyway...

Also, two 50% crops from another shot, both tone-mapped from the same EXR file. The single difference between the two shots is the "detail" setting on the first is 30, whereas on the second it's set to 1. This is the difference between what I'd call "fake looking" or "bad HDR" and something that I'd print big. I'm still not 100% happy with any of the different version I've made so far, but my favourite is the detail=1 version (until I make new versions).
<edit, I'm also adding in the houseboat again, this time the darkest shot from the 3 input bracketed shots, to show what it looks like in a "normal" photo.>


----------



## K-amps (Nov 30, 2011)

Got your point... there's something not right with them, the non-HDR version with less overall detail looks less fatiguing. I see some camera shake blur reflected in the HDR versions too... 

So we understand that it is not only the painterly effect but also the blur effect that goes against HDr, however, I still think done right it has it's merits.


----------



## Caps18 (Nov 30, 2011)

I like that my iPhone 4S has the ability to do HDR. I wish the 5DM2 could do HDR in camera. Instant panoramas would be nice too.

I like the HDR images when it makes things look more like reality. The problem is I have pictures at different exposures, and when I get around to post-processing months later, I don't know if it is a bad image or something I took on purpose.

There have been some pictures that I could not have taken without different exposures.


----------



## samthefish (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm an "enthusiast" photographer - I only occasionally do paid work, so take this for what it's worth. I find I get the most praise for photos that have a different "look" from what most people get with their point and shoots, whether it's taken from a different perspective, has more interesting composition, or is manually exposed/focused to achieve a different effect than what the default settings on most cameras give. As much as I'd like to credit my skill I feel like a lot of it is the photo looks "different" from the bulk of what they see so they really notice it, "see" it, and it seems fresh to them for that reason.

HDR is another thing one can do to make a shot look "different" and perhaps more interesting because of that.

Once HDR gets more and more "common" (and I think it's getting there already) I think the shot won't look as different or interesting.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 30, 2011)

samthefish said:


> Once HDR gets more and more "common" (and I think it's getting there already) I think the shot won't look as different or interesting.



Yeah, true. I'll admit that i'd never heard of it until i began visiting these and other forums (i'm not the kind of guy that goes through flickr for fun).

If the iphone now does it, there's your recipe for it being overplayed and not too special anymore. The 1DX will also do it in-camera, no?

I'm not sure how well those in-camera ones will go, all of my 3-bracket shots are taken on 7D, High-Speed-Continuous, and even then sometimes the branches on trees are so freakishly out of place that I can't get them merged into a normal photo, with any amount of masking and deghosting algorithms.

Also, it depends on whether the cameras make the .EXR files, or whether they tone-map as well. The 'Manutiuk 06' algorithm that I've been using has settings for PreGamma, Contrast Equalisation on/off, Contrast 0-1, Saturation 0-2, detail 1-100. That's a lot of settings that make every shot look a lot different, and it takes hours of experimentation for me to decide which one looks best. Then there's another 10 or so different algorithms i've never even tried. If in-camera HDRs get tone-mapped as well, I think that's just going to lead to a lot more 'bad' HDR when the user has no input on the final product...


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 2, 2011)

Meanwhile, here's a bit of an example of what I was talking about, the differences between in-camera and lots of PP time. I took my camera down the river the other day when I was in town, took some bracketed shots, and made an HDR out of 6 shots.
(easy way with a 7D where you only get 3-shots in a bracket: Set bracketing to 4/3 stops apart, centre +1/3EV, take shots (so you get -1, +1/3, +5/3), then dial it to -1/3EV and take 3 more shots (so you get -5/3EV, -1/3EV, +1EV), so you 6-shots 2/3 EV apart with only 2 clicks of the RC-6 and once turning the dial 2-steps, so minimal chance of bumping the tripod (expecially important because I was using the gorillapod in about 30-knot winds).

Anyway, have a look at the attached.
First shot is a 50% crop using all 6 frames unaltered. Look at the noise in the darker parts, like the window.
Second shot, I've masked the dark bottom-half around the tree-balcony line, for the darkest shot (and masked out the bright sky from the brightest shot but you can't see that here).
Third shot, I've masked out the dark-half from the second-darkest image as well. Look how much better it looks, there's even a cable hanging from the ceiling inside the building you couldn't even see from the first two shots.
And 4th shot, the entire scene. Still has that 'fake HDR' look to it, but by changing a few more variables it might get better-looking. (extra points if you recognise the buildings and can guess where i live).

Basically, my point is that it took a lot of work over a few hours just to get this far, and i'm still not happy. Whether it's the fault of Hugin that is introducing the noise from the darkest shots in the dark-areas or what, I don't know. But I doubt that any automated-program or in-camera settings can get anywhere near this with no user input, at least for now...


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

Did you do a graduated exposure filt to the right of the frame? Looks very dark and a bit distracting. I agree with you it needs some work, but it also has potential... good footage to work with. The lead in lines have potential... I wonder if it is the modern architecture clashing with traditional in the background that is contributing to some of your grief...


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Basically, my point is that it took a lot of work over a few hours just to get this far, and i'm still not happy. Whether it's the fault of Hugin that is introducing the noise from the darkest shots in the dark-areas or what, I don't know. But I doubt that any automated-program or in-camera settings can get anywhere near this with no user input, at least for now...



Don't know what your preferences are... but I did a quick PP using elements on your last image, using the following tools: 

Reversed some darkening gradient effects to the right.
Shadow/ Highlights
Contrast & Brightness

You can do much better with PS/ or even Viveza. Your shot has lots of potential !


----------



## distant.star (Dec 2, 2011)

For those with a real interest in HDR, you might want to take a look at this collaborative work:

http://www.scottfrederickphotoblog.com/2011/11/15/al-capones-cell-hdr-collaboration/

Scott Frederick, a noted HDR specialist, donated the original exposures he made of the Al Capone cell at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia to other folks who wanted to do an HDR treatment. Interesting to see the variations derived. [ Scott's a Nikon shooter if that makes a difference to anyone! ]


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 5, 2011)

distant.star said:


> For those with a real interest in HDR, you might want to take a look at this collaborative work:
> 
> http://www.scottfrederickphotoblog.com/2011/11/15/al-capones-cell-hdr-collaboration/
> 
> Scott Frederick, a noted HDR specialist, donated the original exposures he made of the Al Capone cell at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia to other folks who wanted to do an HDR treatment. Interesting to see the variations derived. [ Scott's a Nikon shooter if that makes a difference to anyone! ]



I've seen that before, I think Trey Ratcliff from stuckincustoms.com linked it before. Still has that soft fuzzy stoned feeling that all the algorithm based HDR software gives out this always spoils it for me as every image has the "sameness" to it. I have a massive interest in HDR Its just getting away from "that look" granted the look i'm trying to get away from with HDR seems to be the look most HDR enthusiasts are trying to go for.

As an aside for the HDR people reading how do you find number of brackets and the exposure gap to affect the final result. Typically I find taking 5 or 7 images at 1 stop gaps gives the cleanest blend, 2 stop gap and 3 exposures has a higher chance of giving that softened look I have found, I have found the 1Dmk3 seems to capture brackets better than the 5D2 probably a combination of better bracket control and the much higher shutter speed. I have tried magic lantern but its really hit and miss.


----------

