HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography - post your HDR

[zioxide]

So, after scrolling through this thread I got quite the inspiration. There are many amazing shots here, and contrast and exaggeration of colors is breath taking. Seriously, very cool.

I went downtown tonight mainly to try HDR photography. As i am new to photography (2 weeks since a camera purchase), i was not expecting to get anything worth posting. But mainly i got a good practice and i came up with several questions that Im hoping to get a feed back on.

1. HDR shots take 3 photos. Is there a rule of thumb to which you should post process? I kinda went with the underexposed one, just because i felt the contrast is stronger in those. Or I have also read that in Photoshop you can merge all three shots somehow, however i am not sure what the benefit of that is.

Merging the shots is what the HDR process is.

HDR stands for high dynamic range. Dynamic range is basically the amount of variation between light and dark that your camera can see.

Your camera can see, on average, only about 3 stops of light. The human eye can see about 11, so in order to bring out all the detail and contrast that you can see with your eyes but not with your camera, you take three shots (giving you 9 stops of light) and merge them all together using Photoshop, Photomatix, or something similar.

2. How much do you guys actually post edit the pics? Seems like HDR photography could be something close to an actual paining, as there are so many aspects to consider when editing.

Well, photography is an art, and all art is subjective. Process them however much you want to express the feeling you want with that specific photo! Personally, I like using HDR to bring out the detail in shadow and highlights in a photo that has a lot of variation in light and dark, and I'm not a huge fan of the overdone, surrealist HDR. But it's all subjective.

3. Are there any resources that you guy would recommend to help me study this style more thoroughly?

Thank you.

http://500px.com/blog/750/tutorial-learn-hdr-photography

This might help ya a bit.

 

[ChrisA]

...
1. HDR shots take 3 photos. Is there a rule of thumb to which you should post process? I kinda went with the underexposed one, just because i felt the contrast is stronger in those. Or I have also read that in Photoshop you can merge all three shots somehow, however i am not sure what the benefit of that is. ..

It need not be exactly three shots but that is a good number, Five ot two can work also.

And YES. You combine allof them into the final image. That is the entire point of the exercise

BTW people are doing "focus stacks" too. It's like HDR but you combine multiple images each with a different focus distance. You get a huge depth of field that way. Works best for macro shots

 

[kashura7]

Merging the shots is what the HDR process is.

HDR stands for high dynamic range. Dynamic range is basically the amount of variation between light and dark that your camera can see.

Your camera can see, on average, only about 3 stops of light. The human eye can see about 11, so in order to bring out all the detail and contrast that you can see with your eyes but not with your camera, you take three shots (giving you 9 stops of light) and merge them all together using Photoshop, Photomatix, or something similar.




Well, photography is an art, and all art is subjective. Process them however much you want to express the feeling you want with that specific photo! Personally, I like using HDR to bring out the detail in shadow and highlights in a photo that has a lot of variation in light and dark, and I'm not a huge fan of the overdone, surrealist HDR. But it's all subjective.



http://500px.com/blog/750/tutorial-learn-hdr-photography

This might help ya a bit.

Great, thank you so much.

----------

It need not be exactly three shots but that is a good number, Five ot two can work also.

And YES. You combine allof them into the final image. That is the entire point of the exercise

BTW people are doing "focus stacks" too. It's like HDR but you combine multiple images each with a different focus distance. You get a huge depth of field that way. Works best for macro shots

Thank you, that sounds like an interesting technique

 

[jkramerbob]

So, after scrolling through this thread I got quite the inspiration. There are many amazing shots here, and contrast and exaggeration of colors is breath taking. Seriously, very cool.

I went downtown tonight mainly to try HDR photography. As i am new to photography (2 weeks since a camera purchase), i was not expecting to get anything worth posting. But mainly i got a good practice and i came up with several questions that Im hoping to get a feed back on.

1. HDR shots take 3 photos. Is there a rule of thumb to which you should post process? I kinda went with the underexposed one, just because i felt the contrast is stronger in those. Or I have also read that in Photoshop you can merge all three shots somehow, however i am not sure what the benefit of that is.

2. How much do you guys actually post edit the pics? Seems like HDR photography could be something close to an actual paining, as there are so many aspects to consider when editing.

3. Are there any resources that you guy would recommend to help me study this style more thoroughly?

Thank you.

I use Photomatrix software because of it's simplicity. Even though you might use Photoshop, their tutorial might help explain the concept. http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/tutorial_basic/

 

[someoldguy]

 

[kingalexthe1st]

So, after scrolling through this thread I got quite the inspiration. There are many amazing shots here, and contrast and exaggeration of colors is breath taking. Seriously, very cool.

I went downtown tonight mainly to try HDR photography. As i am new to photography (2 weeks since a camera purchase), i was not expecting to get anything worth posting. But mainly i got a good practice and i came up with several questions that Im hoping to get a feed back on.

1. HDR shots take 3 photos. Is there a rule of thumb to which you should post process? I kinda went with the underexposed one, just because i felt the contrast is stronger in those. Or I have also read that in Photoshop you can merge all three shots somehow, however i am not sure what the benefit of that is.

2. How much do you guys actually post edit the pics? Seems like HDR photography could be something close to an actual paining, as there are so many aspects to consider when editing.

3. Are there any resources that you guy would recommend to help me study this style more thoroughly?

Thank you.

Others have already explained the hows and whats, but I'm surprised no-one has mentioned http://www.stuckincustoms.com yet. Trey Ratcliffe does some incredible things with HDR and he posts one picture every day to his website. The last week haven't been so HDR-centric, but just click on his portfolio to see what he's got. There's some truly great photos in there. Oh, and he also has a free tutorial for Photomatix

Alex

 

[ManhattanBeach]

HDR

• moderation = key!!!

​

 

[fireman32]

Grist Mill 2 by dspector32, on Flickr

 

[MacRy]

I would recommend checking out Serge Ramelli's YouTube channel for some good hints and tips. I watched a few of his Lightroom tutorials and that's how I made my photos here that I have posted. No multiple exposures , bracketing or stacking - just one JPEG and some adjustments.

 

[NeGRit0]

No multiple exposures , bracketing or stacking - just one JPEG and some adjustments.

Then are they really "HDR" images? Sounds like basic RAW processing to me.

 

[MacRy]

Then are they really "HDR" images? Sounds like basic RAW processing to me.

I guess not in the traditional sense but they do have a high dynamic range so I think they still count.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The Sky looked weird in this one as the clouds were fast moving. Sadly my D3200 doesn't do HDR so you have to manually adjust your exposure for each shot. When I changed it to B & W it worked a lot better for me. Let me know what you think.

 

[macmesser]

The Sky looked weird in this one as the clouds were fast moving. Sadly my D3200 doesn't do HDR so you have to manually adjust your exposure for each shot. When I changed it to B & W it worked a lot better for me. Let me know what you think.
[url=http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2819/10658166804_a1048ef9dc_b.jpg]Image[/URL]

Nice shot. Black and white HDR is a great effect. How many exposures did you use? What software?

----------

[url=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/10466438154_21864d3d60_b.jpg]Image[/url]
Grist Mill 2 by dspector32, on Flickr

Great composition and colors. Not over done at all. Reminds me of a pastel.

----------

In my personal opinion, realism is the only reason to use HDR. The dynamic range of the cameras we use is only a fraction of what we see with our own eyes, so HDR can be useful to show someone else exactly what you were looking at when you stood there.

A well-done HDR image can really take a shot to the next level and create a sense of depth to the image. Unfortunately, the majority of HDR images are far from realistic. Rather than being used as a tool which allows us to increase the small dynamic range of our cameras, it's usually used as an "effect" which makes images far too vibrant and contrasty.

This certainly isn't meant as a criticism to those who like the effect - just my 2 cents.

Best regards.

I kind of lean that way too. Gives one a good handle on what needs to be done which is based on the camera's DR, DR of scene, lighting and exposure. OTOH, I think some HDR images, like the Heavy Metal trucks, are really artistic.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Nice shot. Black and white HDR is a great effect. How many exposures did you use? What software?

----------

5 Exposures and Nik HDR Efex Pro. Then a little tweak in LR5 I'm only just starting to use HDR (3rd attempt).

 

[albertdros]

Just noticed this topic. I see a lot of photos here that are not sharp, colours are off or other things that do not look right. Are most of you guys using 1 exposure and doing 'software HDR'? This can be done to some extend but with extreme differences in exposure you may have a result that looks off. Also, be sure to check basic things like your black and white points and colour levels in whatever software you're editing.

Here are 2 from me:

Bukchong Seoul by albert dros, on Flickr


urban scene by albert dros, on Flickr

More can be found on my flickr account. Most are not HDR though.

 

[imac wannabe]

Really nice shots here, I really like the second one. Could you share your workflow and software?? Thanks!

Paul

Just noticed this topic. I see a lot of photos here that are not sharp, colours are off or other things that do not look right. Are most of you guys using 1 exposure and doing 'software HDR'? This can be done to some extend but with extreme differences in exposure you may have a result that looks off. Also, be sure to check basic things like your black and white points and colour levels in whatever software you're editing.



[url=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5520/10403482224_b7ee83f924_c.jpg]Image[/url]
urban scene by albert dros, on Flickr

More can be found on my flickr account. Most are not HDR though.

 

[ChrisA]

I would recommend checking out Serge Ramelli's YouTube channel for some good hints and tips. I watched a few of his Lightroom tutorials and that's how I made my photos here that I have posted. No multiple exposures , bracketing or stacking - just one JPEG and some adjustments.

Then it is by definition NOT an HDR. It is just conventional processing. It's a simple levels, curves air or contrast adjustment. People have been doing that for over 100 years using different construct papers or development times.

You really need to composite at least two images, if not you are not using the term HDP they way everyone else does.

 

[albertdros]

Really nice shots here, I really like the second one. Could you share your workflow and software?? Thanks!

Paul

Lightroom and Color Effex 4 for editing. Multiple exposures stacked. I use Lightroom as host and stack the images with Photoshop's automatic HDR stacking tool. Then save them as 1 TIFF file with all the range inside (usually a 400mb-1GB file) so I can edit it in Lightroom.

 

[MacRy]

HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography - post your HDR

Then it is by definition NOT an HDR. It is just conventional processing. It's a simple levels, curves air or contrast adjustment. People have been doing that for over 100 years using different construct papers or development times.

You really need to composite at least two images, if not you are not using the term HDP they way everyone else does.

You're right of course. I should have said "HDR like" I guess.

 

[themumu]

Here is my first try (did not yet get a full version, since I'm not sure how often I'd be doing this).

The 3 photos that went into this were shot a year and a half ago. At the time I tried to process it with Photoshop, but it looked crap.

I like the HDR shots that almost don't look like HDR - not over processed, so was going for that feel. I only took this with +/- 1 stop, so it did not retain all the highlights (it was a morning, so the low sun was reflecting very strongly in the building ahead). I guess in the future will try to shoot with larger exposure steps.

Comments and critique welcome!

 

[jrm27]

here's some from a trip I just got back from! These are mostly 5 shot HDR, processed in LightRoom and Photoshop.


Rijksmuseum by jrmelot, on Flickr


Eiffel Tower Sunset by jrmelot, on Flickr


Sainte Chapelle Windows by jrmelot, on Flickr


Sainte Chapelle Windows by jrmelot, on Flickr


Notre Dame Looking Up by jrmelot, on Flickr


Down the Champs by jrmelot, on Flickr

 

[fireman32]

Abandoned barn WV.jpg by dspector32, on Flickr

 

[albertdros]

here's some from a trip I just got back from! These are mostly 5 shot HDR, processed in LightRoom and Photoshop.

Amsterdam: Not bad but I don't like the vignette

Eiffel tower: alright but for true night hdr i would advice to stack multiple exposures but increase the range A LOT. Even when these are 5 (?) photos stacked this image can easily be done with 1 photo. Also the tower is slightly bend to the right. It's not straight or is it my bad eyesight ?

Church: same thing here. Need to increase the range a lot to get way more detail in the nice structure of the walls and ceilings. Don't know what difference in aperture you're using for the different shots now but i would say to use atleast +1 +2 +3 and maybe even +4 in this kind of circumstances.

notre dame: quiet nice but slightly bend to the right, not straight.

down the champs: great shot with great symmetry and nice HDR effect.

Hope my comments are useful. I'm not a pro or anything but I just critisize. No hard feelings

----------

[url=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5491/10368487306_66b1e896b6_b.jpg]Image[/url]
Abandoned barn WV.jpg by dspector32, on Flickr

I don't really like your processing. I can see the range but the detail is very limited. Also it lacks some contrast. Try using more clarity or boost details, don't know what software you're using.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

Here are 2 from me:

Bukchong Seoul by albert dros, on Flickr


urban scene by albert dros, on Flickr

More can be found on my flickr account. Most are not HDR though.

AlbertDros, why do these and many of the pictures on your flickr page look like CGI renderings rather than having that super or hyper-real look? The end pictures are not retaining their original detail somehow.

I wonder if that's why some photographers use luminosity masking instead. Keeping all that lovely detail they captured initially, instead of having it get lost in an artificial looking picture.

Just wondering out loud... I don't have the answers and as you are an expert, I thought I'd ask.

 

[DhruvK]

One of mine from Oshkosh this year. Our neighbors on the campsite: