Taj Mahal in HDR

[ksz]

Ah! I've got to ask ou that question! I have been trying to find a way to let the d200 take all the photos with only one click of the shutter release. I know that as long as I press down the shutter release in CL or CH mode it takes pictures atomatically but I'd like to take all these photos without having to press the button down.

I try bracketing wit 5 shots with 0.7 or 1 EV increments but I'd rather do all the bracketing with one shutter release press...

What settings do you use?

I placed an order for the MC-36 remote shutter release, but the retailer (Roberts Imaging) was out of stock when I had to fly out. Naturally I would have mounted the camera on a tripod and used the remote release, but in practice I could do neither. Many of the shots were taken with the camera resting on someone's shoulder. (We've got to improvise whenever necessary.)

Nevertheless, to answer your question, I did the following (quite simple actually):

1. Continuous shooting mode to CH.
2. Press and hold the BKT button and rotate the rear command dial to set 5 exposures centered on 0.
3. While keeping BKT pressed, rotate the front command dial to set EV 1.

Now compose the scene and hold the shutter button down until 5 clicks are heard. This is where the remote release would have really helped! I held my breath, secured the camera with one hand, and held the shutter release down with the other.

No magic, just have to wait until 5 clicks have expired. Be sure to unset both BKT mode and CH mode afterwards if you're going to take a normal picture. (I made this mistake a few times!)

 

[ksz]

Spectrum: Thanks! And good observations:

1. Others have noted that some look slightly artificial. It seems to me that just adding two more stops of dynamic range alone shouldn't give this result. Suggesting that it is more the way that the pic has been processed than the HDR technique itself.

All of the HDR images in this thread were composed of 5 shots. I will have to experiment with different combinations of exposures. As someone mentioned, sunset pictures may benefit from the increased DR of 5 shots, but sunrise and afternoon pictures may need only two or three...but which two or three? I'll experiment with different permutations.

2. If you have the time, I'd be interested to see your best attempt to get the out of camera JPEG to match the HDR in terms of saturation, detail, and contrast of the equivalent HDR image. e.g. how much of this look can be gained by judicious use of PP?

The image below is such an image. No HDR, but some contrast adjustment. I could have increased color saturation, but the picture was already taken with in-camera Vivid mode enabled.

 

[ATD]

While HDR can be done within Photoshop, it's a more cumbersome process and I've heard that the results are not as striking as those that can be produced by Photomatix. As you can see by the watermark in each HDR image, this software was used.

Really nice HDR studies here!!! I have used HDR in Photoshop and I'm not unhappy with the results but it doesn't offer a whole lot of control at this point (no layers, no masking and very very few adjustments). Have you tried PS and still think Photomatix is better? What kind of control do you have in Photomatix thats not in PS? Thanks again for showing the work.

 

[ksz]

Really nice HDR studies here!!! I have used HDR in Photoshop and I'm not unhappy with the results but it doesn't offer a whole lot of control at this point (no layers, no masking and very very few adjustments). Have you tried PS and still think Photomatix is better? What kind of control do you have in Photomatix thats not in PS? Thanks again for showing the work.

Thanks!! This is my first experience with HDR and as you can see from some of the comments, I'm not an expert in this area! I'm not sure when HDR was added to Photoshop, but I'm using version 7.0.1 (waiting for CS3) and have never done this in that program.

However, the Tone Mapping controls in Photomatix are as follows:

 

[Spectrum]

The image below is such an image. No HDR, but some contrast adjustment. I could have increased color saturation, but the picture was already taken with in-camera Vivid mode enabled.

Thanks for taking the time to post the example, but really it needs to be a direct comparison between two shots taken at the same time/field of view. e.g. PP the correctly exposed shot from the bracketed set and see how close you can get to the HDR look from the entire bracketed set.

Just a comment for discussion: It seems to me that another use of the HDR technique would be to merge a series of high ISO images so as to get rid of the background sensor noise. An alternative to using low ISO and a tripod. (For static subjects only of course.)

Perhaps photoshop can already do this? I'm so crap at PS that I have no idea, I'm afraid.... But I'd love to learn.

 

[ksz]

Ok, here goes:

Original Image:

Original Image post-processed to resemble HDR as much as possible:

HDR:

While different techniques could be applied to post-process the original image so that it resembles HDR, I got the closest results by increasing saturation. However, notice the addition of noise particularly in the large dome and where the sky meets the ground. Also, the morning sunlight is not as delicately rendered as the HDR image, and the sky is not the same shade of blue even though the post-processed image is slightly more saturated than the HDR image.

 

[ATD]

Thanks!! This is my first experience with HDR and as you can see from some of the comments, I'm not an expert in this area! I'm not sure when HDR was added to Photoshop, but I'm using version 7.0.1 (waiting for CS3) and have never done this in that program.

Thanks for posting the interface, it seems to have more control than Photoshop. I guess I should give it a try and see. I started working with HDR images a few years ago, I use them as environmental lighting in 3D rendering (Maya/mental ray). When I first started buying HDR collections there was no way to edit them on a Mac, later HDR editing came to Photoshop in CS2. I'm glad to see a Mac editor other than Photoshop is available, I gave up looking a while back.

 

[zync]

I'm not sure when HDR was added to Photoshop, but I'm using version 7.0.1 (waiting for CS3) and have never done this in that program.

It was added as a part of CS2.

Thanks for posting the interface, it seems to have more control than Photoshop. I guess I should give it a try and see. I started working with HDR images a few years ago, I use them as environmental lighting in 3D rendering (Maya/mental ray). When I first started buying HDR collections there was no way to edit them on a Mac, later HDR editing came to Photoshop in CS2. I'm glad to see a Mac editor other than Photoshop is available, I gave up looking a while back.

Didn't see that you had mentioned CS2 already. BTW, it is difficult to use in photoshop but that's because it's presented in a manner that doesn't make sense. From what I remember of the last time I did it, you have to modify the curves in the last panel of the dialog to get it to work right. Only one of the curves from the drop down menu actually lets you affect it. Also, on the first tab of the dialog you can modify it as well, though it's not as controllable as modifying the curves. Since I probably make no sense as I'm basing this off of memory you could try the tutorial over at luminous-landscape.com.

 

[Spectrum]

Ok, here goes:
...While different techniques could be applied to post-process the original image so that it resembles HDR, I got the closest results by increasing saturation. However, notice the addition of noise particularly in the large dome and where the sky meets the ground. Also, the morning sunlight is not as delicately rendered as the HDR image, and the sky is not the same shade of blue even though the post-processed image is slightly more saturated than the HDR image.

Thanks for the comparison. I tried it with your sunset picture (i hope you don't mind).
In this image in particular there is lost information in the highlights in the sky that cannot be recaptured by PP (I know I've done a pretty poor job!). HDR is really helping here. Your example also shows how much the HDR can help with colour scales even when the apparent dynamic range is not as dramatic.

I really like this technique. I wonder how long before this all gets done automatically in-camera...

 

[ATD]

It was added as a part of CS2.



Didn't see that you had mentioned CS2 already. BTW, it is difficult to use in photoshop but that's because it's presented in a manner that doesn't make sense. From what I remember of the last time I did it, you have to modify the curves in the last panel of the dialog to get it to work right. Only one of the curves from the drop down menu actually lets you affect it. Also, on the first tab of the dialog you can modify it as well, though it's not as controllable as modifying the curves. Since I probably make no sense as I'm basing this off of memory you could try the tutorial over at luminous-landscape.com.

Thanks for the link.

 

[ksz]

I really like this technique. I wonder how long before this all gets done automatically in-camera...

Exactly my thoughts (or wish). HDR shows us just how constricted a dynamic range our sensors have today. Before we saw the potential of high-definition TV we were fairly content with the quality of standard-definition. HDR might be like that...giving us a taste for what's possible and whetting our appetite.

 

[beavo451]

Exactly my thoughts (or wish). HDR shows us just how constricted a dynamic range our sensors have today. Before we saw the potential of high-definition TV we were fairly content with the quality of standard-definition. HDR might be like that...giving us a taste for what's possible and whetting our appetite.

Unfortunately, some people (me) don't like the way HDR looks.

 

[ATD]

Unfortunately, some people (me) don't like the way HDR looks.

I somewhat agree only because some people tend to go way overboard. It's like when some people start using Photoshop and throw one effect after another on an image. It takes some work to get a natural looking image. It can be a very useful tool for fixing tough shots.

Here's an example I was playing with the other day. The top shot was conventional and the bottom was a 3 exposure HDR. I was looking to see if I could add better density to the sky and open up the buildings. It would have been difficult using only the conventional shot. With HDR I was able to get the detail I was looking for and still keep it somewhat (hopefully) natural.

 

[ksz]

Unfortunately, some people (me) don't like the way HDR looks.

And some people (me) don't like the way standard images fail miserably to capture a wide dynamic range as shown in the Lotus Temple and Sunset examples.

There is a need for higher dynamic range sensors. This is not the same thing as HDR. Even film has a higher DR than digital sensors. HDR is giving us a taste for what high dynamic range means in practical terms and I'm all for it. Further, HDR images can be post-processed to improve contrast and reduce saturation. In other words, you can selectively take something out of an HDR image without losing quality, but you cannot take a standard image and put something in that wasn't there to begin with.

 

[Spectrum]

Here's an example I was playing with the other day. The top shot was conventional and the bottom was a 3 exposure HDR. I was looking to see if I could add better density to the sky and open up the buildings. It would have been difficult using only the conventional shot. With HDR I was able to get the detail I was looking for and still keep it somewhat (hopefully) natural.

How did I do?

 

[ATD]

How did I do?

I like them as well as many of the shots on this tread. Some of the shots here are beautiful. The point I was making is you can make something very natural if that's what you are going for and not have anyone say it's HDR look. I have nothing against manipulating images for a given look. After all thats what I do for a living.

 

[Spectrum]

I like them as well as many of the shots on this tread. Some of the shots here are beautiful. The point I was making is you can make something very natural if that's what you are going for and not have anyone say it's HDR look. I have nothing against manipulating images for a given look. After all thats what I do for a living.

I guess my point was that I could almost achieve your HDR image from the single JPEG shot, suggesting that the total dynamic range (in exposure values) was within the limits of the sensor. To me, HDR really has something to offer in accurately recording scenes that have significantly greater dynamic range - like night/sunny shots with very bright parts and deep shadows. Now correctly displaying that recorded information so that it looks natural, and not like a frankenprint is another matter...

 

[spicyapple]

I see HDR images more for their archival quality; the ability to capture reality more faithfully than what we've been accustomed to. HDR is great for still life, but to capture action, we'll need to develop cameras that can take multiple extremes in exposures in a single shot. That is definitely the future.

What we're talking about in here is tone-mapping -- method for compressing 32-bits of information into 8-bits for display. Photomatix is the best software I've used to create these types of photographs.

 

[ATD]

I guess my point was that I could almost achieve your HDR image from the single JPEG shot, suggesting that the total dynamic range (in exposure values) was within the limits of the sensor.

Sorry, I didn't see that you changed my shots. Now it makes sense, I thought you were taking about the other HDR stuff you had here.

To me, HDR really has something to offer in accurately recording scenes that have significantly greater dynamic range - like night/sunny shots with very bright parts and deep shadows. Now correctly displaying that recorded information so that it looks natural, and not like a frankenprint is another matter...

I agree, HDR is a very useful tool for a lot of things. I have been using for years in Maya, it's something all together different there. The way it's used there is what is called Image Based Lighting, 3D scenes that are lit for a outer sphere that's mapped with an HDRI. The tonal range from each part of the HDRI pushes light inward into the scene, dark areas push in a small amount of light, light areas push in lots of light. The effects from this gives 3D renders a very real look if it's handled right. A lot of special effects shots in the movies use HDR to light the CG.

Here's a site that might interest some of you.

http://www.debevec.org/

Paul Debevec is the father (or one of the fathers) of HDRI and he is still pushing HDRI into the future with some insane things that we will be seeing someday. Check out the Parthenon project under films. He has actually started pushing HDR beyond still images and made HDR (Image Based Lighting) movies.

http://www.debevec.org/Parthenon/

There is lots of other very interesting stuff there.

 

[faustfire]

Here is another HDRI tut link, this one is for photoshop cs2.

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=47398

 

[beavo451]

I somewhat agree only because some people tend to go way overboard. It's like when some people start using Photoshop and throw one effect after another on an image. It takes some work to get a natural looking image. It can be a very useful tool for fixing tough shots.

Here's an example I was playing with the other day. The top shot was conventional and the bottom was a 3 exposure HDR. I was looking to see if I could add better density to the sky and open up the buildings. It would have been difficult using only the conventional shot. With HDR I was able to get the detail I was looking for and still keep it somewhat (hopefully) natural.

Looks good. That is how HDR should be done.

Even film has a higher DR than digital sensors.

Ever shot slide?

 

[ksz]

Ever shot slide?

Yes

 

[dogbone]

This is a philosophical question...

Sort of like the dilema painters found themselves in when photography revealed that horses did not lift all four legs off the ground when galloping? To paint how it looks or how it *is*.

 

[ksz]

Sort of like the dilema painters found themselves in when photography revealed that horses did not lift all four legs off the ground when galloping? To paint how it looks or how it *is*.

This is a different issue altogether--it is a study of horses, not a study of light.

A long exposure photograph of a clear night sky shows star trails. Star trails are a study of light. An infrared photograph maps infrared frequencies into optical frequencies, producing false-color renditions. This is also a study of light. A black-and-white or grayscale image is a result of desaturating the colors. Again a study a light. Sepia tones provide an old or vintage look to photographs. It too is a study of light.

HDR is also a study of light.

 

[dogbone]

This is a different issue altogether--it is a study of horses, not a study of light.

Not really. It was about whether one paints what one sees or what one knows to be true. It was thought that what was previously painted was not only what is seen but what was true. It is about what is *seen* which is definitely about light, is it not?

Back on topic though, I prefer to do two exposures and manually blend in photoshop.