My photographer friends, I have a ?

[glockster]

I was going to ask this question in one of the couch's death valley threads but did not want to hi-jack it.

 

I have recently been made aware of HDR (high dynamic range)photography and I'm wondering how many of the "photographers" here at BMWRT have dabbled in it.

 

I don't hang around here as much as I used to but where I do hang out(Jeep Forum) they have a thread about this process and the guys that are good at it come up with phenomenal pictures. They have almost a cartoonish quality to them when not over done.

 

Here is one example pulled from the thread:

 

 

Here is another:

 

 

 

Here is a link to the thread: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f59/all-hdr-pics-here-924791/

 

 

Couch, David, Killer, Tom, Francois, Whip anyone? Just curious. I don't have the gear to do any of this yet so this officially begins my research and development process. I know there are lots of photographers around here both amateur and professionals, talk to me. The thread at jeep forum is but a month old. Has this been around for awhile and I've just been clueless?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

[David]

It's been around a long time as long as you were willing to use manual masking/layers in Photoshop. The plugins that do it all automatically are newer, but they've been around a few years.

 

I like that last photo a lot. Personally I find most of the HDR stuff an example of people doing things just because they can. Sort of like an administrative assistant who discovers that you can change fonts in a document...and now there are 17 different fonts in this resumé. I prefer to do HDR stuff that no one would quickly identify as such.

 

There's really very little equipment needed.

 

1) Tripod, to capture the same image each time.

 

2) Any camera that allows you to shoot under "aperture priority" (that's to make sure the depth of field doesn't change between shots).

 

3) Simple plug in--some are even free.

 

So really, you probably wouldn't have to spend a penny more doing it.

 

I've got some HDR images in this gallery:

 

http://www.retake.com/Photography/HDR-High-Dynamic-Range

[Twisties]

I think Ara (Beemerchef) started experimenting with it well over a year ago. He has posted some amazing shots. I believe his were the first I saw. There are a number of stand alone vendors, and hdr is included in CS4. I think there was a thread on it here about a year ago... Scott (Couchrocket) may have started it IIRC.

 

I haven't tried it yet. As I understand it in addition to the software you also need a tripod, and since I had one disintegrate on my pillion seat I haven't carried another... getting another is on my list.

 

I agree with you, those shots you posted look a bit over cooked to me. Ara does a much better job with it, if realism is a goal.

 

There is also something Scott posted more recently that allows "stacking" for increased depth of field. A lot of the macro photogs are using it.

 

So now we have three ways to merge multiple captures: The traditional panoramic stitch, hdr (under, normal and overexposed), and stacking for depth of field. So far I haven't seen these all combined.

 

I think there has been speculation that camera sensors will soon sport increased dynamic range... whether that will render hdr obsolete, or extend it even further, I'm not sure.

[Couchrocket]

I like that last photo a lot. Personally I find most of the HDR stuff an example of people doing things just because they can. Sort of like an administrative assistant who discovers that you can change fonts in a document...and now there are 17 different fonts in this resumé. I prefer to do HDR stuff that no one would quickly identify as such.

 

 

How the heck are you? Miss your regular posts here!!! Hope all is well with you and yours.

 

HDR.

 

As David says, HDR has come to mean in common parlance, something very different than it originally did. The Jeep photo is a good example of what is called "tone mapping." I prefer that term for that kind of non-literal image - rather than HDR.

 

You don't even need a tripod for most HDR / tone mapping software these days. Any series of images that are "very close" in framing can be recognized and "synched" to make one image in sharp register. You may need to do a little cropping to eliminate the non-aligned edge bits, but that's all. A tripod is better if you have one.

 

Back to HDR. High Dynamic Range. Any film or sensor only has so much sensitivity from dark to light. So, in a photo where the actual range of light to dark is greater, something has to give. In HDR photography one uses the same aperture, and focus point, but at least three images are exposed. One, "right on" what the meter says, one "underexposed" by 2 shutter speeds (f stops) in order to get detail in the bright areas, and one 2 stops overexposed in order to capture detail in deep shadows. So, rather than one image with about 8 "stops" of brightness range, you can capture in three images a much broader range than that. The more images, the greater the range. What the software does is "take the best from all the exposures" an blend them so that a single image has a very broad tonal range. Most of these software packages can do it two different ways.... one is "tone mapping" which makes the non-literal "illustration look" that you shared. The other way leaves the image "literal" and only expands the tonal range.

 

Photomatix is one of the better software programs.

 

I'm with David. I prefer the natural look so that the image merely looks very natural, broad toned, as your eye would see it as you scanned the scene and your iris opened and closed to compensate for the varying brightness.

 

Here's an example of that approach (taken from Photomatix's site). There is a huge range of tones in this image that no film / sensor could capture in one frame!

 

 

And here's one of mine using tone mapping. I thought the "cartoon" subject suited the technique:

 

 

It is easy to do. I'll be using HDR "natural" this summer up in the redwoods. The tone range there is always huge, and I've been trying for 30 years to get "the" image there. Hopefully HDR will help, along w/ my new camera, which has about 11 stops of DR at native ISO.

 

Also, as Jan says, sensor technology is getting better and better, and in-camera processing engines are getting better. There are alerady a few models that will do HDR "in camera" with jpeg images.

 

 

 

[chrisd]

Hopefully HDR will help, along w/ my new camera, which has about 11 stops of DR at native ISO.

 

What camera is that, and what is the native ISO, 50?

[Twisties]

I like that Ford shot!

 

Another point is that now photoediting software allows "regional" adjustments. So working with a single image you can alter the exposure of just part of the image. You can usually go at least one stop that way. Therefore, if you lighten some areas and darken others you can extend the dynamic range of a single image by about two stops. Of course hdr just adds to that.

 

I think the human eye can see up to 14 stops of dynamic range, most cameras are in the 10 stop range I think. So regional adjustment can get you pretty close. HDR can get you closer. But as cameras get more dynamic range built in, and the image extends over more range than the eye can see, I'm not sure what will result. That is why I wonder if hdr will die out. Meanwhile, wikipedia says hdr started in the 1800's. Very interesting article.

[chrisd]

most cameras are in the 10 stop range I think.

 

Yeah, that's right. I didn't realize they are that high, 10-12 or so.

[Francois_Dumas]

I have been experimenting with it too on a couple of occasions, but didn't get such nice results as in the Jeep picture yet. Maybe I am too impatient.

I DO use a facility in ACDSee Pro a lot, that lets you (easily and quickly) lighten areas in a picture that are too dark and seem to not have any detail. It usually turns out there IS detail in the shadows (and in the highlights) that you do not see when just looking at the picture 'as is'.

 

HDR takes that one step further and makes two very different photos in terms of lighting/exposure.

 

But David is correct, one should not use it every time, like with the different fonts (being a typographer I can relate to that comparison. Computers didn't do mankind a favor there ! )

[Knifemaker]

Here are two photos I HDR'd the program I used was Artizen HDR. Some photos can benifit from the effect of HDR especially from the dramatic aspect....

 

 

 

The first shot of Matt Stergis's GS was ok but HDR it came out alot nicer I think....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This shot done in my back yard was blah but when HDR'd it got much needed help....

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think HDR is a tool and like other tools it won't work for all jobs.

[Bob Palin]

I really like the HDR effect, both when it's used for natural and unnatural effects. Even with Photomatix' ability to align images I get better results using a tripod though I have many good hand held ones. The wind is usually my enemy, it moved leaves enough to slightly blur them between images, sometimes this is a nice effect of course.

 

Here's one of my favourites I took in Capitol Reef

 

 

ice often produces interesting effects and this picture would have been hard to expose properly without HDR - the Fremont River at the bottom of my street:

 

 

I've tagged some of my HDR images on Flickr

 

One of my Flickr contacts spends quite a bit of time on HDR images and I like the results:

 

Summit42 HDR Set

[Lineareagle]

Thats a great shot of the ice Bob!

Unfortunately my monitor at work is an old dog about to die so even with the brightness cranked it is dark.

I'll check it again tonight at home, Should be better than great, maybe even spectacular!

[Couchrocket]

Bob,

 

WONDERFUL images! Your use of tone mapping is lovely.

Thanks for sharing these . . .