HDR Photography

wsuffa

wsuffa

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
23,615
Location
DC Suburbs
Display Name
Bill S.
Home Airfield
KHEF
I've been experimenting a bit with HDR photography using Photomatix. It's great for some things, but little improvement on others.

You can click here to see a couple of the photos (they're too large to post @POA:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6947704103/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6947703133/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6801596692/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6801597948/in/photostream/lightbox/
 
Those came out fine. I've seem some that were HDR'd to the point they looked strange.
 
Yeah, still has that 'Viewmaster' look to it. I never like the way light comes out on HDR, but you got it better than I managed, still just 'not quite right' when I'm looking at it.
 
I didn't think the point of it was to look "right" but to have a certain kind of effect.
 
Everskyward said:
I didn't think the point of it was to look "right" but to have a certain kind of effect.
Click to expand...


Well, initially it was intended to broaden available light location photography without having to lug all your lights around, lot's of pros using it that way anyway.
 
Henning said:
Well, initially it was intended to broaden available light location photography without having to lug all your lights around, lot's of pros using it that way anyway.
Click to expand...

I've got one from Barcelona that is an exceedingly good example of the broader available light. Came out very well.... I'll need to convert it to jpeg and post.

For the record, the sky in London the day I took those had an etherial look to it. Those pictures aren't too far off.
 
The Barcelona shot I liked ok but the Notre Dame one again the light bothers me.
 
My recent camera purchase will allow me to do HDR in camera, I think up to +- 6 EV, it stores both the normal image and the HDR version on the SD card

Very happy with the results so far
 
Sometimes it's better to use the camera's exposure "bracketing" feature, then lay the images on top of one another in Photoshop, Aperture, whatever... and cut out the areas where each appropriately exposed layer are, versus letting the HDR algorithms do it...
 
wsuffa said:
I've been experimenting a bit with HDR photography using Photomatix. It's great for some things, but little improvement on others.

You can click here to see a couple of the photos (they're too large to post @POA:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6947704103/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6947703133/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6801596692/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travel2food/6801597948/in/photostream/lightbox/
Click to expand...
Those are nice. I played around with Photomatrix (obviously the free version) a few years ago but I wasn't exactly going for reality here.





 
Everskyward said:
Those are nice. I played around with Photomatrix (obviously the free version) a few years ago but I wasn't exactly going for reality here.
Click to expand...
And you did a nice job- nice shots.

Edit- I like the other shots in your photostream too.
 
Last edited:
I'm always amazed at the talent on POA, Nice photos Bill! I always enjoy seeing Elizabeth's as well.
 
Scrabo said:
My recent camera purchase will allow me to do HDR in camera, I think up to +- 6 EV, it stores both the normal image and the HDR version on the SD card

Very happy with the results so far
Click to expand...
I'm surprised it hasn't been more common in cameras for some time as a shooting option. As the pixels in a CMOS camera can be individually addressed and read without losing the data, one should be able to acheive the same effect. I know some people at some universities were working on this about 12 or 14 years ago for imaging cells. They ran into issues with the CMOS chips themselves (they were cheap, but the pixels were't consistant across the sensor). IIRC, some of their supporting electronics didn't have the dynamic range to support what they were doing.
Maybe it's just taken this long to make it work properly, reliably, and inexpensively enough for mass-produced produsts :dunno:
 
denverpilot said:
Sometimes it's better to use the camera's exposure "bracketing" feature, then lay the images on top of one another in Photoshop, Aperture, whatever... and cut out the areas where each appropriately exposed layer are, versus letting the HDR algorithms do it...
Click to expand...

While I used to do that, in camera probably achieves the same result about 80% of the time, of course as with bracketing, subject has to be not moving.

OP pics are excellent, esp. the indoor shot
 
Scrabo said:
While I used to do that, in camera probably achieves the same result about 80% of the time, of course as with bracketing, subject has to be not moving.

OP pics are excellent, esp. the indoor shot
Click to expand...

Also, consider the subject is a mountain (not moving), but camera is in the airplane (moving). Same issue...
 
I had trouble with dynamic range for a long time. I had thought that was just the way it was. That was until I learned to use RAW files. Then, with good software and using RAW, I discovered how much DR some of the new digital SLR's really have.

Here is an example where in a normal photo, you would get only washout or all black everywhere else. But, with the software, I was able to reduce exposure in the bright areas and increase exposure in dark areas.
 

Attachments

  • HLR_8038 (Medium).JPG
    HLR_8038 (Medium).JPG
    73.5 KB · Views: 15
skidoo said:
I had trouble with dynamic range for a long time. I had thought that was just the way it was. That was until I learned to use RAW files. Then, with good software and using RAW, I discovered how much DR some of the new digital SLR's really have.

Here is an example where in a normal photo, you would get only washout or all black everywhere else. But, with the software, I was able to reduce exposure in the bright areas and increase exposure in dark areas.
Click to expand...

I shoot raw. It's far better than jpeg.

Film still has certain characteristics that make it a bit more pleasing than digital (including dynamic range of a properly exposed photo. Unfortunately, the paper used for prints don't allow for nearly the range that transparencies (slides) or even computer monitors do (this is also true for prints made on computer inkjet - even the high end machines). LED/LCD monitors lack some of the range that the old CRT tubes had.

I use a calibrated monitor & I calibrate my Canon photo printer. I can still notice a difference between analog (film) and digital. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not.
 
For dodging & burning film still wins. I can still get a better print from an enlarger than digital printing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top