I'm gunna start off this new sub-forum and post some HDR photos I took.

HDR Images
Some links below to pages explaining what HDR (High Def Resolution) Imaging is
Wikipedia: HDRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging)
How to Create Professional HDR Images (http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html)
HDR Tutorial (http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/)
Photoshop CS2 HDR (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml)

Please, when posting follow this method
and under 800
FT does not host photos, so you need to host them yourself. There are many sites out there that you can, example is Flickr.com

You can add your photo by using the image icon when you post.

TITLE
PLACE
DESCRIPTION
CAMERA + LENS
EXPOSURES
PHOTO

St. Mary's Church
Krakow, Poland
Photo I took on a cloudy day in Krakow, Poland of St Mary's church. Clouds came out real nice.
Canon EOS 400D / 18-55mm kit lens
ISO 100
-2,0,2
http://www.jksolution.com/ft/rock2.jpg

Nice shot. HDR images often have an otherworldly feeling -- this one is a good example.

What camera and lens did you use?

Cheers,
T.

Have just begun to do a bit of HDR. Nothing has worked out particularly well yet. I wondered about your choice of 2, 0, -2 for bracketing. Any advantage to shooting five images at 2, 1, 0, -1, -2?

Nice shot. HDR images often have an otherworldly feeling -- this one is a good example.

What camera and lens did you use?

Cheers,
T.

Added that information above
Another one I took is


Bridge and Buildings
Vail, CO USA
Photo I took in Vail, CO of the stream that passes through Vail
Canon EOS 400D + 18-55mm kit lens with Tripod
ISO 100
-1,0,+1
http://www.jksolution.com/ft/vailA.jpg

Have just begun to do a bit of HDR. Nothing has worked out particularly well yet. I wondered about your choice of 2, 0, -2 for bracketing. Any advantage to shooting five images at 2, 1, 0, -1, -2?

Well, during the day with sunlight 2 might be a bit too much. Including when it hits +2, it might be too bright. 2 I use for night time or when its dark. 5 exposure bracketing is better than 3, but my camera only does 3.

Have just begun to do a bit of HDR. Nothing has worked out particularly well yet. I wondered about your choice of 2, 0, -2 for bracketing. Any advantage to shooting five images at 2, 1, 0, -1, -2?

I am not an expert, but it would seem that the more exposures you have (as long as they are not way too dark or bright), the more dynamic range you will end up getting in your HDR image. The sources I have read have referred to anything between 5 and 12 original images used to create a final HDR image.

Cheers,
T.

I haven't done much with HDR, but I'm curious if anyone's tried this. By shooting RAW with my Canon 10D, I can adjust the exposure +/- about 4 or 5 stops after the fact. Wouldn't it be possible to take a single shot, import it three times into something like Photoshop, using the raw converter to seat a different exposure for each, and then use the Automate to HDR function to produce a single shot with a vastly expanded dynamic range?

I tried this once and Photoshop reported an error, something like, "insufficient dynamic range to produce meaningful HDR" or something. I don't see why this wouldn't work, though, as the RAW importer is actually manipulating the exposure on import.

I haven't done much with HDR, but I'm curious if anyone's tried this. By shooting RAW with my Canon 10D, I can adjust the exposure +/- about 4 or 5 stops after the fact. Wouldn't it be possible to take a single shot, import it three times into something like Photoshop, using the raw converter to seat a different exposure for each, and then use the Automate to HDR function to produce a single shot with a vastly expanded dynamic range?

I tried this once and Photoshop reported an error, something like, "insufficient dynamic range to produce meaningful HDR" or something. I don't see why this wouldn't work, though, as the RAW importer is actually manipulating the exposure on import.

I don't think this works. You are, in effect, trying to extract more information from the original image than it actually has -- unless the 10D (which I have not used) automatically brackets exposures.

Cheers,
T.

I don't think this works. You are, in effect, trying to extract more information from the original image than it actually has -- unless the 10D (which I have not used) automatically brackets exposures.

Cheers,
T.The 10D can bracket exposures. However, I always thought that was the idea of RAW -- you can adjust exposure after-the-fact because the raw sensor image does contain more data than the processed image.

The 10D can bracket exposures. However, I always thought that was the idea of RAW -- you can adjust exposure after-the-fact because the raw sensor image does contain more data than the processed image.

True, RAW contains more information than e.g. JPEG. However, RAW images are typically about 12 bits per pixel (slightly less for Nikons, which actually compress RAW slightly) and good quality HDR should have at least 15 bits per pixel.

Cheers,
T.

The 10D can bracket exposures. However, I always thought that was the idea of RAW -- you can adjust exposure after-the-fact because the raw sensor image does contain more data than the processed image.

Usually, the raw data will contain ~1-2 stops of additional information, depending on camera. I've heard that you can recover a ridiculous amount of highlights from the new Fuji S5Pro.

Additionally, some raw converters can reconstruct color channel data if not all three channels are blown (Adobe Camera Raw comes to mind).

True, RAW contains more information than e.g. JPEG. However, RAW images are typically about 12 bits per pixel (slightly less for Nikons, which actually compress RAW slightly) and good quality HDR should have at least 15 bits per pixel.


That's not universal for Nikon. The D40/50/70/80 I believe all store compressed RAW files, but even pixel-peepers over at DPReview are hard-pressed to see any significant differences. The D200 gives you the option to shoot compressed or uncompressed (which is the testbed used to see if there are any differences), and I think the D2 series only shoots uncompressed RAW. The uncompressed RAWs should all have 12-bit depth.

I've found that if I expose images until the brightest parts just slightly blow out in the JPEG preview on the camera, they come out almost dead-on in RAW. On my D70s, that means I walk around with +0.33 exposure comp as the default.

Does anyone else here work in Linux? I found this interesting link that describes some of the software involved in HDR under Linux. Some others might find it useful.

http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/12/06/2115258

Is there any camera with good support for HDR shots? Auto-bracketing is a good start but not enough when you've got a bright sky.

The new canon 5D I believe does have a HDR option and so does the higher end Nikon. Other than that, really its mostly auto-bracketing

The new canon 5D I believe does have a HDR option and so does the higher end Nikon. Other than that, really its mostly auto-bracketing

Could you expand on the "HDR option" as opposed to bracketing? I am on a very steep learning curve with my D200.

I've tried HDR with my Canon Digital Rebel XT and some HDR software - although my results did not look anywhere like the OP's. Like anything, there is alot of learning and tinkering involved.

I use stops of -2/0/+2 and shoot raw. I don't do any post processing except modify the white balance (if needed) identically on each image, then shuttle them off to the software to mate up.

The tinkering part comes when you export out to a TIF file (or JPG) and start playing around with the HDR image in Photoshop.

I am curious to know what and how much post processing the OP did with their sample images?

I have one HDR gallery..these were done with the 3-stop bracket and no post processing in Photoshop:

http://travel.webshots.com/album/556906169tlzpgE

There was a it of processing. I used Photo Matix for that.
Mainly tone mapping

Photomatix is what i use too...maybe you should post a tutorial in the thread :)

Photomatix is what i use too...maybe you should post a tutorial in the thread :)

@:-) Great idea! :D

No problem!
I just got back from a short vacation to one part of Poland and Prague. Took over 5GB of photos. While I'll be editing these, ill make a tutorial.

OK its easy to do with Photo Matix. You can do it also with Photoshop, but its a bit harder. The links I posted on post 1 should explain it.

For photo matix its easy.
I take my photos I took. The thing(s) I'm shooting has to be still, or when you combine them, it turns out crappy. you take the photos you took be it 3 or 5 or even 2 and go to HDR -> generate. Then you select the photos (best to be .raw) and then press OK. I always check the align photos option.
Then after wards you get your combined photo, but it looks weird. Go to HDR -> tone mapping and then you can adjust the levels.
I usually put strength high up there >80
color is usually in the middle. You could also make it b&w by lowering it.

just mess around with the options, and when your done press OK and it should process.

Then you can save it as a .jpeg or .tif

For instance I took 3 photos with my Canon camera in .raw mode. 3 different expossures. My canon allows me to bracket this into -1,0,+1
Then I imported this into Photo Matix using the above method and got the photo below. Of course you can make it look natural, or really animated like. Its up to you.
Also you don't have to save it in .raw You can use jpegs. Just that raw doesn't compress the photos and even if one of the 3 didnt turn out right, you can always cheat the system and change it in photoshop.
For instance my sony t-1 allows me to bracket 3 photos in .jpeg

http://www.jksolution.com/hdri/albums/userpics/10001/praguebridge.jpg

OK its easy to do with Photo Matix. You can do it also with Photoshop, but its a bit harder. The links I posted on post 1 should explain it.

Thank you...that is one very amazing photo. So you use the tone mapping feature to dial-in extra 'animation' in the photo, or reduce it to get the natural look with proper exposure.

I tried dialing in more of the animated look, but it didn't make my shots look very good - maybe it's what I'm shooting. I'll see how things go with my upcoming Alaska shoot.

Thank you...that is one very amazing photo. So you use the tone mapping feature to dial-in extra 'animation' in the photo, or reduce it to get the natural look with proper exposure.

I tried dialing in more of the animated look, but it didn't make my shots look very good - maybe it's what I'm shooting. I'll see how things go with my upcoming Alaska shoot.

For instace for that shot I used the following settings

strength - 100
color sat - 60
light smoothing - 0
luminosity - 10
micro contrast - 2
micro smoothing - 3

white clip - 3.87%
black clip - 0.03%

Interesting thread indeed. I've said before I'm not into the overcooked look but........ to take a photo and make it look like the work of a skilled artist/painter, now that's impressive :).

I have played with Photomatix with limited results but thanks to this thread, I'll re-visit and probably purchase.

Here's a question for the HDR gurus - I'm playing with a shot, and taking it from 32 to 16 bit in Photoshop CS3. The problem is that I've got this hideous rainbow color banding in the sky. Any ideas on how to deal with it?

Here's a question for the HDR gurus - I'm playing with a shot, and taking it from 32 to 16 bit in Photoshop CS3. The problem is that I've got this hideous rainbow color banding in the sky. Any ideas on how to deal with it?

Hmm never heard of that. Might have something to do wih the color palette. try saving it as a jpg and see, or bring it down to 8bit

Hmm never heard of that. Might have something to do wih the color palette. try saving it as a jpg and see, or bring it down to 8bit

I think that might've had something to do with it. I exported the DNGs to JPEG, then ran the HDR routine on them - the posterization was substantially reduced, although not 100% eliminated - I did still have a little banding in the sky, but it wasn't going to bright green like previous attempts. That seems extremely counter-intuitive, though - posterization normally occurs in the absence of data, not a surplus.

I'm going to DC in a few weeks, and it will be my first opportunity to try out this HDR thing. Woot for the new Forum! :D

I'm going to DC in a few weeks, and it will be my first opportunity to try out this HDR thing. Woot for the new Forum! :D

Just make sure you take .raw photos, cause even if 2 of 3 turn out good (i.e. you dont use a tripod) then you can use photoshop to take the original and make it -/+ eV.
Its a lot of fun. I want to get a few large prints for the house and frame them.

one other comment. I noticed a difference from what photo matix shows and what it is when its saved. Sometimes, just turning down the color 5 points lower makes a difference.

Wow! HDR is great in flat/blah light conditions. I'll post up my pic of the Lincoln Memorial soon.

Here is a link to my Alaska album which contains a good assortment of HDR photos - which should be easy to pick out.

For some reason, the photos look darker than normal on Webshots; I'm not sure why that happened....but enjoy :)

http://travel.webshots.com/album/559429605sjKROz

So here's my first attempt. I used a series of 3 photos, set at -1.0,0,+1.0 (starting small :)). The first photo is the [0] photo, for comparison. The 2nd is the HDR merge.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v626/SnowTrojan/FT/Lincolnblah.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v626/SnowTrojan/FT/Lincolnupload.jpg

Nice!
Makes pictures a lot nicer. I took a few of my photos, and had them printed to 11x18 and framed. Have them hanging in the apartment.

Nice!
Makes pictures a lot nicer. I took a few of my photos, and had them printed to 11x18 and framed. Have them hanging in the apartment.

It sure does... makes even plain pictures pop off the page. I think I'm doing to do HDR for everything now :D Perhaps I'll crop and blow up Mr. Lincoln.

Thanks for this HDR thread ^

It sure does... makes even plain pictures pop off the page. I think I'm doing to do HDR for everything now :D Perhaps I'll crop and blow up Mr. Lincoln.

Thanks for this HDR thread ^

No problem!. I really love playing with HDR. One thing I did notice is that if the shot your taking doesnt have a lot of color, i.e. snowy slopes, the trees (all one color) turn out washed out.

But a good example of HDR is below, outside of Prague right off the highway...
All I got to get now is my other HDR photos off my other Hard drive that was on windows.

http://www.jksolution.com/hdri/albums/userpics/10001/IMG_0914_2_3.jpg

Here is one of my early attempts at a HDR image.

http://internaut.smugmug.com/photos/163396548-L.jpg

It is also my first attempt at displaying a link from a SmugMug account I'm playing with.

Seems like most of the folks replying to this thread are using Photomatix. Any advantages of using this (which would be an additional purchase for me) over PS CS2/3 (which I already have)?

I've tried to do a few manipulations on some bracketed photos I shot to try HDR with mixed results. I wonder if Photomatix, being a targeted software solution, would work better for me? Its capability to process raw formats would certainly save me as step or two, no doubt, but are the images you get it better than PS?

Here is one of my early attempts at a HDR image.

http://internaut.smugmug.com/photos/163396548-L.jpg.

Seems that the software handled moving objects (the people) pretty well here.

Seems like most of the folks replying to this thread are using Photomatix. Any advantages of using this (which would be an additional purchase for me) over PS CS2/3 (which I already have)?

I've tried to do a few manipulations on some bracketed photos I shot to try HDR with mixed results. I wonder if Photomatix, being a targeted software solution, would work better for me? Its capability to process raw formats would certainly save me as step or two, no doubt, but are the images you get it better than PS?

I think it can be done in PS, albeit with a few more steps and results which don't quite match up to Photomatix - but close enough. There are some online tutorials which walk you through the HDR process using PS, but there is one big advantage Photomatix has over PS - it was designed specifically to do this type of process and it does it very well, and quite easily.

Hmm. Not the answer my wallet wanted to hear :p, but I guess it's worth at least trying out the trial version. I suppose I've spent $100 on worse things. :D

Hmm. Not the answer my wallet wanted to hear :p, but I guess it's worth at least trying out the trial version. I suppose I've spent $100 on worse things. :D

I would suggest trying both...take a sample set of photos and run them through the process in PS and the Photomatix trial, then you can compare the results side by side before deciding which product suits your needs.

Seems that the software handled moving objects (the people) pretty well here.

Yeah--I didn't know you could do HDR with moving objects.

Seems that the software handled moving objects (the people) pretty well here.

Hi, this particular one was a bit of a cheat. I shot the image in RAW and made use of the additional dynamic range offered in the raw file. So, from one RAW file, I produced three different exposures and then combined them. There has been some debate as to whether or not this is a valid technique but under some conditions, it seems to produce reasonable results. Will post an actual bracketed shot later :).

Here are a couple more HDR photos, both based on combining three actual different exposures from the camera.

The first one I made over the weekend while staying at the Mercure hotel, Nadi, Fiji:

http://internaut.smugmug.com/photos/171783866-L.jpg

The second one was taken from my current residence, the Holiday Inn, Suva, Fiji:

http://internaut.smugmug.com/photos/171774036-L.jpg

Both demonstrate a limitation of the camera, namely it will only bracket +/- 1 at most.

I think it can be done in PS, albeit with a few more steps and results which don't quite match up to Photomatix - but close enough. There are some online tutorials which walk you through the HDR process using PS, but there is one big advantage Photomatix has over PS - it was designed specifically to do this type of process and it does it very well, and quite easily.

Of course, there is nothing in practice to stop you from working with the basic images in Photomatix, saving the end result as a 16 bit image and then going to work on it in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro.

When you guys bracket, you're using tripods right?

My main interest in HDR would be for difficult situations like taking pictures of stained glass windows inside a cathedral and capturing the details of the stained glass as well as the interior walls around it.

Typically though, the windows are overexposed and you see the wall details or the windwos look okay but the wall is underexposed.

Problem is, you're not allowed to use tripods in such situations so it makes the idea of bracketing and then later blending moot.

Photomatix has an image alignment feature that works quite well. It still helps to be really still while your camera takes its three shots though :).

Another alternative as per my city scape above would be to take a single exposure in RAW mode and produce three differently exposed JPEGs from that. Depending on how much contrast there is in the image you're taking, this can work quite well.

That said, HDR might not even be the best way to go for you.....

When you guys bracket, you're using tripods right?

My main interest in HDR would be for difficult situations like taking pictures of stained glass windows inside a cathedral and capturing the details of the stained glass as well as the interior walls around it.

Typically though, the windows are overexposed and you see the wall details or the windwos look okay but the wall is underexposed.

Problem is, you're not allowed to use tripods in such situations so it makes the idea of bracketing and then later blending moot.

You could lean against one of the pillars, or I noticed there are little gates that you can put the camera on.

I did do this in Prague, but I can't locate the image right now. When I find it, I'll post a link

That said, HDR might not even be the best way to go for you.....

In playing around with the Photomatix trial, I see that there is an option for "'Exposure blending" - sounds like this might be more applicable, but I haven't really tried this feature yet myself to see what it can do. (too many cool things to try, too little time...:))

Exposure blending can achieve a lot of the same things as HDR without the HDR look. Here is an example from Paris. I took exposures of the Eiffel Tower at (I think) 8, 16 and 20 seconds and used exposure blending to get the colour of the longest exposure with much of the detail of the shorter exposures:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/247/520430034_9c89ae31e8_b.jpg

It's far from perfect (loses a lot of the cloud detail) but avoids blown Eiffels :).

OK, so I've downloaded the Photomatix Pro trial and have been playing around with it for a few weeks, and to be honest, the results I'm getting aren't that much better than what I've had in Photoshop - which leads me to believe that I m doing something wrong in my workflow.

So, a few basic questions for you more experienced folks. I am shooting NEF (raw) with a Nikon D70. I generally post-process in Capture NX, and truth be told, I am liking my plain vanilla post-processed photos in Capture NX more than I am the ones I process Photomatix. (Capture NX has a feature it calls D-Lighting, which is essentially a tone-mapping function)

I admit have that I been taking the lazy route and have only 3 bracketed shots at -2,0,+2

1) Are you doing the raw conversion to JPEG first and then doing the exposure blending or HDR generation, or are you letting Photomatix do the raw conversion? (My trials have involved letting Photomatix do the raw conversion so far, but I think this may be the major erroneous part of my procedure)
a) If you are doing the raw conversion outside of Photomatix, what manipulations are you applying before using Photomatix? (White balance? levels? noise reduction/sharpening? other? I'll note that some of my Photomatix photos are returning photos with really unacceptable noise)

2) After processing in Photomatix, are you doing further manipulation in PS or other? If so, what are you applying as standard?

TIA, all!

...
1) Are you doing the raw conversion to JPEG first and then doing the exposure blending or HDR generation, or are you letting Photomatix do the raw conversion? (My trials have involved letting Photomatix do the raw conversion so far, but I think this may be the major erroneous part of my procedure)
a) If you are doing the raw conversion outside of Photomatix, what manipulations are you applying before using Photomatix? (White balance? levels? noise reduction/sharpening? other? I'll note that some of my Photomatix photos are returning photos with really unacceptable noise)

2) After processing in Photomatix, are you doing further manipulation in PS or other? If so, what are you applying as standard?

TIA, all!

I let Photomatix do all of the work, then save as an 8bit TIF (never jpg). If I want additional processing, I open the TIF in PS and do some more adjusting there.

I don't have a fixed workflow routine - every photo set is done manually by hand.

Remember, every time you open/save a JPG file, you lose detail - so the more you work on it, the worse it gets. Use TIF files if you can...they should be lossless.

I let Photomatix do all of the work, then save as an 8bit TIF (never jpg). If I want additional processing, I open the TIF in PS and do some more adjusting there.

I don't have a fixed workflow routine - every photo set is done manually by hand.

Remember, every time you open/save a JPG file, you lose detail - so the more you work on it, the worse it gets. Use TIF files if you can...they should be lossless.

Yup. JPEG is hard to post process because it is compressed so much. Save in .tif

I've found that if I expose images until the brightest parts just slightly blow out in the JPEG preview on the camera, they come out almost dead-on in RAW. On my D70s, that means I walk around with +0.33 exposure comp as the default.

I was re-reading some of this thread to get more tips on my problems and noticed this comment -

Are you using spot-metering with this exposure comp? I usually default to matrix, but am finding that I need +.7 to get results I like.

I was re-reading some of this thread to get more tips on my problems and noticed this comment -

Are you using spot-metering with this exposure comp? I usually default to matrix, but am finding that I need +.7 to get results I like.

I think the d70 does 5 exp, unlike for instance my rebel xti which does 3. I found always 1 for daylight and 2 for night to be good.

Hey everybody - thanks for all the helpful comments!

It doesn't sound like I am doing anything much different from y'all (since it seems that letting Photomatix do it all is the correct procedure). At this point I've played with several sets of photos, and each time I try, I've not been satisfied enough to plunk down the $100 to buy the full license. (and believe me, I keep trying to justify it! :p) I end up just doing regular post-processing and like the results much better. (or maybe my eyes are just used to seeing "natural" results)

I'll upload and post a few examples along with the tone mapping settings I used some time this evening and maybe someone can provide comments on what I am doing wrong.

Thanks again!

Also..when setting your camera up for bracketing, make sure you select the aperture control setting and choose a fixed aperature so they camera changes the shutter speed for each bracketed exposure.

On my Rebel XT, if I didn't do this, it would often modify the shutter/aperture combination so the frames turned out fairly similar to each other.

I'm reasonably happy with with Photomatix but do find a little post processing in Paint Shop Pro improves the output nicely. Here is a HDR image of a winter sunset in Suva:

http://internaut.smugmug.com/photos/171868030-L.jpg

OK, here are some sample shots for comparison. All were taken with 3 bracketed shots (except the night balcony shot, only 2) manipulating exposure time with constant aperture.

1) Cityscape - processed in Capture NX (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1399/898158984_3c8a9c6c8a_b.jpg)
2) Same cityscape - processed in Photomatix (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1128/898281272_c199763c97_b.jpg)
Tone-mapping: Strength: 35, Color Saturation: 62, Light Smoothing: 4, Luminosity: 4, Microcontrast: 4, Micro-smoothing 25, White clip: 5% Black Clip: 0%, Gamma 1.52

Why I don't like the Photomatix version: It seems to have introduced some color abberations in the sky, and enhanced the shadows, and made it overall look underexposed. I tried playing with the gamma and clipping to fix this, but the results just seemed to make the color aberations especially look worse. This seemed to be the compromise. To be fair, this kind of scene probably isn't ideal for HDR.

1) Nuns at Temple Debod, processed in Capture NX (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1074/898158930_32b06aaa8f.jpg)
2) Nuns at Temple Debod, processed in Photomatx (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1380/898281726_b76c9e03d5.jpg)
Strength: 21, Color Saturation: 63, Light Smoothing: 4, Luminosity: 5, Microcontrast: 4, Micro-smoothing 28, White clip: 5% Black Clip: 0%, Gamma 1.39

Why I like the plain non-HDR version better: The contrast of the nuns' habit is much better (more black) Weird artifacting/tinting on the white buildings in the Photomatix version. Again, perhaps not the best scene for HDR.

1) Night shot from a balcony, processed in Capture NX (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1411/898009441_d607d060d5.jpg)
2) Night shot from balcony, processed in Photomatix (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1432/898281478_e6d50338e1.jpg)
Strength: 1, Color Saturation: 100, Light Smoothing: 2, Luminosity: -6, Microcontrast: 4, Micro-smoothing 30, White clip: 2.9% Black Clip: 0%, Gamma 1.45

Here is the one instance where I felt Photomatix really excelled, but there is noise to clean up afterwards. and done with only 2 shots!

1) Castle interior scene with mixed lighting, processed with Capture NX (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1280/898159108_0462ec50d7.jpg)
2) Castle interior scene with mixed lighting, processed with Photomatix (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1289/898281786_424baf360f.jpg)
Strength: 1, Color Saturation: 100, Light Smoothing: 2, Luminosity: -7, Microcontrast: 4, Micro-smoothing 30, White clip: 5% Black Clip: 0%, Gamma 1.3

I like the Photomatix version better here as well, but also feel I can get more-or-less the same result with more manipulation of the one file.

My objective here is to justify buying more software on top of what I have, and right now the argument is just not strong enough. On the other hand, the bug is often found between the chair and the keyboard, so suggestions on what I could be doing to improve my results are warmly welcomed.

The whole set (including the source bracketed exposures as low-res out-of-camera jpegs- I shoot RAW + low-res JPEG) is here, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ftkuroneko/sets/72157601005809303/) if anyone cares to take a look or thinks it makes a difference.

Hi,

Not time to reply in detail (bedtime here in Blighty) but here is a quick opinion:

i) Cityscape. I preferred Photomoatix. Capture NX version looked a little over exposed to me although I suspect this is easily correctable in Capture NX.

ii) Nuns. Looks far too much like a HDR image - I prefer the Capture NX version.

iii) Night shot. Too close to call for me. I appreciate the vividness of of the Photomatix result but the Capture NX version has a certain realness to it.

iv) Castle Interior. Definitely prefer the Photomatix rendition.

Disclaimer: I'm no expert in anything accept not being an expert in anything.

Truth be told, I probably will end up buying the full license; I guess I'm just a little disappointed that I'm not getting results with the recognizable HDR punch without getting to the point of looking cartoonish. I thought that I'd prefer the majority of my shots processed with HDR over the "regular" ones, but that's turning out not to be the case.

OK, so I recently tried to buy a full Photomatix license, and their credit card/order handling service couldn't verify my details. After the service left me 2 automated phone messages (with NO callback number!), it cancelled my order. This annoyed me enough to search for an alternative rather than go through all that again.

I stumbled across two alternatives: FDRTools (www.fdrtools.com) and Dynamic Photo HDR (http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html)

I'm actually glad that I was prevented from purchasing Photomatix after all; The Dynamic Photo HDR tool is a much better product for me. One drawback is that you have to manually specify the exposure levels for your images if you shoot RAW (it figures this out for JPEG), but it offers the following advantages:

--Allows for visual manual alignment of photos for when you don't have a tripod
--Has several "default" pre-settings for the look you want to get such as "Eye Catching", "Photographic", "Human Eye", "High Contrast" etc that gives you a starting point to make your adjustments
--Allows you to apply curves, color and hue equalization, saving you from having to do this post-processing in PS.

And it's only $39!!

On top of that, the trial only applies a little watermark in the corner; far less obnoxious than Photomatix for evaluation. I am getting the results I wanted out of Dynamic Photo HDR that I wasn't getting from Photomatix, too.

Very, very happy with this product. ^

... Dynamic Photo HDR ...

Very, very happy with this product. ^
Thanks for posting. I am also trying HDR and appreciate the alternative.

I am in the very early stages of learning HDR. Last week, I took shots of downtown Seattle across Lake Union with the moon rising. Despite stopping down the EV (to get correct exposure of the city lights), the moon is blown out. No big surprise. Any advice on how to handle this problem?

I shot -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. The moon exposure was decent on -2 but the rest of the image was almost black. I guess I could shoot more images - other thoughts from the experts?

I am in the very early stages of learning HDR. Last week, I took shots of downtown Seattle across Lake Union with the moon rising. Despite stopping down the EV (to get correct exposure of the city lights), the moon is blown out. No big surprise. Any advice on how to handle this problem?

I shot -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. The moon exposure was decent on -2 but the rest of the image was almost black. I guess I could shoot more images - other thoughts from the experts?

a bit confused. if its night, try -2,0,2 but you must use a tripod. Posts some pics so I can take a look

The moon exposure was decent on -2 but the rest of the image was almost black. I guess I could shoot more images - other thoughts from the experts?

That's how it's supposed to work. The shortest exposure should have the moon properly exposed and everything else black. You also need longer exposures at the other extreme where the moon is totally blown way to heck and everything else is normally exposed.

However, my own attempts at HDR moon shots were a disaster. I got the full range of exposures correctly, but putting them together to get something that looked believable was not possible.

One problem is that the moon is moving. Or the earth is moving. One or the other. :D If it takes 10 or 20 seconds to shoot the wide range of exposures the moon has moved too far, especially with a telephoto lens.

That's how it's supposed to work. The shortest exposure should have the moon properly exposed and everything else black. You also need longer exposures at the other extreme where the moon is totally blown way to heck and everything else is normally exposed.

However, my own attempts at HDR moon shots were a disaster. I got the full range of exposures correctly, but putting them together to get something that looked believable was not possible.

One problem is that the moon is moving. Or the earth is moving. One or the other. :D If it takes 10 or 20 seconds to shoot the wide range of exposures the moon has moved too far, especially with a telephoto lens.

I suppose movement of the moon/earth could contribute but the main problem is that the moon is way overexposed under the best conditions for the city lights and reflection in the lake. I have thought of "removing" the moon from all but the best (shortest) exposure and then merging the images.

I am reasonably happy with the rest of the image. Have a few nice streaks that were planes to/from SEA (making this more relevant for FT!).

BTW, I was using a tripod.

the main problem is that the moon is way overexposed under the best conditions for the city lights and reflection in the lake.

Exactly. That's why I gave up. When the moon is overexposed, the image of the moon increases in size to a giant blob, and there is huge flare over a wide area. In theory, HDR should fix that, but I couldn't make it work.

"removing" the moon from all but the best (shortest) exposure and then merging the images.

Yes, you could take the sky from the short exposure and blend with the foreground from the long exposure.

Exactly. That's why I gave up. When the moon is overexposed, the image of the moon increases in size to a giant blob, and there is huge flare over a wide area. In theory, HDR should fix that, but I couldn't make it work.

Thanks. Good to know it's not just me.



Yes, you could take the sky from the short exposure and blend with the foreground from the long exposure.

Will give that a try.

How about taking the shots, but add one additional shot which exposes the moon perfectly. Blend the shots into an HDR image leaving out the good moon shot, then load the HDR into Photoshop.

In PS, use the lasso and erase tools to remove the poorly exposed moon from the HDR image. Open the single image with the perfectly exposed moon, cut it out with a PS tool and layer it on the HDR image.

I'm no PS expert, but in theory this should leave you with a nice HDR image and a perfectly exposed moon.

I think the solution is to cheat. :D Take a picture of the foreground on a night when there is no moon. Then take a picture of of the same scene when the moon is out, properly exposed for the moon, and blend the images.

Because if you try to properly expose the foreground when the full moon is inside the image, you get flare and haze over a large part of the image. The foreground might need a 2-second exposure while the moon is as bright as noon sunshine on the brightest earth day. Internal reflections in the lens and camera body can't be avoided under those conditions, the brightness range is way too great.

I think the solution is to cheat. :D Take a picture of the foreground on a night when there is no moon. Then take a picture of of the same scene when the moon is out, properly exposed for the moon, and blend the images.

Because if you try to properly expose the foreground when the full moon is inside the image, you get flare and haze over a large part of the image. The foreground might need a 2-second exposure while the moon is as bright as noon sunshine on the brightest earth day. Internal reflections in the lens and camera body can't be avoided under those conditions, the brightness range is way too great.

Actually, the moon was not full and the reflection off the lake was quite nice, and turned out well in the final image. Now, I do have a couple of very nice moon images that I could put in, and probably with better composition..... but that would cheating. :D

Thanks for posting. I am also trying HDR and appreciate the alternative.

Ill have to take a look at that too.
I'm very happy with photomatix

Still working on my HDR skills. When an image has been merged and adjustments made in PS, LR or whatever, in what format should the image be saved for printing? Also, at what resolution?

I ask in part because I just signed up for smugmug and they recommend that all images be saved as jpegs of 1-2 Mb. Obviously, a five RAW file HDR is MUCH bigger. Obviously, I am still a novice at saving images for printing, etc.

Thanks for any advice.

For printing .tiff or so would be the best. Basically the less it is compressed, the better the detail. When I was doing like 1/2 size paster prints I gave the guy .raw images not to loose any detail. If you were to do smaller like 3x5 or something, jpg with no compression should be fine. Thing is, the less it is compressed, the larger it is.

I'm go with TIF if the RAW file size is too big, but I'm not sure if the printers can handle 16bit TIFF or if you need to downscale it to 8bit before printing...

Has anyone tried Costco for printing larger size HDR prints? Any pros/cons/opinions?

Just made a nice one of Melbourne when I was there last July
Thinking about submitting it in for the UA photo contest.

http://www.jksolution.com/ft/melbourne1.jpg

Bumping.
Anyone else play around with HDRI?
Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/)came out a bit ago with their new version 3.0 which makes it even easier to do the HD imaging

Some recent ones I took.

SFO IC MH view night shot. Just blending of the photos together
http://lh4.ggpht.com/plunderisley/SAN_7bFbMDI/AAAAAAAAAcM/URVCeKTiJxM/s640/IMG_1783_4_5Auto.jpg

SFO IC MH day shot HDR.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/plunderisley/SAOABbFbMQI/AAAAAAAAAd4/4w754EPjDDA/s640/IMG_1801_2_3Enhancer.jpg

The harbour next to the AKL Westin
http://lh5.ggpht.com/plunderisley/SARWobFbQyI/AAAAAAAABF0/E_zkGx6lY94/s640/IMG_2154_5_6Enhancer.tif.jpg

Wellington at the top of the cable car
http://lh3.ggpht.com/plunderisley/SAOe_LFbNrI/AAAAAAAAApU/HWa1UcGXTlw/s640/IMG_1975_6_7Enhancer.tif.jpg

another 1
http://lh3.ggpht.com/plunderisley/SAOfDLFbNzI/AAAAAAAAAqU/a94sMUkLQiI/s640/IMG_1988_89_90Enhancer.tif.jpg

and in London
http://lh3.ggpht.com/plunderisley/SAN7ELFbLVI/AAAAAAAAAWY/nY9tphChnJ8/s640/IMG_1719_20_21Enhancer.jpg

Very nice pics! I like the HDR stuff. Keep it coming! ^

Thanks to Jason8612 who showed me the error in my ways to embed pictures

http://lh5.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SCHPpajubmI/AAAAAAAABPE/Fwl56-4fDRM/s720/_DSC0127_HDR.jpg
The Lone Pine on a miserable rainy afternoon



http://lh5.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SCHPzajubpI/AAAAAAAABPc/z53xgYzZFAo/s720/DSC_0057_HDR.jpg
Entrance to LAX Airport at sunset



http://lh6.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SCHxKqjucCI/AAAAAAAABTU/3CACK9CnEmc/s720/DSC_0432_HDR.jpg
Late afternoon at Khajuraho Temple, India



http://lh3.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SDTtm1fDdTI/AAAAAAAABsA/y_V_WIb8nJc/s720/DSC_0154_5_6_hd_nef.jpg
Just past sunset at Mackinac Bridge, Michigan



http://lh5.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SC343EODtII/AAAAAAAABpc/Uw3655eD-7M/s720/DSC_0061_Captured.jpg
Midnight at Washington Monument, Washington DC


http://lh6.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SC344UODtJI/AAAAAAAABpk/67T3ccfhYcg/s720/DSC_0096_Captured.jpg
Midnight at the Capitol Building, Washington DC

Ah I see
http://lh6.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SC344UODtJI/AAAAAAAABpk/67T3ccfhYcg/S640/DSC_0096_Captured.jpg
should be a small s
http://lh6.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SC344UODtJI/AAAAAAAABpk/67T3ccfhYcg/s640/DSC_0096_Captured.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/joejoseph2000/SC344UODtJI/AAAAAAAABpk/67T3ccfhYcg/s640/DSC_0096_Captured.jpg

This is a great HDR sharing thread. I admire all the nice HDR pics you all took.
^
Many thanks to sbm12 for his PM and wonderful help in checking my embedded image (URL IMG) code. With his help, I'm able (finally) to post my HDR pics.
I used the steps: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8596109&postcount=3
I realized my "Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)" was OFF and my Firewall is blocking the ad and cookies.
:(

Anyway......
All shots using Canon 40D + EF-S 10-22mm
Exposures : ISO100 -2,0,2
Processed using Photomatix 3

• Toronto Skyline - view from Centre Island

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2408/2488716827_2489187baa_o.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/cephalosporin/2488716827/)

• Province House - Prince Edward Island, Canada

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2356/2516985145_8cd339c963_o.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/cephalosporin/2516985145/)

• St. Dunstan's Basilica - Prince Edward Island, Canada

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2108/2517804434_d7bca28cb9_o.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/cephalosporin/2517804434/)

• St. Peter's Basilica - London, Ontario, Canada

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/2450271438_3faac032e6_o.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/cephalosporin/2450271438/)

Many thanks to sbm12 for his PM and wonderful help in checking my embedded image (URL IMG) code. With his help, I'm able (finally) to post my HDR pics.
I used the steps: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8596109&postcount=3
I realized my "Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)" was OFF and my Firewall is blocking the ad and cookies.
:(


Happy to help, and as I noted in the PM, GREAT photos!

very nice photos!

But here is a fairly recent HDR from home:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/2299450687_0d740f7d84.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle/2299450687/)

The surprising thing about this one is that while it has that slight look of HDR about it, it prints really well.

But here is a fairly recent HDR from home:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/2299450687_0d740f7d84.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle/2299450687/)

The surprising thing about this one is that while it has that slight look of HDR about it, it prints really well.

Very nice. Curious about one thing - why is the man walking completely in focus in one spot?

Very nice. Curious about one thing - why is the man walking completely in focus in one spot?

I'm not sure what trick Internaut used but what I do when moving objects are present is to use only one image in RAW form (or NEF in Nikon terms) and then create three seperate jpg pictures out of that single image but with +1 EV, 0 EV and -1 EV and then use those three with Photomatrix. This is what I did with the late afternoon HDR image of the Khajuraho Temple in my post above albeit there were no moving objects in the picture.

I'm not sure what trick Internaut used but what I do when moving objects are present is to use only one image in RAW form (or NEF in Nikon terms) and then create three seperate jpg pictures out of that single image but with +1 EV, 0 EV and -1 EV and then use those three with Photomatrix. This is what I did with the late afternoon HDR image of the Khajuraho Temple in my post above albeit there were no moving objects in the picture.

^ Thank you for the tips. I'll give that a try.
Another effect I like and still learning is "The Orton Effect" :
http://pcin.net/update/2006/11/01/the-orton-effect-digital-photography-tip-of-the-week/

I'm not sure what trick Internaut used but what I do when moving objects are present is to use only one image in RAW form (or NEF in Nikon terms) and then create three seperate jpg pictures out of that single image but with +1 EV, 0 EV and -1 EV and then use those three with Photomatrix. This is what I did with the late afternoon HDR image of the Khajuraho Temple in my post above albeit there were no moving objects in the picture.

That is exactly how I achieved this. It was a challenging, contrasty shot and I found that simply altering the tone curve of the image wasn't good enough so I tried HDR with three JPEGs from the raw file instead.

I've been meaning to re-take the shot in the morning when the scene is front lit but I suspect the composition would suffer without that accidentally captured lone figure walking away from the camera.

When you guys bracket, you're using tripods right?

My main interest in HDR would be for difficult situations like taking pictures of stained glass windows inside a cathedral and capturing the details of the stained glass as well as the interior walls around it.

Typically though, the windows are overexposed and you see the wall details or the windwos look okay but the wall is underexposed.

Problem is, you're not allowed to use tripods in such situations so it makes the idea of bracketing and then later blending moot.

I've been doing both handheld and tripod based HDR photos. In general, with handheld, I'm only doing -2,0,+2 auto-exposure bracketing. With tripod, I can change the auto-exposure bracketing setting from -2,0,+2 to -1,0,+1 without getting seriously mis-aligned on the pictures. The more exposures, the better the technique works.

Photomatix works very well but doesn't align multiple exposures well enough with handheld. I've discovered that using Adobe Photoshop CS3 extended to create the HDR image, save it to tiff (32 bit) and then tone mapping in Photomatix creates the sharpest and best tone mapped images. Lots of work but it does make a huge difference.

Here is a good example of handheld processed only through Photomatix.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2506686075/in/set-72157605152130035/)

I'll do the PS CS3 HDR to Photomatix tone mapping process tomorrow night and share the results.

If you go to look at my Flickr photos, the HDR photos in the Ireland collection are all Photomatix only. The Japan collection uses PS CS3 for HDR and Photomatix for tone mapping.

Handheld (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2506686075/in/set-72157605152130035/) using Photomatix only.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2506686075_8744b42299.jpg

Handheld (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2535556826/in/set-72157605152130035/) using PS CS3 Extended for HDR and Photomatix for tone mapping
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2535556826_5edea14c8c.jpg

You can't see the difference given these small images. Go to the Flickr site and select "+ All Sizes" then "Download the Large Size" for each image.

You can really see the difference in the amount of detail visible in St Patrick. That would be the statue. St. Pat has way more detail in the PS CS3 Extended process.

Pictures end up being much sharper. Again, see the Japan pictures for more examples.

By the way, I shot most of the pictures with a CANON 20D using the 10-22 zoom. PS is better able to manage the super wide angle lens distortion.

I can't figure out how to get HDR panoramas using Either Photomatix or PS CS3 Extended.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

That is exactly how I achieved this. It was a challenging, contrasty shot and I found that simply altering the tone curve of the image wasn't good enough so I tried HDR with three JPEGs from the raw file instead.

I've been meaning to re-take the shot in the morning when the scene is front lit but I suspect the composition would suffer without that accidentally captured lone figure walking away from the camera.

On my drive home today, I thought that perhaps you had delayed your shots to include the walker only under the best exposure. But my understanding is that HDRs are best shot quickly so that nothing changes. When doing HDR with JPEGs, does the resolution of the image matter? Typically, I merge RAW (actually, now I convert everything to dng in Lightroom).

I agree that the lone figure adds a lot to the shot.

I can't figure out how to get HDR panoramas using Either Photomatix or PS CS3 Extended.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

I would also like to know the answer to this, although I have not yet tried it.

I would also like to know the answer to this, although I have not yet tried it.

I found this method (http://blog.sduffyphotography.com/2008/03/18/how-to-multi-shot-panoramic-hdr-photos/) using Adobe Photoshop CS3 but haven't tried it yet. It is somewhat involved. Looks like it should work though...

I found this method (http://blog.sduffyphotography.com/2008/03/18/how-to-multi-shot-panoramic-hdr-photos/) using Adobe Photoshop CS3 but haven't tried it yet. It is somewhat involved. Looks like it should work though...

I followed the instructions [see link in quote]. It works but seems a bit quirky to me. Maybe it will seem more natural after I've done it 100 times.

Background: I shot 8 sets of hand-held auto-exposure bracketing photos using a CANON 20D with CANON EF-S 10-22 USM lens. Lens was zoomed all the way back to 10mm when taking the shots. Bracketing was done at +/-2 stops.

I found myself "tweaking" the process laid out in the instructions. When photomerging each of the 3 sets of 8 photos, I used the cylindrical setting since the auto setting behaved differently for each of the three sets.

When I aligned the layers, I also had to use the cylindrical settings since auto was giving me some really bizarre results.

I think it is the ultra wide angle lens (10mm) that made auto not work well. Since Photoshop CS3 Extended is the first photomerge program I've found that will effectively merge photos taken with this lens, I'm neither surprised or disappointed.

The "image" links below will take you directly to the Flickr page. From there you can look at the images in full size.

The following panorama/photomerge image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2542498997/in/set-72157605313497267/) is from the set of 8 -2 exposure photos.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2139/2542498997_cfd75084d0.jpg

The following panorama/photomerge image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2543313674/in/set-72157605313497267/) is from the set of 8 +2 exposure photos.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/2543313674_22a0fd612b.jpg

The following panorama/photomerge image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2542494033/in/set-72157605313497267/) is from the set of 8 "normal" exposure photos. I think this is the best looking of the bunch.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2542494033_0e1e90ccdd.jpg

The following image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2543329896/in/set-72157605313497267/) is default tone mapped output from Photomatix using the "enhance details" setting.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/2543329896_090d550e2c.jpg

The following image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/runarut/2543308008/in/set-72157605313497267/) is me getting about as artistic as I know how in Photomatix.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2016/2543308008_22ff1216fc.jpg

On my drive home today, I thought that perhaps you had delayed your shots to include the walker only under the best exposure. But my understanding is that HDRs are best shot quickly so that nothing changes. When doing HDR with JPEGs, does the resolution of the image matter? Typically, I merge RAW (actually, now I convert everything to dng in Lightroom).

I agree that the lone figure adds a lot to the shot.

I don't see any point in working with anything less than the full resolution of the camera's sensor.

The Achilles Heel of HDR done properly (i.e. three or more exposures) is that it suffers badly if there are moving things like people and critters in the scene. The technique of producing three differently exposed JPEGs from one RAW exposure (using the exposure compensation feature of any RAW converter) gets around this but the end result isn't as good as doing it properly (i.e. tripod and three bracketed photos).

Did I answer your question?

I'm still learning, but here's one I tried in the old city toda

http://i36.tinypic.com/35jdkyc.jpg

I'm still learning, but here's one I tried in the old city toda

http://i36.tinypic.com/35jdkyc.jpg

Very neat!

Has anybody any experiences with the qtpfsgui tool (http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/about.php)?

It is freeware, but I read that it does not run very well in the first releases.

So I attempted to take some HDR photos last week, and basically I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to processing them.

I kind of think that everything kind of looks washed out and has way too much contrast.

I openly admit that I am horrible when it comes to doing anything besides basic touch-up on photos. Color correction and such is way beyond me.

This was shot RAW with a Canon XTi and the junk 18-55mm that comes with it at -1, 0, 1. (The lens also looks like somebody buried it in peat moss for a year - I really need to clean it.) I dumped all three images into Photomatix and played with it a bit, but couldn't really get anything I liked.

http://www.moosefree.com/temp/test_hdr%20(Large).jpg

I'll be happy to upload the three source images somewhere if anybody wants to give them a go.


How do you guys settle on a look? Just randomly playing around? Or do you know what each of these little controls like gamma correction actually does? Do I need to hire a private tutor or something? :D