How to create a good HDR photo?

[Evilmerlin]

I was wondering whether it was my eyes or the photo causing the haloing. Glad that its not my eyes then....
Thanks for the tip about the sun, will take note of it. I actually used Photoacute and then Lightzone for this.

 

[night86mare]

My sentiments exactly. Each to his style and one can use both effects.

that much is true.

but i would say that i would never bring myself to call the radioactive variety a photograph. it may have started off as a photograph (or a few), but it is not a photograph. it is a digital painting rendered from reality.

 

[night86mare]

Hi all,

Could you all take a look at this...my first HDR which I didn't cringe while looking at.
I know for sure there are lots of room for improvement, so will definitely appreciate lots of c&c..

Shot is taken from East Bank of the Dead Sea overlooking the West Bank last week.

maybe it is better if you detailed how many photos were used to create this hdr, also the workflow.

to me, it is not overdone. but it also does seem to defeat the purpose of using hdr in the first place, since frankly, this scene can be achieved by exposing for the sun, and dodging the details in the foreground out, i.e. no need to use photoshop.

seefei probably means that he cannot see the foreground details.

 

[lastboltnut]

Hi Bro,

Personally I think photography exists in many forms. Natural, down to earth looking is only one form. There are photographs which are presented in many other forms:

1. Black and white or Mono for one is really unnatural. Not many sees the world in BW or Mono tinted. But this is made acceptable because photography started mono due to lack of technology.

2. Photographs made so dreamy to tell about a dream or nightmare, which is really out of realism too.

3. Photographs with backgrounds blended with extra texture for bring out the feel. This is also no true to the world.

4. Cross processing of photographs in the film era which are not natural due to all the colours shift made many people famous photographers, not just labeled as Visual Artists.

5. Lomography.

I think there are more examples of photography styles which aim is to divert from realism...so HDR surreal treatment may not be so well accepted because its newly introduced in the digital era. With time and with some good HDR photographers sticking to surreal style, it will eventually be accepted as a photography style.

This is just my opinion on photography and my feel for the direction of HDR.

that much is true.

but i would say that i would never bring myself to call the radioactive variety a photograph. it may have started off as a photograph (or a few), but it is not a photograph. it is a digital painting rendered from reality.

 

[winzee]

Hey guys

Im using Photomatix 3.0 for HDR making

1) however, all the HDR when generated comes out greenish, is it supposed to be like this?

2) i use a D90 and autobracketing. do you guys use the high FPS mode and press and let the camera take all the pics within a few seconds or do you take single shots 1 at a time? Is there a difference?

thanks!

 

[ShyanL]

Are u using RAW or Jpeg when using photomatix?

I get a reddish hue when i use RAW to merge HDR but if I use Jpeg I dun get this problem.

Shyan

 

[winzee]

Are u using RAW or Jpeg when using photomatix?

I get a reddish hue when i use RAW to merge HDR but if I use Jpeg I dun get this problem.

Shyan

hmm
i used raw..
was reading the tutorials by stuckincustoms, he said must use raw... eek

 

[Evilmerlin]

Have you tried just doing a colour correction?

 

[winzee]

Have you tried just doing a colour correction?

as in the temperature control and saturation control in photomatrix?

or photoshop?

 

[David Kwok]

If you are keen to investigate into HDR, log into flickr and check up on Daniel Cheong, http://www.flickr.com/people/danielcheong/.

He is has quite a mastery on HDR as well as intensive post processing skill. Some might feel this post processing makes the picture unreal. I, myself, like HDR to bring out what eyes are meant to see. As you all knows, meanwhile technology has not been able to successful mimic the response curve of eyes and therefore we are not able to capture both extremely highlight portion of the scene and extreme shadow of the scene together. HDR offer such a capability using multiple exposure, and compress the high dynamics range of luminance using tone-mapping and other techniques.

Whether it's real or not real, I think at the end of the day, no one can give a definitely answer. Because sometimes what the photographer/artist wants to bring out is just another side of the scene. An unreal side, an artistic side, rather than just reclaim the lost details.

As long as you feel it's nice, he/she succeeded

I illustrate my opinion graphically,

here I shall post a few humble works of mine.
Real or unreal, nice or not nice, it's up to the eye of the beholder

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw/2843598374/in/set-72157606752793613/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw/2774266718/in/set-72157606752793613/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw/2853653946/in/set-72157606752793613/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw/2802898289/in/set-72157606752793613/

Enjoy brothers and sister

 

[winzee]

i use a D90 and autobracketing. do you guys use the high FPS mode and press and let the camera take all the pics within a few seconds or do you take single shots 1 at a time? Is there a difference?

thanks in advance!

 

[night86mare]

I think there are more examples of photography styles which aim is to divert from realism...so HDR surreal treatment may not be so well accepted because its newly introduced in the digital era. With time and with some good HDR photographers sticking to surreal style, it will eventually be accepted as a photography style.

This is just my opinion on photography and my feel for the direction of HDR.

you don't get my point - i have nothing to pick with surrealist photos that are done with that purpose in mind. i just hesitate to call these photography, that is my viewpoint, acceptance is another thing altogether.

with regards to my views on acceptance, the conditions are simple. as long as the photographer knows what he or she is doing, by all means. by blindly whacking the inputs and hoping to get a mutant mix for the sake of getting a mutant mix which will make people go wow because they have rarely seen this before.. that's another thing altogether. one can say yes, the results are all that matter, and i also firmly believe in that. but i also question how far a person can get without a well-thought through concept. once, perhaps. twice, maybe you get away with it. for long? naw.

 

[cheguthamrin]

you don't get my point - i have nothing to pick with surrealist photos that are done with that purpose in mind. i just hesitate to call these photography, that is my viewpoint, acceptance is another thing altogether.

with regards to my views on acceptance, the conditions are simple. as long as the photographer knows what he or she is doing, by all means. by blindly whacking the inputs and hoping to get a mutant mix for the sake of getting a mutant mix which will make people go wow because they have rarely seen this before.. that's another thing altogether. one can say yes, the results are all that matter, and i also firmly believe in that. but i also question how far a person can get without a well-thought through concept. once, perhaps. twice, maybe you get away with it. for long? naw.

My sentiments exactly, adding on;

Personally, I would be just so tired of tweaking and staring at the monitor for every shot, which I'd rather be out there getting the finest details of nature as is; being able to share more within the same period of time done to produce ONE hdr photo; which may not always tell a story.

 

[lastboltnut]

Ya, I agreed with you point that glowing halo and many other artifacts of HDR are not desired, thats why I mentioned Good surreal HDR photos. Just like IR, its totally out of this world and not what we see with our eyes...but its still called photography.

Consistency of producing Good HDR photos is important as I did mentioned Good HDR Photographer forming a style.

Anyway, this is a arguable topic that won't end. Lets forget about it after we have exchanged and discuss about our view on HDR. Its just personal view and opinion afterall.:bsmilie:

Nonetheless it will form a person style after some time of shooting.

PS: Actually, with the correct theme (ie shooting Frankenstein theme), mutant mix may be a good treatment and it could be achieved with HDR. :bsmilie:

you don't get my point - i have nothing to pick with surrealist photos that are done with that purpose in mind. i just hesitate to call these photography, that is my viewpoint, acceptance is another thing altogether.

with regards to my views on acceptance, the conditions are simple. as long as the photographer knows what he or she is doing, by all means. by blindly whacking the inputs and hoping to get a mutant mix for the sake of getting a mutant mix which will make people go wow because they have rarely seen this before.. that's another thing altogether. one can say yes, the results are all that matter, and i also firmly believe in that. but i also question how far a person can get without a well-thought through concept. once, perhaps. twice, maybe you get away with it. for long? naw.

 

[lastboltnut]

Hey bro, you are right. Don't do HDR for the sake of doing it. Doing it only when you need to capture a wide DR and when filter is not useful.

My sentiments exactly, adding on;

Personally, I would be just so tired of tweaking and staring at the monitor for every shot, which I'd rather be out there getting the finest details of nature as is; being able to share more within the same period of time done to produce ONE hdr photo; which may not always tell a story.

 

[snappyantz]

For software tool, you can look into this tool called Hugin... it is not bad.

 

[LifeInMacro]

i use a D90 and autobracketing. do you guys use the high FPS mode and press and let the camera take all the pics within a few seconds or do you take single shots 1 at a time? Is there a difference?

thanks in advance!

Hi,

I use AEB in high FPS to minimise scene changes (moving leaves, water, objects etc.). I use a cable release and take all shots in succession, and sometimes several sets if the scene is invaluable. If your camera is on tripod (which you should always try to do), then the various exposures will be very identical in details, and you will avoid ghosting effects. If you need to handhold your camera, then make sure you set your aperture or ISO such that the overexposed bracketed shot (the +2 EV) will be done at 1/125 shutter speed or better.

Hope this helps.

 

[pkhunter]

btw, you can just open the RAW file in photomatix unless your camera raw format is incompatible. this is much more convenient than generating a few jpg files from single raw.

You mean with ONE raw file imported in photomatix I can do HDR? I thought a few images were needed?

 

[pkhunter]

Yikes, that "stuckincustoms" blog is precisely what is wrong with the HDR folks. Such unbelievable crap. I could do that without the whole jumble of HDR -- just play with curves in PS and you'll end up with something like that.

 

[night86mare]

You mean with ONE raw file imported in photomatix I can do HDR? I thought a few images were needed?

it is a "fake" hdr, the raw file contains more information than the usual jpg, if you understand how file formats work. you will gain maybe a stop or so (if i remember correctly) extra of DR, which can make all the difference. especially when you have a grad nd filter that doesn't quite do the right job (i.e. not enough to hold the skies back)