Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Playing around with HDR
Topic Started: Feb 3 2013, 09:38 PM (257 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I've been unhappy with the quality of indoor photos of my projects, especially trying to capture the subtlety of lighting and stained glass (which gets burned out easily), so I've been experimenting with HDR and the Photomatix software. I think a number of people here use it. I've been bracketing +/- 2 f-stops, and shooting everything in RAW (NEF). The various presets in Photomatix really vary a lot in output based on materials, lighting, indoor or outdoor, and scale.

Any tips would be appreciated.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I've also played around with HDR and tonemapping for a while. It is very easy to overdo it and then things start to look like screenshots from a computer game.

I think one can achieve interesting HDR photos in churches. I have a few photos I can post here. But using it in a situation that doesn't really require it is almost always making the result worse. For pictures outside, such as the first photo you post, the problem is usually that the sky is too bright. In that situation I'd electronically simulate a graduated neutral density filter (using one or two RAW files) but not apply tonemapping to the remainder of the picture. I think the contrast in the lower half of the picture is too high and the colors don't look natural anymore.

Did you use a flash in the 4th picture?
Edited by Klaus, Feb 4 2013, 01:03 AM.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
No flash -- in fact I am deliberately trying to not use any flash but rather letting the ambient light do the work through the exposure. The eye automatically adjusts, and HDR seems to be a way of approximating that. The color balance is the hard part -- esp since colors shift so much due to ambient light color temperature (k-values) and reflectivity with the angle of incidence. The only real photoshopping I've been doing it to adjust for verticality-- straightening the image, and then taking out the vertical perspective since the eye and the mind tend to not read the Z axis perspective unless it's a very tall building. I don't like photos of buildings without parallel verticals.

I usually use Corel Photopaint instead of Photoshop since it's easier to do quick fixes in, but the masking and filter tools are not real user friendly.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Here are some examples of HDR attempts of mine.

When I discovered HDR, I was at first very enthusiastic about it, because the images people made looked very cool. However, it is a kind of look you get tired of very quickly - at least I did.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I am not very happy with these pictures anymore, though - but I am also not at all an expert in these issues, and the influence of the various parameters of the tone mapping process is not clear to me. For me, unless the contrast is very extreme, I can often get more natural looks by using just a single RAW file and accepting a few blown-out highlights. For instance, this is a variant of the last picture that stems from a single RAW:

Posted Image

Hence I use HDR rather sparingly. However, if I use it I typically choose a much broader range than the +/- 2 fstops you mention. For 2 f-stops you don't really need HDR; even a single RAW file has that dynamic range. Based on the light situation, I use up to +/- 6 f-stops.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dolmansaxlil
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I am not a huge fan of HDR though I have used it on occasion and realize that it has its purpose. Trey Ratcliff is the HDR master online these days, and he has an excellent (and free) HDR tutorial. He also offers presets for Photomatix. While a lot of his work is the over the top HDR I don't like, he also does more subtle HDR and is quite good at it. One more plus - he is a social networking guru so if you had specific questions it is possible you could get him to give you a hand on Google+. His site is http://www.stuckincustoms.com/
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

My Flickr Photostream


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I agree, Klaus -- the look gets old -- but I am interested in photos that create a quick positive impression for the website or PP presentations, which this does. The church, btw, is magnificent -- is that in Germany? Your RAW manipulation is very good and better than the HDR -- do you know of a tutorial website for getting into that degree of control? I very much like the sense of materiality in the RAW manipulation, especially the wood tones.

I'm kind of surprised about the +/- 6 f-stops. Isn't an f-stop doubling or halving the amount of light? I found that beyond 2 stops either everything is blown out or it is really dark. But I'll try a greater range and see what that does.

Did you use Photmatix, or another third party software, or use the resident PhotoShop HDR software. Do you use more than 2 or 3 bracketed shots?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
dolmansaxlil
Feb 4 2013, 04:17 AM
I am not a huge fan of HDR though I have used it on occasion and realize that it has its purpose. Trey Ratcliff is the HDR master online these days, and he has an excellent (and free) HDR tutorial. He also offers presets for Photomatix. While a lot of his work is the over the top HDR I don't like, he also does more subtle HDR and is quite good at it. One more plus - he is a social networking guru so if you had specific questions it is possible you could get him to give you a hand on Google+. His site is http://www.stuckincustoms.com/
Great website, Dol -- thanks. I have the Photmatix essentials, not the pro. But it looks like I can do 90% of it with that software. The tutorial was very good to understand the adjustments possible.

The left is the Photomatix preset, the center and right are my tweaks based on his suggested setting
Posted Image..Posted Image.. Posted Image

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
My first thought when I saw HDR was this: HDR, Inc. HDR stands for the initials of founders H.H. Henningson, Charles Durham and Willard Richardson. Henningson Engineering Company officially became Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. in 1950. The name was later shortened to HDR, Inc. They're a firm that the firm I'm with has both competed against and partnered with on various projects in many markets.

After googling HDR, I understood what you're talking about. I also read this tidbit that might explain why I still miss my Kodachrome.

Quote:
 
In contrast to digital photographs, color negatives and slides consist of multiple film layers that respond to light differently. As a consequence, transparent originals (especially positive slides) feature a very high dynamic range.


I'm curious to see more examples of the work of the TNCR photographers and to get a better understanding of how the display medium may interact with the choices for image processing. I know that I enjoy looking at my digital images on my TV, but I hadn't really stopped to try to understand exactly why.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Big Al, I think HDR is actually a misleading term. The dynamic range of a printed image or an image on a computer screen is fixed (although there are some new display techniques that allow more dynamic range). Rather, the dynamic range is compressed, similar to how radio stations compress the dynamic range of songs. This works by first combining a couple of pictures to create a picture whose dynamic range is too large to be displayed and printed, and then in a second step, the "tone mapping", this high dynamic range picture is compressed into a normal dynamic range picture.
Edited by Klaus, Feb 4 2013, 12:15 PM.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
big al
Feb 4 2013, 11:41 AM

After googling HDR, I understood what you're talking about. I also read this tidbit that might explain why I still miss my Kodachrome.
You're not the only one!
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
IT, can you upload the original RAW files you use somewhere?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Photobucket doesn't do RAW -- do you have a dropbox?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Yes, I have a dropbox. Can I somehow let you upload something to it? (sorry, I seldomly use it).
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 4 2013, 10:18 AM
I agree, Klaus -- the look gets old -- but I am interested in photos that create a quick positive impression for the website or PP presentations, which this does. The church, btw, is magnificent -- is that in Germany? Your RAW manipulation is very good and better than the HDR -- do you know of a tutorial website for getting into that degree of control? I very much like the sense of materiality in the RAW manipulation, especially the wood tones.

I'm kind of surprised about the +/- 6 f-stops. Isn't an f-stop doubling or halving the amount of light? I found that beyond 2 stops either everything is blown out or it is really dark. But I'll try a greater range and see what that does.

Did you use Photmatix, or another third party software, or use the resident PhotoShop HDR software. Do you use more than 2 or 3 bracketed shots?
The church is Cathédrale Saint-Vincent-de-Saragosse de Saint-Malo in France, a magnificent Roman Catholic church (actually the whole town is quite lovely).

I am not a Photoshop guru; I use mostly Adobe Lightroom to develop the RAW files. I find that the tools you have in Lightroom to fiddle with the dynamic range and colors are already quite powerful. I think Photoshop is superior only in situations where you want to manipulate only a certain part of the picture. Do you have/use Lightroom as well? My impressions is that it gives you 70% of what Photoshop can do (for photographers) with 5% of the learning effort.

I have used up to 10 bracketed shots. Sometimes you really need to go up +/- 6 f-stops. It is true that an f-stop doubles or halves the amount of light, but, like sound, you have to consider it on a logarithmic scale. I can show you an example in terms of the picture of Saint Malo Cathedral. I wanted to have one picture where the highlights in the window were not blown out. Here is a picture at -6 f-stops:

Posted Image

You see that even at -6 f-stops there are still some areas in the window where the highlights clip.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
IT, what I find interesting about the pictures you have posted is that it seems that, in contrast to the more traditional churches I am used to, this church is actually pretty well and evenly lit. Is that true? That would also explain why you have no need to go beyond +/- 2 f-stops. Maybe you don't need HDR at all and can just develop the pictures out of a single RAW file.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Yes, it's a new church with modern lighting, and a large central dome that brings in a profusion of light (and in AZ which has very bright sky conditions). I just sent you a dropbox link.

I don't use Lightroom or any other specialty photographer software. Mostly just Corel Photopaint.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
One simple suggestion I have would be to turn the artificial lights off, if you can (from what I understand you were involved in building this church, hence presumably you would have the power to do that ;) ).

The reason for that is that you have an undesirable mix of light colors. This is quite visible in picture #6. The upper half of the picture is very warm, maybe even too warm, whereas the lower half with the natural light is too cold. With RAW files you can adjust the white balance freely, but you have only one for the entire picture (unless you take the hard path of splitting the image and adjusting the light balance separately - but that's a lot of work).
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Yes, I did a few other images after I turned the lights off to play with the natural lighting conditions for exactly that reason. I typically just set up the tripod, used the preset bracket feature to click off three separate shots at 2 f-stop intervals, and have a wireless remote so I don't even touch the camera.

I have a Nikon D80-- which I am not too happy with, but I can't really afford one of their upper end bodies.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 4 2013, 12:43 PM
I just sent you a dropbox link.
Thanks, just received the email.

Quote:
 
I don't use Lightroom or any other specialty photographer software. Mostly just Corel Photopaint.

If you want to manipulate photos on a regular basis then you'll love Lightroom. I think it is by now almost a de facto standard among both amateuer and professional photographers. Please mention my name when you place the order.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 4 2013, 12:50 PM
I have a Nikon D80-- which I am not too happy with, but I can't really afford one of their upper end bodies.
I think a $5000 body wouldn't help you one bit in that situation: None of its features is critical for a picture of a non-moving subject on a tripod intended for the web or a PP presentation. A D80 is perfectly fine for that.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Just for comparison, here is your picture developed out of a single RAW file.

Posted Image
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Very nice. The difficulty in this is that the top stone is a white marble with a slight bluish cast and blue grey veins, which gets washed out in the direct sunlight (it's hitting from the latern window, seen in the first photo). I over stated the blues to bring out the quality of the baptistry. The blue stone is sodalite, pretty pricey, which is what I was trying to emphasize. The lower arched panels at the base are onyx with gold veining, which is a luminous stone and also wash out easily.

Posted Image
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply