Experiment with HDR Photography

I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software. It is a
standalone software, and it is very easy to use. Of course, there are
a lot of options and things to make adjustments, and it needs some
time to practice. Overall, I think it is an excellent tools in
photography.
Some photos that I tried using the software is located at the
following
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca...DR_photography
I have a few comments/questions to share with other users:
- I did not use RAW files, just JPEG files. Too slow to use RAW format
files, and never tried!
- Except for one photo, the other photos only came from SINGLE shots.
I don't quite understand why we need to have three to five photos with
different exposures. What I did was using a single photo (normal
exposure) and use gamma correction to create the under and above
exposure effects. Only one photo was taken using an AEB feature.. and
wonder if anyone can guess. My brief experiments appear to show that I
don't need multiple exposures or auto bracketing in the field. I may
be wrong and would love to hear input from others.
- The photo of the "tunnel" utilized 4 gamma corrections (5 photos),
but the other sets only utilized 3 set of photos.
- Using a single photo means that you have 100% identical photos for
the other exposures. This means that there is no problems of movement,
slight difference in photo frames, etc. I heard that you have to use
tripod for multiple, consequtive exposures so that the software will
be easy to align and adjust. But, with single exposure, there is no
need to worry about shakes, movements nor the use of a tripod.
- I am not 100% sure that perhaps with AEB, you can get a better
effect? But I think the HDR effect as shown in the "tunnel" and
"machine" photos (last two sets) looks adequate.
Would like to hear comments and thanks.
Note that the software is so straight forward that I just went by with
very little problems. The initial learning process only took me a few
minutes. However, I am sure that there are more other details to
learn. I created all the 7 sets just in a matter of hours.... using a
slow, old computer and a Windows ME!

wrote:
I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software.

I'm also playing with the trial version, and am leaning towards
purchasing it.


I have a few comments/questions to share with other users:
- I did not use RAW files, just JPEG files. Too slow to use RAW format
files, and never tried!

I've tried ONLY with Raw files (Nikon D80).

- Except for one photo, the other photos only came from SINGLE shots.
I don't quite understand why we need to have three to five photos with
different exposures. What I did was using a single photo (normal
exposure) and use gamma correction to create the under and above
exposure effects. Only one photo was taken using an AEB feature.. and
wonder if anyone can guess. My brief experiments appear to show that I
don't need multiple exposures or auto bracketing in the field. I may
be wrong and would love to hear input from others.
- The photo of the "tunnel" utilized 4 gamma corrections (5 photos),
but the other sets only utilized 3 set of photos.
- Using a single photo means that you have 100% identical photos for
the other exposures. This means that there is no problems of movement,
slight difference in photo frames, etc. I heard that you have to use
tripod for multiple, consequtive exposures so that the software will
be easy to align and adjust. But, with single exposure, there is no
need to worry about shakes, movements nor the use of a tripod.

What you say here is true. I first tried using Auto-Bracketing, with an
EV range of 1 stop (handheld). Many times, this brought blur into the
final picture due to either my unsteadiness or something changing
(moving) in the photo. I then tried using just one photo and adjusting
the exposure in Capture NX to arrive at 3 or 5 different exposures.
That worked out better.

- I am not 100% sure that perhaps with AEB, you can get a better
effect? But I think the HDR effect as shown in the "tunnel" and
"machine" photos (last two sets) looks adequate.
Would like to hear comments and thanks.

My favorite is # 72.

Note that the software is so straight forward that I just went by with
very little problems. The initial learning process only took me a few
minutes. However, I am sure that there are more other details to
learn.

Agreed. Questions about your pix -- What exposure range did you use
when adjusting the gamma levels on the jpegs? As I said, I've been
using a range of +/-1.0, but I don't think that's enough. (Generally
using 3 exposures). I'm going to experiment using +/-2.0.

Also, are your HDR pix the "default" HDR or did you tweak them
afterwards at all?

Finally, which setting did you use in Tone-mapping? (There are two
choices, but I don't recall their names)

I created all the 7 sets just in a matter of hours.... using a
slow, old computer and a Windows ME!

Have fun playing with this. I know that I am!

wrote:
I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software.

A great piece of software.
I was so impressed with it that I bought the full version.

My brief experiments appear to show that I
don't need multiple exposures or auto bracketing in the field. I may
be wrong and would love to hear input from others.

This is how you would do it with a RAW shot. You would save to various
exposures as you are converting the RAW to useable Jpegs or Tiff's.

Of course, you have shown that you can do this with Jpegs too, but you won't
get quite as good a result, and you're more likely to introduce bad noise
into your images, as a Jpeg simply doesn't hold the same volume of image
data as a RAW file does.

However, if you want to get an HDR effect with a single Jpeg image, you
don't need to go to all this trouble playing with Photomatix settings.
Just open the single Jpeg in Photoshop, and select
ImageAdjustmentsShadow&highlight

It won't be a true HDR, but then again, neither are the ones you've created
from one single Jpeg exposure, but it will create the exact same effect
you're getting right now from a single Jpeg.

- Using a single photo means that you have 100% identical photos for
the other exposures.

That's why it's advisable to use RAW for your HDR's


slight difference in photo frames, etc. I heard that you have to use
tripod for multiple, consequtive exposures so that the software will
be easy to align and adjust. But, with single exposure, there is no
need to worry about shakes, movements nor the use of a tripod.

Not entirely true.
You'll find plenty of single exposure situations where you'll still need a
tripod due to slow exposure times.
When doing serious landscape shots, you should always use a tripod, just as
a matter of course.

- I am not 100% sure that perhaps with AEB, you can get a better
effect? But I think the HDR effect as shown in the "tunnel" and
"machine" photos (last two sets) looks adequate.
Would like to hear comments and thanks.

Some of the shots are pretty good. I especially like the tunnel one, and the
sunset over the beach.
But it's worth remembering that not every situation lends itself to the HDR
treatment. The trick is recognising which ones do and which ones don't.
It's also very easy to over-cook your HDR's and end up with something very
unrealistic looking, almost resembling a scene from a computer game.
The HDR treatment has a nasty habit of flattening a photograph and robbing
it of all depth. There's a very fine balanc between getting a
super-realistic image, and ending up with something cartoony.

wrote:

I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software.

If you want something for less monetary cost have a look at qtpfsgui. It's
open source free software and gives results such as this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7229289@N07/1403314485/

It's available here

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/

--
sid
RLU 300284
Mandriva 2007.1 X86_64
2.6.19.5

sid wrote:
wrote:

I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software.

If you want something for less monetary cost have a look at qtpfsgui.
It's open source free software and gives results such as this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7229289@N07/1403314485/

It's available here

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/

Does someone actually like images such as that?

David

sid wrote:
wrote:


I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software.


If you want something for less monetary cost have a look at qtpfsgui. It's
open source free software and gives results such as this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7229289@N07/1403314485/

It's available here

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/


That seems to convert the images into paintings. Not quite the same
effect, but interesting nonetheless.

BRH wrote:
(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:



This is how you would do it with a RAW shot. You would save to
various exposures as you are converting the RAW to useable Jpegs or
Tiff's.

Are you saying that you first save each of the Raw images to JPG or
TIFF, and then use Photomatix to create the HDR image?

Yes.

I haven't tried that sequence yet. I've created 3 Raw
(bracketed)images and loaded them directly into Photomatix, then
created the HDR image from them, and then saved the resulting HDR
image to JPG or TIFF.

Ah now. I didn't realise that Photomatix will accept RAW files.
I'll give that a try.

Does it make a difference in what order you do these steps (other than
smaller file sizes for the 3 JPG/TIFF files as opposed to 3 Raw
files).

Not entirely sure, but I can feel an experiment coming on :-)

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:



This is how you would do it with a RAW shot. You would save to various
exposures as you are converting the RAW to useable Jpegs or Tiff's.


Are you saying that you first save each of the Raw images to JPG or
TIFF, and then use Photomatix to create the HDR image?

I haven't tried that sequence yet. I've created 3 Raw (bracketed)images
and loaded them directly into Photomatix, then created the HDR image
from them, and then saved the resulting HDR image to JPG or TIFF.

Does it make a difference in what order you do these steps (other than
smaller file sizes for the 3 JPG/TIFF files as opposed to 3 Raw files).

Thanks!

In article , david-
says...
sid wrote:
wrote:

I used the Photomatix trial software from HDR soft, and quite happy
with the results. Now, I am planning to buy the software.

If you want something for less monetary cost have a look at qtpfsgui.
It's open source free software and gives results such as this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7229289@N07/1403314485/

It's available here

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/

Does someone actually like images such as that?

David

Some obviously do. For me it's the distillation of everything I don't
like about Flickr..

T.

I find a couple of things interesting...

1. You source images by and large are all under exposed. The one with the
trees, once your HDR is done those tress should be able to be seen. To get
your final HDR image of this you don't need HDR, just do spot meter and
meter off the darker part of the sky. Not impressed.

2. Besides the source images being under exposed by a large amount, the vast
majority of the finished HDR images have totally fake color. They don't look
real they look like a kindergardeners finger paintings with Red, Blue and
Yellow paint. Again not impressed.

Keep working with it, you have a long ways to go. You do need to work on the
exposure of your source images. You need one that is right on, one that is
dark and one that is way lighter. None of your sources images fall in to
these categories they are all dark including the so called over exposed
ones.

If you are using your cameras bracketing function, turn it off and do your
exposures yourself so that you get a better range and the proper exposures.
I would also suggest you try 5 shots instead of 3. Tone down the saturation
by at least half. The point of HDR is to have a final image where all areas
are properly exposed. In the tree one (the first set on your site) the sky
is far too dark, the trees are silhoettes, this is not the final end result
for a proper HDR image. Everything should be seed with detail.

Psygnosis