HDR advice

[Bambi]

Okay, I am looking for help here guys. I have listened to Marko's podcast 3 times. I've looked at videos on the net and I've read. What I lack is 1-1 assistance with it :). so that's where you all come in. :)

When I went to the beach the other day I set my camera to auto bracket. I took 3 shots (steps at 2) (I tried a number of different steps):
#1 f/9, 1/320, iso 200. exposure: +0.3
#2 f/9 1/80, iso 200 exposure bia -1.7
#3 f/9 1/1250 iso 200 exposure bias -3.7
(forgive me if this is too much information)

I have 2 programs: Paint Shop Pro which has an HDR. this is what I got:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_eTzuNZZ7ZF0/S0P9jd9XWoI/AAAAAAAADpM/YB2nGr0sjc4/s800/awful%20hdr.jpg

really awful, I know. It's too bright, the sky is washed out, and what the heck is that pink spot in the clouds?

I downloaded Picturenaut and this is what I got:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_eTzuNZZ7ZF0/S0QDCdvGOBI/AAAAAAAADqA/wmQ9rHk0icI/s800/awful%20hdr2b.jpg

much better but still :yuck:.

so here are my questions:
1. is it the settings I had with the exposure to start with?
2. I think the subject is okay-the rocks were dark and the sky/water was bright and I wanted to show it all and I thought that it might be a good one to practice on but am open to the suggestion that it was a bad idea.
3. should I have done more post processing? and if so what?
4. am I trying this out too soon? (trying to run before I crawl)
5. were the steps too large?
6. anything other comments you want to make?

:thankyou:

[casil403]

Can I see the original 3 shots B? I would like to see the highlighted and low lighted versions. I think #2 has nice potential.

[kat]

Hmmm. First thing that came to mind was the original exposure, how did that look? Then I go to the +2 exposure, did it have a good amount of highlights in the photo?

For the cloud, did the original exposure have a highlight in that cloud where the pink is? It looks to me like a really burnt out area. But I may be wrong.

It looks like you have the process down. When I do HDR's it all comes down to the original exposure. If it's not correct, ie.. has too many highlights or too dark then it throws off the other 2 + stopped photos. That in turn can throw of the photo.

Did you play with your option in photomatix? The top slider has a big difference from the left to right and go down from there.

I'll let someone who can actually phrase things better than me explain it. I will just confuse you with any more. MA will be here to help you soon!

[casil403]

It looks like you you might be a bit high still on your exposure. The lightest shot seems too light, hence the blown out clouds.

[Fortytwo]

An HDR is basically a two step process.

First, you'll have to properly bridge the contrastdifference. It means that the darkest shot can't have blown out blacks and the lightest shot can't have blown out white's. You should check that first, but I think you're all right there. The second shot seems to no area's which are blown out.

The second step is the tone mapping. This is where you'll probably want to do something more with the shot. I'm not familiar with Picturenaut, but I guess that's the area you'll want to look into. :)

[Mad Aussie]

Answering your questions by number ...

1. Your settings look fine. f9 on all suggests your used your 'A' or Aperture priority setting which is the first mode I try HDR shots with. 80, 320, 1250 are 2 stop increments which again is what I would tried due to the bright sky and dark shadows on the rocks. I possibly (actually often) would have taken a second set at 1 stop increments as well.

2. This scene is definitely suitable for HDR. Possibly not totally necessary but still suitable.

3. I think more processing was needed. Firstly in your HDR Merge program ... however I have no idea how good Paint Shop Pro's HDR software is but I've never heard it compared to Photomatix Pro (the leading software) so I'm guessing it's not as good. What I see here is the processing is quite weak. Whether you can redo this in PSP HDR and get a stronger HDR image I don't know but I do know you'd get it in Photomatix Pro.
Not sure on Picturenaut, I've tried it and found it a bit awkward to use but I would have thought you'd have gotten a stronger image using it.
Usually after processing in Photomatix I end up an image that's overdone in some parts but I accept this to get the rest of it looking close to what I want. Then it goes into Photoshop for more tweaking ... dodging, burning, curves/levels, sharpening, maybe even one of the original auto bracketed shots layered under it so I can bring through some detail the HDR process didn't do well ... that sort of thing.

4. Hmmm I don't think so really. I do think there's a lot for you to learn in more basic DSLR photography and strongly suggest you don't forget to go after those skills as well, but certainly nothing wrong with having a crack at this HDR stuff to give yourself a boost.

5. ANswered above ... but No ... I don't think so.

6. My suggestion would be to download the trial version of Photomatix Pro 3 and redo this HDR in there. I think you'll find that the more stronger HDR effect is easier to get and you'll be able to play in there and get several versions of this. It will at least show you that you got the right images to accomplish what you were trying.
Also I should mention that I have taken many bracketed shots that I was certain would make good HDR and they simply did not. They looked crap no matter how I processed them and were only worthy as normal photos.

Might be worth doing as Casil has suggested and show us the 3 bracketed shots so we can see what you were playing with here. When I was taking that photo of Redhead Beach I chose as my best shot a few weeks ago I had all sorts of trouble with bracketed shots on the same beach facing in a different direction. The bracketing just wasn't giving me usable shots at all. Something about the light and it's direction or perhaps spray in the air or something ... or a combination of both.

[Bambi]

thanks everyone for the help. I really appreciate it. :thankyou:

I will post the originals when I get home for your reference.

My thoughts are the PSP HDR is crappy. The picturenaut I downloaded because it's 'free' and I thought it might be a good place to play. There doesn't seem to be much I can do with it other then let it run but perhaps I am wrong.

[Mad Aussie]

thanks everyone for the help. I really appreciate it. :thankyou:

I will post the originals when I get home for your reference.

My thoughts are the PSP HDR is crappy. The picturenaut I downloaded because it's 'free' and I thought it might be a good place to play. There doesn't seem to be much I can do with it other then let it run but perhaps I am wrong.
DO you mean there's not much you can do with Picturenaut? If so ... yes you are wrong. Casil would be the best person I can think of to guide you in that use I think.

[casil403]

Photomatrix is pretty reasonable for the price...it does way more than Picturenaut and is a good place to learn.
Dynamic Photo HDR is way more beginner friendly and has more things to play around with but you absolutely have to use a tripod...handheld doesn't really work as it's not very adjustment friendly....but it makes great HDR shots IMO.
Have a look here for some more ideas... Fine art photography forum - Photography.ca (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f10/hdr-whch-type-program-do-you-use-5916.) - we did a test a while back.
I think Barefoot uses Picturenaut so if you want to not spend the money he's the go to guy for questions on this particular program.

[Bambi]

Photomatrix is pretty reasonable for the price...it does way more than Picturenaut and is a good place to learn.
Dynamic Photo HDR is way more beginner friendly and has more things to play around with but you absolutely have to use a tripod...handheld doesn't really work as it's not very adjustment friendly....but it makes great HDR shots IMO.
Have a look here for some more ideas... Fine art photography forum - Photography.ca (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f10/hdr-whch-type-program-do-you-use-5916.) - we did a test a while back.
I think Barefoot uses Picturenaut so if you want to not spend the money he's the go to guy for questions on this particular program.

thanks Casil. I know that there are better programs and I did read the thread. I just decided to start with Picturenaut because of budget reasons. I will likely buy something in the future.

Anyway here are the 3 photos:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_eTzuNZZ7ZF0/S0UR5lYS8GI/AAAAAAAADrA/GmSrJd-WYPU/s800/3.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_eTzuNZZ7ZF0/S0UR7rUfqfI/AAAAAAAADrE/zSLEC6Z_OrM/s800/2.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_eTzuNZZ7ZF0/S0UR80w7GnI/AAAAAAAADrI/QBWfPEa0jBc/s800/1.jpg


(I know that they are not level but I levelled them after I combined them).

[kat]

I can see why the cloud is pink. Even in the lowest stop it's quite white in that area. I don't find that there is much range with these photos. Mine are always quite noticably different between the three. But that could be my eyes and now I'm wondering if I'm doing it wrong.

[casil403]

I agree with Kat...not much tonal range in these and the first one is over-exposed....that I think is the problem but MA might have better ideas. :)

[Bambi]

okay guys that is helpful. I was not sure how bright one of the images had to be. I will go try it again :)

[kat]

I agree with Kat...not much tonal range in these and the first one is over-exposed....that I think is the problem but MA might have better ideas. :)


I may be wrong but I always thought that there should be an over exposed, normal and the underexposed. The over having some highlights..the under having shadows.

[casil403]

I may be wrong but I always thought that there should be an over exposed, normal and the underexposed. The over having some highlights..the under having shadows.

You are right Kat... :) IMHO I think the 1st shot is a bit too overexposed that what it should be. Then again when I do HDR, I prefer slighter exposure differentials ...but that's just me.
F8&Bthere might also be a good person's brain to pick also as he's quite good at HDR and knows more about it than I do. :)
Hey :lightbulb maybe we should start a thread on the subject...tips for great HDR!

[kat]

Yah. I wouldn't have any highlights on the 1st or beginning photo. In this case, I see the highlights in the darkest exposure..with all three of them having those highlights you will get what you see in the clouds.

[casil403]

Bambi I found this:
How to Take an HDR Photo with a Nikon D50 or Similar Digital SLR Camera (Video)|Visual Photo Guide (http://www.visualphotoguide.com/how-to-take-hdr-photos-video/)
Not sure if it will help but have a look. :)

[Bambi]

you guys are great!! :thankyou:

[Mad Aussie]

Looking at those 3 original shots I'd say they haven't come out optimal at all for HDR.
Usually I get one even more overexposed than yours, 1 that's about right, and 1 that's way too dark. Sometimes though this doesn't happen even on 2 stops. So then I go to manual and after after seeing what the settings were for the others I adjust and get the dark and light frames manually. When this happens I usually use 5 shots for the HDR because I have that many now anyhow.

Kat is right ... generally you are looking for 1 exposed well ... and 1 too dark and 1 too light.
Your lightest is close but doesn't show all the rock detail in the shadows. Your darkest is not showing the more dramatic details in the clouds I would have liked to see.

I'll dig up an HDR of mine and post it in here with the 3 original shots.

[Mad Aussie]

Here you go ...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2758/4230239259_d14c04d513_o.jpg

I got that with these shots ...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/Mad-Aussie/10%20photographyca/Jan-Jun/_MG_0642.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/Mad-Aussie/10%20photographyca/Jan-Jun/_MG_0643.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/Mad-Aussie/10%20photographyca/Jan-Jun/_MG_0644.jpg

[kat]

Yes, that looks right in my eye to MA.

As MA mentioned the 2 stop is just a guide. I've had to switch mine up many times to get the right looking combination.

[jlabel]

Really I dont see why you think they are terrible, for me it is just perfect HDR, you have information in the darken areas of the rock and high areas in the sky, so what is the problem?

[Bambi]

Really I dont see why you think they are terrible, for me it is just perfect HDR, you have information in the darken areas of the rock and high areas in the sky, so what is the problem?

thanks jlabel, you are very kind :). I think I was looking for more of a colour range and the blown out cloud was bugging me. Seeing MA's pictures was very helpful to give me a visual of what I am looking for. I plan to go out this weekend and try it again.

[squirl033]

for myself, i find shooting at +/- 2 stops is usually too much. +/- 1 stop, or maybe 1.5. should be sufficient, especially for the beach scene you were taking. if you want, you can auto-bracket 3 shots, but i find it's often better to shoot in manual mode, using the exposure guide in the viewfinder to take 4 or 5 shots spanning a +/- 2 stop range. it seems that way the software doesn't have to work quite so hard and the exposures come out more realistic. for the beach scene you were shooting, did you try simply using a grad ND filter? might have eliminated the need for HDR in the first place... ;)