Working on my HDR skills - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/15/2009 12:18:22 PM · #1

I have been trying to learn about HDR more. I seem to be able to get buildings to look decent but am still struggling with how people make landscapes look soooo amazing. Well, here's an outdoor shot (not a real landscape shot) but I feel the green on the feild came out really nice. Please tell me what you think and what specifically could be changed about it technically. Thanks

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

11/15/2009 02:11:35 PM · #2

Well, I tried to grab a copy so I could show you a couple things that might improve it, but the site won't let me do that anymore...

Overall there's a sense of flatness that isn't working in your favor, but all in all it's a decent result.

R.

jdannels

Nikon D300s

11/15/2009 02:17:32 PM · #3

Supposedly if he puts the photo in his workshop he can allow it to be downloaded via right click. We should have the ability to decide if we want to have the pix.gif upon upload, but that is a different thread. :)

SEG

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/15/2009 03:32:44 PM · #4

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What exactly does "flatness' mean? What techniques would you utilize to avoid this?

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 16:33:52.

sarampo

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

11/15/2009 05:08:30 PM · #5

[/quote]

What exactly does "flatness' mean? What techniques would you utilize to avoid this? [/quote]

Hi Louis,

Not wanting to take your picture, I just saved it just for you to see the difference.
Your HDR is very well done, but usually these photos need extra PP for extra punch. In this specific image, I've lightened the whites, and then boosted the contrast. The result is a not so flat picture. Just these two things can really improve. But a very good dynamic range result anyway from your side :)

Cheers
Joao

11/15/2009 05:24:56 PM · #6

Yes, that's a considerable improvement. It's frequently the case that HDRI images, straight out of the box, need some goosing in contrast. Once you become aware of this need, you can usually do most of that adjustment directly in the tone mapping engine of the HDR software itself. But, in general, there's a tendency, especially among new users of HDR tools, to overflatten the image, bringing the highlights down and the shadows up, then to compensate for this by adding extreme local-area-contrast; the resulting images have what is referred to as a "cartoonish" look, they do not appear even remotely natural to the eye.

Now your stadium shot is not even close to the "cartoon look", which is good, but it still seems flattened out. In particular, it's very unnatural that the sky is so much lower key than the bright grass on the field. So Sarampo's adjustments are definitely a step in the right direction IMO.

Keep plugging away at it, you're doin' great!

R.

11/15/2009 06:55:55 PM · #7

May I ask a generalized question or two? I have never understood what we are doing with HDR. Is HDR and tone mapping the same thing? Every means we have to reproduce or document a natural real scene does not & never will have the same dynamic range as the real thing. And as reality recedes into the distance we naturally see less color and less detail and less contrast. How did it become so important to have intense, focused, contrasty detail in all parts of the image both near and far? And why does a PP that supposedly increases dynamic range end up flattening the light? Honestly I've googled this over & over again, & I am no closer to understanding this than I ever was. Everything I read describes HOW but nothing is said about WHY.

Why is it desirable to make a natural landscape look as though every part of it was shot under studio light & combined later into one grand image? Every leaf & blade of grass crystal clear, bright, sharp, contrasty no matter how many miles away it was in reality. Is this a trend? Why is it a trend right now? Will it ever go away?

HDR is so stylized in its approach that my favorite ones are the extreme cartoons. The ones where every detail is almost feverish, the colors unnaturally pure, where the whole comp is forced to reveal everything, NOW. No mystery, no second glance. Shock and awe.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, really. Nobody ever speaks to WHY HDR and tone mapping are so desirable. Like the OP, people ask how-to questions. I hope some of you have an opinion & the time to post it. Thanks in advance if you do.

sarampo

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

11/15/2009 07:04:51 PM · #8

Hi Pixelpig,

Well, to oversimplify the answer (if indeed there is a correct answer), HDR and other alike were idealized to convey a picture (notice I didn't exactly say photo) of something in someone's mind.
It can be also legitimate to ask why black and white, if most of us see in colour?

No scene can possibly have the dynamic range of a overly saturated HDR image, but sometimes when I look at pictures, I make the exercise of boosting just a part of the image visually. If it is a sunrise, I'll drop out all the flat green around me, and just punch up the reds and yellows.
It's all in my head, but sometimes I can put it in a picture as well.
And a little bit like painters did it, it brings your part of the subjectivity to the photo.
Some like it, some not, some are extremely well done, some are total cartoons.

Why we do it? Sometimes because we are painting a picture with our camera ;)

Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Joao

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Nikon

11/15/2009 07:13:42 PM · #9

Well, I was wondering if the only reason we need is just because we can. That's enough, I guess I'll be satisfied with that. Because we can. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining or taking a stand against it. I tone map every image as part of my PP to get the contrast the way I want it. I have never tried to re-create the scene as my eyes saw it, though. I am working as an artist to get a finished product that pleases my eye, using my original capture as a starting point. thanks for your opinion

sarampo

[eta]
We do see in BW. At night, we don't see color. Something about the way the eye works. That's why BW is so satisfying, I think.

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 19:19:33.

david1707

Nikon D90

11/16/2009 11:07:00 AM · #10

I love doing HDR's. I love it because it's the image I want, it's my art. I don't do it to make anything seem more natural. I have HDR's that are more extreme than others, I have some that look more real. I play with my photos until they are pleasing to me. If others like them, great. If not, I really don't care because it's what I like to do.

SEG, don't be afraid to play with your hdr's in other software. Your software is just a tool to getting the image you want. I sometimes do several versions of the same shot until I find the one I like the most.

SEG

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/16/2009 06:14:53 PM · #11

Originally posted by pixelpig:

HDR is so stylized in its approach that my favorite ones are the extreme cartoons. The ones where every detail is almost feverish, the colors unnaturally pure, where the whole comp is forced to reveal everything, NOW. No mystery, no second glance. Shock and awe.

You would probably like this shot then?

It is by far one of my most favorite shots and most popular considering the number of prints I have sold locally of it. I was very disappointed in my score on this one. I know free studies are harder challenges to compete in but really had high hopes for it. This was my first ever attempt at HDR and to be honest no matter what I do I have yet to find the right combination to duplicate this on other images in PP. With this one I found a tutorial on YouTube that I liked and followed the instructions by pausing YouTube, doing what the person said and repeating that process until I was done. Then I PP'ed in PS how I felt best for the image. I guess I need to go back to YouTube again?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/16/2009 06:36:31 PM · #12

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Let me try to answer the "why". Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there's an idealized, natural, human-eye way of seeing a scene that is the standard we are trying to achieve. When you stand out in the real world, looking at real-world scenes, you are able to perceive (that is, to process with your brain) a very wide tonal range. One of the long-time goals of photographers has been to replicate, in the image, what the eye is actually seeing.

When all photographic images were delivered in the form of prints, this was not possible. Still is not possible, in prints, though you can get closer to it in projected images, which are able to convey a broader tonal range than a print, due to the differences between reflected and transmitted light. So, if you go back far enough to remember the heyday of color slides, you can recall that an absolutely luminous slide might look a whole lot less impressive when printed out on paper. That's a difference in "dynamic range". Nowadays, with computers, we're essentially viewing slides all the time, and we've all had the experience of feeling that our printed images don't have the quality, the luminosity, that the same image has on the screen. It's a difference in dynamic range.

Now, the eye is capable of perceiving a broader dynamic range than our media are capable of displaying. That is to say, when I *look* at a scene I see details in the deeper shadows and the brighter highlights both. But when I make an exposure, I have to sacrifice one or the other, because the camera output can't cover that broad a range. So HDR imaging was born. Initially it was done by hand: I'd stack 3 different exposures of the same scene, and I'd erase from each layer the parts I didn't want to display. That's still the HDRI approach-of-choice for a lot of serious shooters, but it's time-consuming and it takes a LOT of skill.

HDRI software was developed to automate this process. The software generates a composite image that combines all of the information in all of the exposures into a single frame. But the frame, by itself, looks like crap, because our media cannot display the full range of what's contained in the composite frame.

That's where tone mapping comes in; using tone mapping, we tell the program how much to lighten the darkest areas and how much to darken the brightest areas, and we massage the image until what we are seeing matches what we *saw* � in theory. One of the problems we deal with, though, is that as we lighten the darks and darken the lights, the image becomes unnaturally "flat". We deal with this by trying not to overdo the process, and by adding "local area contrast" to the image to bring in "detail contrast" where overall contrast has been muted.

This is where the cartoon aspect comes into play; when we over-flatten the image and then amp up the local area contrast we get that characteristic "tone mapped" look that many mistakenly think of as the "HDR look": but it isn't. Used as designed, the programs produce fully-expressed details that still appear natural in contrasty landscape and architectural scxenes that are impossible to light artificially.

HDRI, in essence, is basically a tool to bring to the landscape and architectural photographer some measure of the control over light that studio photographers enjoy. It also so happens that a whole new genre of "Lucis Arts" type imagery has evolved, but this is NOT "HDR", and it's not what the programs were initially designed to do.

Why is it popular? I donno... it's dramatic, it's "modern", it's visually compelling, whatever... I do it myself, quite a bit. But it isn't HDRI...

R.

treimee

Nikon D300

11/16/2009 07:30:58 PM · #13

Very good job setting up this image! I hope it is alright that we used your image? I will not use it for any other purpose but to post in this thread. Anyway, this is just my interpretation. Personally I like to see a very high level of contrast. As

Bear_Music said, this image does look a little flat. In order to increase this I usually will do one of the following: 1) Photomatix, 2) 8-32-8 or 3) or a black-white gradient map. All of these will give you a wider range of contrast in the image. With your photo I did the 30 second version and could probably do a better job with the original file and some more time.

Image copyrighted by

SEG

Like others have said this particular style is a very personal one. Everyone has their personal preference as to what an HDRI image should look like and how it should be done. I have found the best way to learn is to experiment....experiment....and then do it again. All the time keeping in mind that an HDRI style doesn't work for every image.

Trent

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/16/2009 07:56:21 PM · #14

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

HDR is so stylized in its approach that my favorite ones are the extreme cartoons. The ones where every detail is almost feverish, the colors unnaturally pure, where the whole comp is forced to reveal everything, NOW. No mystery, no second glance. Shock and awe.

You would probably like this shot then?

It is by far one of my most favorite shots and most popular considering the number of prints I have sold locally of it. I was very disappointed in my score on this one. I know free studies are harder challenges to compete in but really had high hopes for it. This was my first ever attempt at HDR and to be honest no matter what I do I have yet to find the right combination to duplicate this on other images in PP. With this one I found a tutorial on YouTube that I liked and followed the instructions by pausing YouTube, doing what the person said and repeating that process until I was done. Then I PP'ed in PS how I felt best for the image. I guess I need to go back to YouTube again?

left a comment for you...

Photologist

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

11/16/2009 08:16:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just do a "File > Save page as... > Web page, complete". You'll have the image, then.

11/16/2009 09:35:19 PM · #16

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pixelpig:
May I ask a generalized question or two? I have never understood what we are doing with HDR. Is HDR and tone mapping the same thing? Every means we have to reproduce or document a natural real scene does not & never will have the same dynamic range as the real thing. And as reality recedes into the distance we naturally see less color and less detail and less contrast. How did it become so important to have intense, focused, contrasty detail in all parts of the image both near and far? And why does a PP that supposedly increases dynamic range end up flattening the light? Honestly I've googled this over & over again, & I am no closer to understanding this than I ever was. Everything I read describes HOW but nothing is said about WHY.

Let me try to answer the "why". Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there's an idealized, natural, human-eye way of seeing a scene that is the standard we are trying to achieve. When you stand out in the real world, looking at real-world scenes, you are able to perceive (that is, to process with your brain) a very wide tonal range. One of the long-time goals of photographers has been to replicate, in the image, what the eye is actually seeing.

When all photographic images were delivered in the form of prints, this was not possible. Still is not possible, in prints, though you can get closer to it in projected images, which are able to convey a broader tonal range than a print, due to the differences between reflected and transmitted light. So, if you go back far enough to remember the heyday of color slides, you can recall that an absolutely luminous slide might look a whole lot less impressive when printed out on paper. That's a difference in "dynamic range". Nowadays, with computers, we're essentially viewing slides all the time, and we've all had the experience of feeling that our printed images don't have the quality, the luminosity, that the same image has on the screen. It's a difference in dynamic range.

Now, the eye is capable of perceiving a broader dynamic range than our media are capable of displaying. That is to say, when I *look* at a scene I see details in the deeper shadows and the brighter highlights both. But when I make an exposure, I have to sacrifice one or the other, because the camera output can't cover that broad a range. So HDR imaging was born. Initially it was done by hand: I'd stack 3 different exposures of the same scene, and I'd erase from each layer the parts I didn't want to display. That's still the HDRI approach-of-choice for a lot of serious shooters, but it's time-consuming and it takes a LOT of skill.

HDRI software was developed to automate this process. The software generates a composite image that combines all of the information in all of the exposures into a single frame. But the frame, by itself, looks like crap, because our media cannot display the full range of what's contained in the composite frame.

That's where tone mapping comes in; using tone mapping, we tell the program how much to lighten the darkest areas and how much to darken the brightest areas, and we massage the image until what we are seeing matches what we *saw* � in theory. One of the problems we deal with, though, is that as we lighten the darks and darken the lights, the image becomes unnaturally "flat". We deal with this by trying not to overdo the process, and by adding "local area contrast" to the image to bring in "detail contrast" where overall contrast has been muted.

This is where the cartoon aspect comes into play; when we over-flatten the image and then amp up the local area contrast we get that characteristic "tone mapped" look that many mistakenly think of as the "HDR look": but it isn't. Used as designed, the programs produce fully-expressed details that still appear natural in contrasty landscape and architectural scxenes that are impossible to light artificially.

HDRI, in essence, is basically a tool to bring to the landscape and architectural photographer some measure of the control over light that studio photographers enjoy. It also so happens that a whole new genre of "Lucis Arts" type imagery has evolved, but this is NOT "HDR", and it's not what the programs were initially designed to do.

Why is it popular? I donno... it's dramatic, it's "modern", it's visually compelling, whatever... I do it myself, quite a bit. But it isn't HDRI...

R.

Thanks for the reply. I have a few thoughts in response,

The bolding is mine, of your words...
there's an idealized, natural, human-eye way of seeing a scene that is the standard we are trying to achieve.

I have a deep, dark suspicion that HDR PP is not so much a standard we are trying to achieve so much as it is an attempt to standardize what we think we see. Because...

I can never be aware of what my eye sees, all I have is what I think I saw after my brain is finished processing it. The brain has to speed-process data it receives in order to keep up with the flood of sensory input delivered by reality. So, what I think I saw is strongly influenced by what I think I know--I can only "see" what I already believe is there. We each see differently, because of our different life experiences--for me this is what photography celebrates.

One of the long-time goals of photographers has been to replicate, in the image, what the eye is actually seeing.

People keep on saying HDR is a way to represent the natural, higher dynamic range of human vision--what we really saw. That's all it can ever be--representational. Why can't it be a highly individualized, idiosyncratic representation of reality as captured by the camera--why does it have to have anything to do with human vision? The dynamic range of reality exceeds human sensory capabilities--why can't we try to represent that? Maybe add IR HDR to the PP arsenal?

Remember when you were just a tot learning your vocabulary? Remember the pictures that went with the nouns you learned? Cat. Dog. Boy. Blue. Red. Our vision is first standardized when we start learning language. I have made a conscious decision to un-standardlize my visioin as much as I can without endangering my safety. I think I am suspicious of HDR because it represents to me another attempt to standardize not only the way I see, but the way I PP my photography.

HDRI, in essence, is basically a tool to bring to the landscape and architectural photographer some measure of the control over light that studio photographers enjoy.
This makes a lot of sense to me, because HDR landscapes look like they were photographed bit by bit in a studio under studio lights & reassembled in the computer to make a landscape. If that's the goal--HDR achieves it grandly. I fail to understand why that would be a landscape photographer's goal, though.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. I keep clickin', trying to learn every day.

This is my idea of a tone-mapped lily.

Message edited by author 2009-11-16 21:47:30.

11/16/2009 10:07:36 PM · #17

Pixelpig,

My full quote was "Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there's an idealized, natural, human-eye way of seeing a scene that is the standard we are trying to achieve. When you stand out in the real world, looking at real-world scenes, you are able to perceive (that is, to process with your brain) a very wide tonal range. One of the long-time goals of photographers has been to replicate, in the image, what the eye is actually seeing.

I'm not saying there's only one way of seeing, or that there's only one way of using HDR, or anything of that sort. I used this statement to lead into an historical examination of how HDR imaging came into existence in the first place. That is to say, it didn't grow out of a vacuum, in fact it can trace its roots back at *least* as far as Ansel Adam's Zone System for B/W photography.

So none of what you're saying is in direct opposition to anything I was saying. IMO anyway.

In any event, "The landscape photographer's goal", or one of them anyway, is to faithfully record the complexity of detail that exists in the landscape before him, at least as far as "classic" landscape photography goes. It's not the ONLY possible approach to shooting landscapes, of course.

R.