DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> HDR III
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 184, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/31/2010 03:40:17 AM · #1
HDR II
HDR
 05/31/2010 07:34:19 AM · #2
Thanks for that, does this not count for DPL either?
 05/31/2010 10:48:31 AM · #3
someone want to explain HDR in lamens terms???
 05/31/2010 11:02:34 AM · #4
Originally posted by JustCaree:
someone want to explain HDR in lamens terms???


Take a photo at more than one exposure. Typically you would do three photos at exposure, one at -2, and one at +2 (you can do as many as you want, I like to do 5 with the other two at -1 and +1). Use software to combine them into one exposure. The advantage is you can get a photo that shows good detail in the shadows and the highlights. Some people go really extreme and you can tell the photo is HDR. I prefer to stay on the more realistic side of things. This entry of mine was actually a 3 shot HDR.



Here is a tutorial on HDR if your interested: HDR Tutorial
 05/31/2010 11:29:15 AM · #5
There is always a huge amount of argument over what constitutes HDR. Some consider it HDR only if it has that "HDR look", which can also be achieved with only one exposure. (Using various tonemapping software) They will low vote anything that does not look like an HDR to them. Other consider it a technique best used with subtlety, to bring out details from shadows and highlights, but with a normal appearance. Some will low vote anything that has the obvious over-the-top cartoony look, as a misuse of the technique.

My entry in the last HDR challenge was shot when I was without an SLR and it was a merge of 3 JPG exposures from my Powershot S5. I went with the obvious HDR look, but tried not to take it too far. It did fairly well.


I personally consider it an HDR if it uses a technique of merging images, even if those multiple images are produced from the same RAW file. If it is simply tonemapped, I don't feel it is HDR, but it is often hard to tell which is which in a challenge, so I just assume it is all valid.

Go make some popcorn, sit back and watch the entertainment.

Message edited by author 2010-05-31 11:33:31.
 05/31/2010 11:49:21 AM · #6
The extreme over processed hdr shots rarely do well. Here is one of mine, while I was still learning the process. It has several issues but an example of what not to do in the very least.

05/31/2010 12:01:19 PM · #7
I think this entry from the last HDR challenge is a good example of a natural use of HDR


Though the photo itself is not a wow shot, it is an excellent example of using HDR to bring out details. A normally exposed single shot would not have been able to see all the details way into this tunnel, or the outside would be way overexposed. As you can see from the comments, some people dinged it because it did not look like their concept of HDR.

Message edited by author 2010-05-31 12:03:15.
 05/31/2010 12:11:49 PM · #8
This stuff is cool!!
 05/31/2010 12:20:34 PM · #9
That's an excellent example of sensible HDR, Mr. Spiff. This challenge will really be a tightrope walk. Some of the past winners were a bit over the top in my opinion. I get thrown under the bus for my HDR work that doesn't look half as processed as some of that. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 05/31/2010 12:26:49 PM · #10
This is an example of "HDR as it was designed to be used", HDR used to capture a natural rendition of a difficult scene:



It did not fare especially well. It was beaten by many images with heavy-handed tonemapping. That's probably the safer way to go in this challenge. This one, from the same shooting expedition, almost certainly would have fared better:



But I wanted to enter something that was "straight" HDR, because I kept getting accused of overdoing my HDR processing in the threads :-) The only reason folks think that, about me or anyone, is because they only NOTICE it's HDR if it's overcooked.

So, while I welcome this challenge, I always find these HDR challenges to be ironic, because they reward mostly exaggerated, cartoonish use of the tool. There are exceptions, of course :-)

R.


05/31/2010 12:41:32 PM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It did not fare especially well. It was beaten by many images with heavy-handed tonemapping. That's probably the safer way to go in this challenge. This one, from the same shooting expedition, almost certainly would have fared better

Hey, don't blame me! I clearly saw thee HDR usage and it got an 8 from me.
 05/31/2010 12:49:49 PM · #12
Now that I am getting into macro photography and have been wanting to try the focus stacking I am wondering what a focus stacked HDR macro photo would look like. As soon as I get my new focus rails I will have to give this idea a try.
 05/31/2010 12:56:14 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So, while I welcome this challenge, I always find these HDR challenges to be ironic, because they reward mostly exaggerated, cartoonish use of the tool. There are exceptions, of course :-)

R.


Yeah...the problem I have with the past couple of HDR challenges is the voters generally feel the need to be beaten over the head with the HDR stick. In my opinion, good HDR is like good makeup on a woman: You don't know its there. Bad HDR is where you notice the HDR "look" before you notice the rest of the image.

I'm not sure where my latest attempt falls. Its not an entirely natural look but it doesn't look overdone either (in my opinion anyways)


eta: I think hahn23's image in HDR II while not natural is also not over done. Its a bit of a tightrope act I think

Message edited by author 2010-05-31 12:57:52.
 05/31/2010 01:12:28 PM · #14
I will say (after some challenges with my HDR photography this weekend) that using a circular polarizer as you capture your several exposures can be problematic. I noticed extra streaking when I brought out the vibrance and strength in the tone mapping. Because it wasn't what I was looking for, it really didn't help me much. You can see an example of this in one of the pics that I will probably reject. It isn't cleaned up because I haven't decided what to do with it yet.

05/31/2010 02:03:56 PM · #15
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think hahn23's image in HDR II while not natural is also not over done. Its a bit of a tightrope act I think


It doesn't fall into the "overcooked" category, that's for sure. It's very nicely done. My only issue with that image isn't actually strictly an HDR issue; it bothers me that the reflection clouds are significantly brighter than the actual clouds. That doesn't happen in real life.

R.
 05/31/2010 02:07:18 PM · #16
Originally posted by asamite:
I will say (after some challenges with my HDR photography this weekend) that using a circular polarizer as you capture your several exposures can be problematic. I noticed extra streaking when I brought out the vibrance and strength in the tone mapping. Because it wasn't what I was looking for, it really didn't help me much. You can see an example of this in one of the pics that I will probably reject. It isn't cleaned up because I haven't decided what to do with it yet.



You can notice a related issue with your "Rural Church":



See the moiré pattern on the clapboards? That's totally exaggerated as a byproduct of the HDR merge; I have had that issue myself. I get around it by processing one of the RAWs just for the siding, overlaying it on top, and erasing everything but the siding. This works well also for skies that are going grainy and streaky in the HDR process.

R.
 05/31/2010 02:23:12 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You can notice a related issue with your "Rural Church":



See the moiré pattern on the clapboards? That's totally exaggerated as a byproduct of the HDR merge; I have had that issue myself. I get around it by processing one of the RAWs just for the siding, overlaying it on top, and erasing everything but the siding. This works well also for skies that are going grainy and streaky in the HDR process.

R.


Funny yyou mention that. I was going to try to tone that one down as well but posted a minimally processed one on Facebook and got several people who wanted to buy it almost because of the siding and the way it makes the picture pop. I may make another and try the technique you mentioned and see which one people like more. People are fickle and it is tough to figure out some of what will increase revenue stream!

As for HDR, I have been focusing in on it a lot lately. While a lot of my work has definately been a bit overcooked, it has mostly been playing around. As I shoot more in the coming weeks and months (and have made a resolution to focus on my art more than my real job), I will be making adjustments from the photo-realistic types of pictures to the actual photo types of pictures. Much of what I have done recently has the look of paintings more than photography.
 05/31/2010 02:36:59 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think hahn23's image in HDR II while not natural is also not over done. Its a bit of a tightrope act I think


It doesn't fall into the "overcooked" category, that's for sure. It's very nicely done. My only issue with that image isn't actually strictly an HDR issue; it bothers me that the reflection clouds are significantly brighter than the actual clouds. That doesn't happen in real life.

R.


The exact comment I got from you on one of my entries and rightfully so. It is also a bit overcooked as the banding shows but I found it hard to get all the detail, even with seven shots, with the sun int he frame and deep morning shadows.. As a side note I never noticed the difference in reflected light until you mentioned it so thanks.
05/31/2010 02:40:30 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I think hahn23's image in HDR II while not natural is also not over done. Its a bit of a tightrope act I think


It doesn't fall into the "overcooked" category, that's for sure. It's very nicely done. My only issue with that image isn't actually strictly an HDR issue; it bothers me that the reflection clouds are significantly brighter than the actual clouds. That doesn't happen in real life.

R.

Robert,

Your observation is fair. Thanks for that! I will endeavor to improve my techniques in the future. I do know why the reflection clouds were slightly brighter, in case anyone wants to know. That scene had a dynamic range of more than 12 camera stops from the brightest parts of the sky to the darkest shadows. At this stage of development, our cameras can only capture about five camera stops without losing detail in the shadows or the highlights, or both. In Colorado, with thin atmosphere and clean air (no dust or air pollution), there is little light diffusion, which leads to many high contrast situations. For this set of image captures, I utilized both 0.6 (two stops) and 0.9 (three stops) neutral density filters. This dampened the brightness of the sky, as intended, but it does leave some unintended artifacts like a brighter-than-natural water reflections. Of course, without the ND filters and HDR blending, the lake would mostly be way underexposed and the sky would be totally blown out.

So, the ND filters brought the dynamic range down to 7 camera stops between black shadows w/o detail and white highlights w/o detail. I captured bracketed images of -1, 0, and +1 for purposes of HDR blending for detail enhancement. That is the general thought process for using a combination of techniques to capture a difficult scene of much more than 5 camera stops. I think I did leave copious notes on my HDR II image. My hope was the sharing of information would assist others.

Since last Fall, PhotoMatix and Aperture have undergone several major upgrades. I strongly encourage all to install the most recent versions, as they offer better technology (64 bit compatible). I do strongly believe that RAW image captures have the file data to more effectively display shadow and highlight detail. I also believe in using ISO 100 to minimize noise in the shadows. Moving parts of the scene will always be problematic, especially animals. And, it goes without saying that a tripod mount is essential for capturing a set of images which will easily align.

Message edited by author 2010-05-31 14:53:02.
 05/31/2010 02:46:18 PM · #20
10 exposures merged so as not to blow out the sky but to capture the interesting shadows in the trees.



To me, if you can pick out the technique before actually noticing the image then the image is overcooked.

Message edited by author 2010-05-31 14:47:06.
 05/31/2010 03:05:55 PM · #21
Any suggestions for those of us with:
-no RAW capability?
-no HDR-capable software?
-no software budget?
-old/slow/wimpy computers?
 05/31/2010 03:18:17 PM · #22
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Any suggestions for those of us with:
-no RAW capability?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I did the last HDR challenge with 3 JPG's from my Powershot S5. RAW is nice to have, but not a requirement.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

-no HDR-capable software?
-no software budget?
-old/slow/wimpy computers?

Check the Freebie software thread for some free choices. If you want the freeware version of Photomatix,(which is no longer available on their site), let me know and I'll get it to you.
 05/31/2010 04:01:01 PM · #23
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Check the Freebie software thread for some free choices. If you want the freeware version of Photomatix,(which is no longer available on their site), let me know and I'll get it to you.

I do keep a watch on that thread ... know of anything specific which will run under Windows 2000, or Mac 9.2 or 10.3 on a G3 processor?
 05/31/2010 04:28:11 PM · #24
Im gonna have to do some research.... Ive never done this before... hopefully I can figure it out. I love the look of what u guys seem to say is "less processed" this outta be fun!
 05/31/2010 04:30:33 PM · #25
Not sure about the Mac, though there's not a lot of stuff that runs under OS9 anymore. 10.3 is starting to get left behind, but there is still plenty for it. I would expect most of the Windows stuff will probably run fine on Win2K. You'll probably have to check the sites linked in the thread for specifics.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/15/2025 05:28:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/15/2025 05:28:15 PM EDT.