Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on October 06, 2009, 11:18:07 am
-
Not all HDR is as bad as some always claim it is.
[attachment=16998:Palatlakaha_2.jpg] [attachment=16996:Oaks.jpg] [attachment=16999:Pear_Park_III.jpg]
But some is...
[attachment=16997:Palatlakaha_4.jpg]
-
Not all bad, but mostly. But in the hands of an artist, it can be a very effective tool that enhances rather than detracts from the work. In your examples, Russ, you used it to great effect. The first two are especially fine. Beautiful work.
-
Not all bad, but mostly. But in the hands of an artist, it can be a very effective tool that enhances rather than detracts from the work. In your examples, Russ, you used it to great effect. The first two are especially fine. Beautiful work.
I agree, it can be effective. In the last image, it is clearly noticeable, as you can see the glow, which is similar to bright overcast light, but almost 3D. I do like the second image, as it brings out the strands while retaining the light and details in the shadow areas.
JMR
-
Not all HDR is as bad as some always claim it is.
[attachment=16998:Palatlakaha_2.jpg]
I love this one, Russ. But did it really need HDR?
Jeremy
-
The secret, I think, is that the result must look plausible -- "It could have looked that way to my eyes looking at the scene."
For me these are all lovely, and believable; the last one is slightly less so IMHO.
Nice demonstration.
Eric
-
Here's one I think works ...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3765943384_fd878c68e3_o.jpg)
-
I agree Jeremy. Nice work. Great color.
-
Here's one I think works ...
And it does indeed. It looks very natural. Maybe I am still on vacation and don't realize it! The yellow greens, in particular, are the way I remember most of the foliage in the forest.
JMR
-
Maybe I've got this wrong (quite likely, so feel free to ignore me), but I thought HDR images were about extending the dynamic range in the image. Could someone please point out where the extended dynamic range is, 'cos I can't see it? Sorry.
-
Maybe I've got this wrong (quite likely, so feel free to ignore me), but I thought HDR images were about extending the dynamic range in the image. Could someone please point out where the extended dynamic range is, 'cos I can't see it? Sorry.
Bill, Jeremy asked if the first image needed HDR. I'm going to see if I have a straight shot of this same scene of the Palatlakaha river in Florida. I've shot dozens of them from this vantage point, so I probably can find one. If so I'll post it so you can see the difference.
By the way, Jeremy P., I like the shot you put up but it has the same problem my fourth one has: it looks over-sharpened. I doubt either of them actually is, but sometimes that's just the way HDR ends up.
-
I couldn't find a shot close enough to the one I posted to illustrate the difference. I was hoping I could find the original 9 frames from the shoot and use the middle exposure. Unfortunately, I'm afraid they're down in Florida on a DVD. But here are two shots of the same stretch of river in the fog. The first is straight. The second is HDR. There's no doubt the HDR version handles the dynamic range better, though there's not really all that much DR in these fog shots. I think the big difference is in the extra local contrast HDR can give you.
[attachment=17000:Feb_04_2008_02.jpg] [attachment=17001:Palatlakaha_3.jpg]
-
I couldn't find a shot close enough to the one I posted to illustrate the difference. I was hoping I could find the original 9 frames from the shoot and use the middle exposure. Unfortunately, I'm afraid they're down in Florida on a DVD. But here are two shots of the same stretch of river in the fog. The first is straight. The second is HDR. There's no doubt the HDR version handles the dynamic range better, though there's not really all that much DR in these fog shots. I think the big difference is in the extra local contrast HDR can give you.
[attachment=17000:Feb_04_2008_02.jpg] [attachment=17001:Palatlakaha_3.jpg]
I prefer your non-HDR ones, especially #2. The earlier HDR images you posted, while they certainly look "nice" (apart from the last one), just don't feel right.
-
I prefer your non-HDR ones, especially #2. The earlier HDR images you posted, while they certainly look "nice" (apart from the last one), just don't feel right.
Ed, All of the four I first posted were HDR. Of the last two, the second is HDR.
I'm convinced that if HDR is done properly, unless you're a photographer who's done HDR, you'll never know that what you're looking at is HDR. In the right place, HDR can be very useful. On the other hand, it's a trompe l'oeil technique that tricks the eye with its enhanced local contrast. Photographers tend to get carried away with it.
Here's the ultimate HDR. There's no way in the world to handle the dynamic range in this picture without HDR. On the other hand, who needs to handle the dynamic range in this picture with any technique?
[attachment=17002:Center_Hill_Privy.jpg]
-
I take the opportunity two show two hdrs by myself. These are from some time ago, and I must admit, also pretty much my only serious ones. Currenty I just dont bother with hdr.
The first in three variations, two b/w and one color - and the second only in color.
-
Russ of the four original shots you posted up top, the first two are very well-done and entirely believable. I might have guessed that the first one was HDR if you hadn't told me, not because it doesn't look natural but just because I know getting such nice shadow tones and local contrast would be difficult in a single exposure. The second shot, I wouldn't even have guessed it.
The last two have that "HDR" look that I don't like. It comes from too much local contrast and an unrealistic tonal distribution. This is espcially true in #3 where there's just way to much local contrast giving it that crunchy, digital, over-processed look. It's also not very realistic that the shadow areas of the foreground are so bright relative to the sky.
The last shot has the same problem, as well as what I call photomatix-sky syndrome, which is uneven color/tone in the sky along with halos where the sky meets the treeline. The relection is also too bright.
If you're using Photomatix Pro with, here are my tips for natural-looking results:
- Don't crank the 'Stength' slider to 100, usually something in the 50-75 range will be plenty.
- Go easy on the luminosity and micro-contrast sliders
- Do crank up the Light Smoothing slider, maybe not to 100% but generally speaking the higher you go with this slider, the more realistic the results will be.
- Black/White sliders should usually be somewhere in the 0.1-.02 range.
- The shadow/highlight smoothing sliders are also useful for local 'hotspots' that have gotten ugly.
-
I like your second the most, Russ- those light and dark verticals really look good.
Jeremy, I quite like your shot as well- wonderful contrasts.
John
Edit reason: redundant modifier
-
I have a sort of binary approach to HDR. When I want that wild HDR look, I use Photomatx. When I want the shot to look natural, I use LR/Enfuse. I can't get either tool to do both things well.
-
I have a sort of binary approach to HDR. When I want that wild HDR look, I use Photomatx. When I want the shot to look natural, I use LR/Enfuse. I can't get either tool to do both things well.
My experience is different. After testing around I finally sticked with Photomatix, and that gives at least with some balancing also (for my taste) quite natural results.
And regarding the first images from Russ, I clearly like the second most.
Cheers,
Christian
-
Russ of the four original shots you posted up top, the first two are very well-done and entirely believable. I might have guessed that the first one was HDR if you hadn't told me, not because it doesn't look natural but just because I know getting such nice shadow tones and local contrast would be difficult in a single exposure. The second shot, I wouldn't even have guessed it.
The last two have that "HDR" look that I don't like. It comes from too much local contrast and an unrealistic tonal distribution. This is espcially true in #3 where there's just way to much local contrast giving it that crunchy, digital, over-processed look. It's also not very realistic that the shadow areas of the foreground are so bright relative to the sky.
The last shot has the same problem, as well as what I call photomatix-sky syndrome, which is uneven color/tone in the sky along with halos where the sky meets the treeline. The relection is also too bright.
Jeff, I think you're right. I should have shoved the third shot in the original post down into the "not so hot" group. I don't know why, but there's something about that shot, though, that I like. Maybe it's because I remember how swampy the low part of that field is. You're right about the relationship between the foreground and sky. The area is very shaded and there isn't much real brightness in the foreground.
I rarely do HDR, but when I do I sometimes use Photomatix and sometimes use the tools in Photoshop CS4. Everything I posted in this thread was from early this year while I was still in Florida. Here's one of the first HDRs I made. It's made with Exposure Blending in Photomatix. For some situations that seems to be a pretty good alternative:
[attachment=17010:Living_Room.jpg]
-
I love this one, Russ. But did it really need HDR?
Jeremy
My very thoughts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, it is possible to get pretty natural results, but I am 99% sure that a single capture of the same scene with an efficient usage of shadow recovery tool would be very hard to distinguish from your images.
Here is one example where the dynamic range was really large (I did bracket 6 stops), it was key to keep enough detail in the sky and distant mountain range since it is the very theme of the image.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/3957326012_0306d101b9_o.jpg)
Done with PTgui enfuse algo.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While if you work at it, you can get natural looking results from Photomatix (the source of most of the garish HDR's that grate on some folks' nerves like salt on an open wound) I find it easier to get natural looking results from Enfuse (as Bernard notes above) I use the Lightroom enfuse plug in, but often a simply mask with 2 images will be enough. Finally I agree that with the tools available today and high bit depth raw capture you can dig an amazing amount of detail from a scene that you think would require bracketing.
-
My very thoughts.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, Jeremy, I'm really sorry I can't find a comparable single shot to show you the difference. This is Florida in fairly bright sun, and the sun is coming from above the trees on the right. Without HDR the reflections of the clouds in the water are nearly impossible to preserve, and detail in the shore at the right gets lost. Bernard suggests an "efficient use of the shadow recovery tool" might do as well as HDR. Yes, you can come a fairly long way up with a shadow recovery tool like Shadows/Highlights in Photoshop, or by selecting areas as layers and using "screen" blending, provided you start with a properly exposed raw file, preferably at 14 bit color depth and Adobe RGB. But noise is the tradeoff. If you try to bring up the details in the right shore using a technique like that you soon reach the point where noise breaks things down.
None of which is to say that the single exposure of the same scene isn't good. I'd accept it immediately if I hadn't seen what HDR would do with the same scene. This one, and several others like it were test shoots I was doing when I first started playing with HDR. I've had a lot of fun with HDR, but, of course, it's useless for my favorite work, which is street shooting.
Here's another one from about a half mile up the river from the spot in #1. I've shown it before, but I show it again because it's another example of a picture I've shot a couple dozen times, coming back in the morning at the same hour each time I shot it. The HDR is far superior to any single shot I was able to get with my D3.
[attachment=17030:Morning_...atlakaha.jpg]
-
These are excellent examples of HDR, both when it enhances a photograph and when it detracts. HDR is a special effect, and like any special effect it's easy to go overboard with it. HDR is best used sparingly and only in shots that really need it. It's all too easy for HDR to make a scene look artificial and just plain weird, as in the last example.
The first two shots are absolutely gorgeous. The last one looks like a badly hand-tinted black and white photograph.
-
Pop, You're right. But there are a few situations where there's no hope of anything worthwhile without HDR. Here's one I've posted before, but I think it belongs here in a discussion of HDR. This is Thomas Edison's lab in southern Florida. It's an HDR made from 9 exposures, hand-held with a D3 and a VR lens -- but I was able to brace my elbows on a railing while I shot. I got lucky with the sunbeam. It was there just long enough for me to shoot; then the sun disappeared and never came back the rest of my stay. None of the individual exposures is usable alone.
[attachment=17077:Edison_Lab.jpg]
-
Pop, You're right. But there are a few situations where there's no hope of anything worthwhile without HDR. Here's one I've posted before, but I think it belongs here in a discussion of HDR. This is Thomas Edison's lab in southern Florida. It's an HDR made from 9 exposures, hand-held with a D3 and a VR lens -- but I was able to brace my elbows on a railing while I shot. I got lucky with the sunbeam. It was there just long enough for me to shoot; then the sun disappeared and never came back the rest of my stay. None of the individual exposures is usable alone.
[attachment=17077:Edison_Lab.jpg]
Another terrific shot! Clearly, there are times when HDR is called for, and this was one of them. You obviously know when and when not to use it. Not that many people do. BTW, a 9-exposure HDR HANDHELD is pretty effing incredible, dude--even with VR.
-
... BTW, a 9-exposure HDR HANDHELD is pretty effing incredible, dude--even with VR.
I do this frequently, although not often with 9 exposures. CS4's "Auto Align Layers" makes it possible. You do lose a little due to cropping, but in situations where a tripod isn't possible, it works wonders.
-
Well, I was impressed for a while.
-
Pop, The other thing that helps is that I keep the D3 set up to run through 9 bracketed exposures from 4 stops under to 4 stops over in burst mode. When I do that I'm not framing and pressing the release on each shot. The D3's burst is very fast, though it slows toward the overexposure part of the sequence since you have to keep aperture and ISO constant and vary shutter speed for the bracketing. All in all, it's not as incredible as it sounds, and as Peter points out the post-processing software helps a lot. Photomatix does an even faster job of registering the frames than does CS4.