HDR Do's and Dont for landscape

[rgs]

My opinion, FWIW which may not be much, is that there are too many unnecessary attempts at HDR. With apologies to Misrilou, I'm posting the same church in Rancho de Taos. The image is from a single exposure made with 30D. There is enough data in the image to produce detail in both the whites and the shadows.

When DR needs to be extended, I prefer Exposure Fusion with either LightRoom Enfuse or SNS-HDR. My understanding is that EF simply automates, in a very sophisticated way, the kind of blending techniques that many have been doing by hand in PS for quite some time. I find its results much more natural than HDR. EF doesn't get the attention it deserves.

About "natural". I find myself in substantial agreement with Alan. I think that shadows should not be unnaturally opened up just because we can. I generally like deep shadows as long as they are not muddy.

[Misirlou]

My opinion, FWIW which may not be much, is that there are too many unnecessary attempts at HDR. With apologies to Misrilou, I'm posting the same church in Rancho de Taos. The image is from a single exposure made with 30D. There is enough data in the image to produce detail in both the whites and the shadows.

It really depends. I was there on a day with no clouds whatsoever. And I wanted to use my Sigma DP2M (for maximum print size), which uses a proprietary raw format that can't even be opened in Lightroom, much less anything else. I used the newest exposure fusion method in Photomatx on a set of TIFFs that I got out of SPP. I tend to avoid Photomatx's garish HDR tonemap prests. In fact, that train shot was processed through exposure fusion, based on a preset called "real estate interior." Go figure.

[rgs]

There were light clouds the day I was there and the little bit of diffusion they provided certainly helped. With full sun I would probably have made a my best exposure followed by a couple of brackets in case the shadows were dark enough to be muddy.   

I have to agree about Photomattix. I have played with the demo but been unsatisfied. I have found the Real Estate preset to be the best one much of the time. With LR Enfuse, I get the blended tiff and am taken right back to LR to finish any editing I want to do. It's seamless and seems to do a good job of blending the exposures. I also like SNS-HDR which does both EF and HDR in a separate program like Photomattix but seems to work better for me.

[Misirlou]

I've never tried SNS, but I do like LR Enfuse a great deal. My main reason for having gone back to Photomatx lately is that it now has outstanding deghosting tools. The best I've ever used in fact. But for something like that church shot, LR Enfuse would have worked just as well, maybe better.

My original point was that HDR doesn't automatically mean freaky looking contrast ranges and shadows. LR Enfuse is a good tool if you want to avoid that kind of thing. And you can't beat the price.

On the other hand, there are times when the over the top stuff can be a very guilty pleasure. Even Photomatx exposure fusion can be talked into some really untoward behavior when you're feeling frisky.

[Tony Jay]

My opinion, FWIW which may not be much, is that there are too many unnecessary attempts at HDR....

You may be right.
Certainly the DR of most late-model cameras is much better than it used to be so HDR has therefore become much less necessary than it used to be.

Tony Jay

[sniper]

I get the best results using Photomatix, that said there is a learning curve to get good results.  I personally prefere a more subtle hdr, as good as Treys are, some are 'overblown' to my taste.
I also found that varying the number of stops between shots makes a huge difference, I've now settled on 2 stops as that produces the best results with my set up.

[Misirlou]

I get the best results using Photomatix, that said there is a learning curve to get good results.  I personally prefere a more subtle hdr, as good as Treys are, some are 'overblown' to my taste.
I also found that varying the number of stops between shots makes a huge difference, I've now settled on 2 stops as that produces the best results with my set up.

Yes, I agree. 2 stops seems to work much better than 1, and it's easier to shoot too.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Certainly the DR of most late-model cameras is much better than it used to be so HDR has therefore become much less necessary than it used to be.

CAPTURE
Mixing several shots to capture the entire DR of a scene has become less and less necessary since a single shot is more often enough due to low noise modern sensors. But...

TONE MAPPING
All the tone mapping techniques and tricks to map the linearly captured information onto the output devices (of limited DR) remain exactly as up to date as they always were.

So HDR programs such as the terrific Photomatix, SNS-HDR, Photoshop, any RAW developer with shadows/highlights abilities, exposure blending techniques using layers... will still make sense exactly in the same way as they used to. The only diference is that a single input file will be more often enough with high DR cameras.

Regards

[Tony Jay]

CAPTURE
Mixing several shots to capture the entire DR of a scene has become less and less necessary since a single shot is more often enough due to low noise modern sensors. But...

TONE MAPPING
All the tone mapping techniques and tricks to map the linearly captured information onto the output devices (of limited DR) remain exactly as up to date as they always were.

So HDR programs such as the terrific Photomatix, SNS-HDR, Photoshop, any RAW developer with shadows/highlights abilities, exposure blending techniques using layers... will still make sense exactly in the same way as they used to. The only diference is that a single input file will be more often enough with high DR cameras.

Regards

Nice follow-on!

Tony Jay

[plugsnpixels]

...I did a lot with HDR out west last fall and am very happy with most of the results, this may be my fave. It was taken in a slot canyon in Utah using a D600 and a Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Three shots, handheld, one at the metered exposure and then 2 stops over and 2 stops under. The original raw files were combined in HDR Expose 3 and the resulting TIFF sent to Lightroom for final tweaking.

Peter, great shot/composition, but what jumped out at me was its odd reddish color (like a faded old print). In Photoshop do a quick Auto Colors/Levels and see what I mean. That tweak would be a much better example of good HDR, which you otherwise pulled off.

Too bad about the chubby "contrail" in the sky, but they're hard to avoid these days!

[PeterAit]

Peter, great shot/composition, but what jumped out at me was its odd reddish color (like a faded old print). In Photoshop do a quick Auto Colors/Levels and see what I mean. That tweak would be a much better example of good HDR, which you otherwise pulled off.

Too bad about the chubby "contrail" in the sky, but they're hard to avoid these days!

I don't see any red in the photo other than the natural red of the rocks - is that what you mean? It is quite true to the original scene, if memory serves. The "contrail" was actually a real cloud, and IMO the photo is better with it that it would be with a uniform blue sky.

[thierrylegros396]

I shot in the same slot canyon exactly a year ago and used the Merge to 32 bit HDR Pro in PS. Worked very well giving me a lot of room to adjust sliders in ACR.

Nice picture, except perhaps the contrast of the sky, to much for me.

Have a Nice DAY.

Thierry

[plugsnpixels]

Peter, there is a definite reddish hue across the board (including in the tree leaves) that disappears upon color correction, while maintaining the natural redness of the rocks. I can post a fixed version if you'd like, though it would be easy to see yourself on your own screen.

As for the presence of clouds or whatever they are, something is better than nothing, but in this case it is too large and bright of a white area and pulls the eye right up out of the scene. The old "Ansel Adams" clouds would be better ;-). They could be stripped in easily enough if you wanted to go that route.

[maddogmurph]

Maybe the goal of that picture is not to represent reality. I believe picture making is a lot more than "just" representing reality, whatever that is 

Pictures are an illusion, photography a unique art form that takes the viewer to a place in their mind that the illusion represents to them.  I think Hans is right on, it's completely dependent on the goal.  I don't think anyone told Picasso his pictures don't represent reality.

[PeterAit]

Peter, there is a definite reddish hue across the board (including in the tree leaves) that disappears upon color correction, while maintaining the natural redness of the rocks. I can post a fixed version if you'd like, though it would be easy to see yourself on your own screen.

As for the presence of clouds or whatever they are, something is better than nothing, but in this case it is too large and bright of a white area and pulls the eye right up out of the scene. The old "Ansel Adams" clouds would be better ;-). They could be stripped in easily enough if you wanted to go that route.

Well, I do not know how to respond. I appreciate the feedback, but neither I nor any of the other people who have seen the photo have perceived any red cast. I tried the color correction you suggested and it just made the photo look pale and not like the original scene. FWIW, I use calibrated high-gamut NEC monitors. I know that different folks see things differently, but if I saw a photo one way and everyone else saw it differently, I might begin to wonder if the issue was with the photo or with me.

As for the clouds, the "eye-drawing" stuff has long ago been shown to be crap by psychologists who study where people actually look in photos and paintings (as I posted recently in another thread. Don't ask for links, look it up yourself). As for stripping in other clouds, I would no sooner do that than I would strip in Bigfoot and Elvis. The scene is what it was, for better or worse, and to add something like that is totally against the way I view photography.

[plugsnpixels]

Peter, no stress and it's not a big deal, I'm just reporting my initial reaction to the image and a color fix that would make me happy were it my image. I saw the red hue in the thumbnail before I even opened it. FWIW, I don't see the same hue in Wolfman's version.

I'm viewing with an iMac so it's not a cheap generic PC monitor. And of course I don't doubt the quality of your NEC.

[PeterAit]

Peter, no stress and it's not a big deal, I'm just reporting my initial reaction to the image and a color fix that would make me happy were it my image. I saw the red hue in the thumbnail before I even opened it. FWIW, I don't see the same hue in Wolfman's version.

I'm viewing with an iMac so it's not a cheap generic PC monitor. And of course I don't doubt the quality of your NEC.

Understood, thanks.

[Glenn NK]

How true - a few day ago on Cambridge in Colour a photo was posted asking for help with DR - the mod pointed out that the image had only seven (7) stops of DR. 

[jjj]

Peter, there is a definite reddish hue across the board (including in the tree leaves) that disappears upon color correction, while maintaining the natural redness of the rocks. I can post a fixed version if you'd like, though it would be easy to see yourself on your own screen.

No red hue here either. Is your monitor off?

[plugsnpixels]

I guess the best way to tell is by posting this comparison that everyone can view on their own monitors, if Peter doesn't mind (if he does I will delete it).

The image at left is the original; #2 is Photoshop's native Auto Color+Auto Tone; #3 is iCorrect EditLab, Smart Color mode with no further adjustments; #4 is Perfectly Clear (default settings with no further adjustments).

I have not been to this particular place but to my eye, the original image looks like it has a faded/flat red cast across it. Photoshop's version is a bit different from the last two; I don't know which reds are closer to the actual rocks but all of the corrected versions look better to my eye.