mattharrisuk:

Plus using a ND filter with HDR can give really moody, dramatic skys in my experience.

Matt.

So it does....good shots.

---

BPITW won 7 times.

My Flickr gallery

mattharrisuk:

blandfordp:

Matt,

 

So many HDR shots lack contrast. Yours are the opposite, I really like them. What method do you use for HDR? Photomatix or PS, one RAW or more?

Thank you mate.
I use Photomatix Pro, merged from normally 7-9 bracketed RAW files straight from my D200. Main reason I bought the camera was its 9 shot bracket feature.
Merge the RAW's into a .HDR or .EXR file and tonemap the HDR composite in Photomatix, save it as a 16bit TIF and balace the levels and boost the contrast in CS3.
Sometimes a few more minor adjustments like colour cast removal and white neutralization with Nik Filters on account of not so neutral ND filters.
Its pretty time consuming and takes alot of PC memory and HDD space, but I think its worth it in the end.

Matt.

So the idea is that with 7 or 9 different exposures you have various parts of the picture properly exposed. You then blend these elements together to get HDR, right? What I don't understand is if you have 7 different shots, things will have moved between pictures, especially things like water. So why isn't the result blurred or confused?

---

My DCM Gallery

Guy Roberts:

mattharrisuk:

blandfordp:

Matt,

 

So many HDR shots lack contrast. Yours are the opposite, I really like them. What method do you use for HDR? Photomatix or PS, one RAW or more?

Thank you mate.
I use Photomatix Pro, merged from normally 7-9 bracketed RAW files straight from my D200. Main reason I bought the camera was its 9 shot bracket feature.
Merge the RAW's into a .HDR or .EXR file and tonemap the HDR composite in Photomatix, save it as a 16bit TIF and balace the levels and boost the contrast in CS3.
Sometimes a few more minor adjustments like colour cast removal and white neutralization with Nik Filters on account of not so neutral ND filters.
Its pretty time consuming and takes alot of PC memory and HDD space, but I think its worth it in the end.

Matt.

So the idea is that with 7 or 9 different exposures you have various parts of the picture properly exposed. You then blend these elements together to get HDR, right? What I don't understand is if you have 7 different shots, things will have moved between pictures, especially things like water. So why isn't the result blurred or confused?

Movement is the biggest challenge with HDR.

The theory, is that you take a exposure reading, normally a spot reading, from like the sky, foreground, and middle, take a shot of all 3, then you can mask and expose certain parts in photoshop.
Then some genius came up with the idea of software that merged all of the exposures, taking averages from all of the shots, so that the over exposed shots showed the detail in dark or shadowy parts, the under exposed showed the blown out detail in the highlights, and the normal exposure showed it as the original.
It started with people using 3 shots, 1ev under, metered, 1ev over. Then people started trying more shots, so in therory, you can use as many shots as you like. I've seen a HDR photo using 52 manually exposed images of water breaking against rocks.
So basically, the more exposures you shoot, the more light detail will be recorded from the shadows and highlights, and thus, there will be a broader spectrum of tones, colours and detail.
But the problem is movement between frames.
Photoshop just takes the photos, sticks them together, and thats that.
Photomatix takes the shots, you can alter the white balance, the colour space, and they have a feature thats meant to reduce the ghosting between exposures from movement. the software does an okay job of recuding it, but its not fool proof, but apparently they're looking for someone to enhance the processor in the software that handles that, so hopefully the ghosting will be fixed soon. All you really do now is touch up and clone out the ghosting issues in photoshop, which takes time, but its not that bad. Personally, I leave the feature off, and let the motion blur show up, like I have with the water shots, and you can see it in some of my landscapes with foilage.
I'll try to put some examples of it all up soon.

So in conclusion.
The more shots, the better tonal range and a higher dynamic range, hence the name.

I hope thats cleared it up a bit.
I think thats all about right.

Matt.

---

The all new Matt Harris Photography
DCM Gallery

could have done with that advice for this shot, taken from my archives for people to look at

great work btw matt and fantastic explanation of HDR expect to see lots of hdr shots on here soon

---

TBPITW 7 times

Good shot Andy. Really like it.

---

BPITW won 7 times.

My Flickr gallery

Crackin' shot there Andy.
I love the layered effect you've given with the outcrops and road winding through.
The moody sky just tops it off.


Heres a quick example of the difference between a HDRi and a normally processed RAW.

Standard RAW.


HDRi from 7 RAW files.


The files have been roughly processed, but you can blatantly see the difference in tonal and dynamic range.
Hope this clears things up a bit more.
If you wanna know anything else about HDR, drop me a line, and I'll try to help.

Matt.

---

The all new Matt Harris Photography
DCM Gallery

Matt, i have been messing about with HDR for a little while now using Photomatix, my results have been varied. Is there a minimum amount of shots and a maximum amount of shots that would be optimal ?

I have been using the auto bracket function on my 400D and getting 3 shots and then combining them and then tone mapping. I have noticed that shooting at different times of day can vary results, is this what you find ? drop a pm if its easier

Regards

Dave

Okay, I havent seen much on HDR photography on the forums, admittedly, I havent looked very hard, but, if people are interested, I might start a thread for it, sharing tips and tricks, and just share my, and your, if you shoot HDR, general experience.
Would anybody be interested in that?

Matt.

---

The all new Matt Harris Photography
DCM Gallery

I've done a few as well. Here's a recent outdors one, taken like David's ie auto bracketing 1 stop either way



Photomatix apparently recommend that you take your shots 2 stops apart. That means for us amateurs with relatively simple cameras doing it manually. Here's one I did a while ago



You'll notice its indoors. That means you've got all the time in the world to set your shutter speeds etc. I tried to do the same thing ie manual shots outside 2 stops apart but in between shots the clouds moved so it looked stupid.

Matt, if you've got a way round this problem I'd love to hear it. Your results suggest that you do.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

veggiesosage:

Matt, if you've got a way round this problem I'd love to hear it. Your results suggest that you do.

Thats happened to me a few times. I've got a shot here which has that problem, luckily for me, the shots merged quite nicely into a motion blur sort of effect.
Photomatix does recommend a 2 stop gap between exposures, but I've found that a 1 stop gap can work just as well, with not much difference, where they're both quite small gaps.

I explained to David in a PM that I started using a D70, which had the same problem, only 3 shot brackets @ 1ev apart. What you can do, is in the settings menu, change the EV step setting to 1ev instead of 1/3, which i think is the default for most manufacturers, then in manual, quickly change it twice, so you get a 2 stop change each time.

Hope that helps a bit.
Matt.

---

The all new Matt Harris Photography
DCM Gallery

mattharrisuk:

Okay, I havent seen much on HDR photography on the forums, admittedly, I havent looked very hard, but, if people are interested, I might start a thread for it, sharing tips and tricks, and just share my, and your, if you shoot HDR, general experience.
Would anybody be interested in that?

Matt.

Sounds good to me. You've been really helpful here...I'd never heard of the software you use until you mentioned it. A thread on it would be really good. I do HDR but just using layers and masks.

---

BPITW won 7 times.

My Flickr gallery

yeah thats a realy good idea Matt. i have been messing with HRD latly and a thread would make good reading about it.

---

Isn't "HDR" just another name for "RAW cannot capture all the data"?

Uh oh... look out... Gil's on the horizon, with a "Too much talking" armed and ready.

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

Boltondave:

Isn't "HDR" just another name for "RAW cannot capture all the data"? .

Yeah, thats it in a nutshell really.
RAW's good, but, it aint THAT good. It captures alot of data, but the noise can be a problem in the shaded areas.
Hence why I choose HDR.
Which sounds like a detergent advert.

Anyways. All those in favour of a HDR Tips and Tricks thread?

Matt.

---

The all new Matt Harris Photography
DCM Gallery

mattharrisuk:

Anyways. All those in favour of a HDR Tips and Tricks thread?

Matt.

You don't need our permission

And my whites come up great with HDR (sorry)

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr