The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

HDR--- Yosemite

Homey

New member
Hey guys.
Did a few HDR's from Yosemite 2 weeks ago.
Looking for some real CC on them. Too much, not enough, color tweaks?
New to the HDR idea and just playing with it. I really have no clue what I am doing with it yet.

1)


2)


3)


4) This one has some haloing that I do not like.
Anyone know how to get rid of it?




Thanks
Steven
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Hey guys.
Looking for some real CC on them
Steven,

I like the images, particularly the third one due to the framing. I miss the continuation to the in the second one; the scenery is prime subject for panoramas (but that's only me).

I have two issues:

1. Current HDR programs create an effect I don't find acceptable, namely a look of horrendeously oversharpening. The images you posted are too small to judge if this is so in these cases.

2. I do not have the impression, that the shots really needed HDR, i.e. that the dynamic range of the scenery exceeded that of the camera. However, this is not the question of impression but of fact, which could be determined only from the raw files.
 

mark1958

Member
I also have issue with HDR for this very reason of the halo artifacts that I sometimes get. I ahve been using a program called photomatix pro that does a better job than CS3. What you might try for your image is to use the select tool and select the mountains. Do a feather (try 3), and then select inverse. You can then use the eye dropper to select the color outside of the halo. Then use a brush in luminosity or darken mode and paint over the regions of the halo. What ever was selected is immune from the brush. This can work. I also suggest using layers so you can correct as you go along. I would like to know about other approaches that might be better but myself have been doing a few HDR images here and there and have had similar halos but not quite as severe as what you have posted in the one example.
 

Terry

New member
The first and second look gorgeous to me with the second being my favorite as the water color give the shot more depth. While they look quite sharp the first two don't look brittle like some oversharpened shots. The halos in the last are annoying and I am not technically proficient enough to give you any hints.
 
D

DougDolde

Guest
With Photomatix if you use the maximum light smoothing when tone mapping you can eliminate the halo effect.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I prefer a more selective approach.
Layer and align a couple of shots in PS and generate a luminance mask.
Adjust mask, dodge and burn to taste.
Here is an example



-bob
 

Homey

New member
Thanks all for the replies.
I used the Photomatix program. My buddy turned me on to it and I bought it. These are the first 4 I processed that I liked. I am trying to not get the halo's, and not the over cooked look. Its all new to me so I am playing with it and trying new things.

As for the sharpening, I have not seen that happen yet. I have noticed that there is a ton more detail and I like that. Though these did not need any sharpening in PS when they were done.

As for the HDR itself. In all 4 of them it allowed me to get the skies blue and keep the tree's and the mountains exposed well. If I had to guess they all are just a few more levels of Dynamic range not a whole lot. But enough to know I am glad I did them this way.
If I get time i'll post a few of the original images to see the difference.

I agree that these halo's suck bad and I wish they would never happen. I need to figure out how to not get them. I will try that next time Doug.

And Pano.. Yeah I hear ya with the pano's. I like em once in a while but I was struggling as it was. I forgot my plate for my head and had to jerry rig a solution for the 2 days I was there. It worked ok but not primo.. So pano's were way out of the question.

Thanks again all.
 

Homey

New member
Ok just for comparison.
Here is the original (best exposure) of photo #1.


Compared to the HDR 5 shot tone mapped version.



Do you see the difference?
 
D

DougDolde

Guest
Sure but I like the original better in this case mostly because of the tonemapping artifacts in the sky on the second.

Instead of HRD/Tonemapping you might try Exposure Blending with Photomatix. It's more natural.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
It you just want darker skys, how about just reducing the luminance of blue?
I think that it would look a whole lot more natural.
Something like this:
View attachment 5550
-bob
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Ok just for comparison.
Here is the original (best exposure) of photo #1.
Do you see the difference?
No, I don't. I seldom have difficulty to make a darker, more contrasty image from a bright one.

I see some overexposure in the clouds, there might be some on the waterfalls as well, but I am not convinced, that this was a factual overexposure (saturation of pixels).

Have you shot it in raw? If yes, converted with which raw processor?
 
Last edited:

BradleyGibson

New member
Hmmm...

I often see a lot of photos labeled HDR which are really gaining most of their punch not from the extended dynamic range (and tonemapping thereof), but from heavy saturation, and strong edge transitions.

Just for a comparison, I adjusted your SDR image to look like the HDR Photomatix produced. It's not exact--I only spent a few minutes on it, but I think you can see they're in the same neighbourhood.



I did have to manually dodge the tree a bit to lighten it up, but everything else was done with color range selection, levels, saturation and a touch of sharpening. With a bit more time, I could burn down the cloud, bring up the tree some more and add a bit more colour in the rocks to make the images even closer.

I hope you're not going through *too* much effort to make these composite images, as your single shot captures contain enough information for you to achieve this look!

Bob's technique is also very effective, even with a single raw shot, developed at two different exposures. The single shot allows you to capture a wider variety of subject matter.

By the way, I love your shot #3! Very nice.

Best regards,
-Brad
 

Homey

New member
Hey all.
Thanks again for the replies.
To me I like the deep Blue skies and the richness of the greens. I am Velvia type of guy.
Like I said to the HDR process adds a lot of detail.

Since I have gotten such good responses and a few on here are willing to show me other ways to get the most out of my images. I decided to post some up as full res versions so all can look and see what I am looking at here.
Also if you have time and want to play with them then feel free to do so and post the result with how you got what you got.

Here is the full res Jpeg. Sorry the 16 bit tiff was so large I decided not to post it.
http://bonnauphotography.net/Yosemite08web/fulres/_G4F7540.jpg

As for these other 2. They are the RAw files. 7543 was the one I posted above and 7544 is 1 stop darker.
Use the parent directory to Down load them to your PC.
http://bonnauphotography.net/Yosemite08web/fulres/

Have fun and please excuse my dusty sensor.
 

Homey

New member
No, I don't. I seldom have difficulty to make a darker, more contrasty image from a bright one.

I see some overexposure in the clouds, there might be some on the waterfalls as well, but I am not convinced, that this was a factual overexposure (saturation of pixels).

Have you shot it in raw? If yes, converted with which raw processor?
Yes I shot it raw + large Jpeg. I used the jpegs in the HDR program.
The original I posted is just that large jpeg and no raw conversion done to any of the raw files.
Does Photomatix work on Raw Files?

Brad.
Nicely done. A little rain in the clouds like I saw when I was there and its a winner.
Thanks for the tips.

Thanks to everyone else too for the tips. and please cut me some slack I am a sports shooter you know. This kind of work is just a passion of mine.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Hey all.
Thanks again for the replies.
To me I like the deep Blue skies and the richness of the greens. I am Velvia type of guy.
Like I said to the HDR process adds a lot of detail.
Just to clarify, the HDR process and Velvia are at opposite ends of the spectrum, not the same. HDR seeks to INCREASE dynamic range beyond what a typical digital sensor can hold, say normally 8 or more stops for the regular digital sensor, then add in 2 to 4 more for the HDR blend, for a total of 10 or 12 stops of DR.

By contrast, Velvia can hold about 4-1/2 stops total on a good day.

Cheers,
 

Homey

New member
Just to clarify, the HDR process and Velvia are at opposite ends of the spectrum, not the same. HDR seeks to INCREASE dynamic range beyond what a typical digital sensor can hold, say normally 8 or more stops for the regular digital sensor, then add in 2 to 4 more for the HDR blend, for a total of 10 or 12 stops of DR.

By contrast, Velvia can hold about 4-1/2 stops total on a good day.

Cheers,
Really? wow thats interesting. If you would asked me to guess I would have said 7.
What is the Dynamic range of other films like some popular Kodak's or Some good Illford B&W film?

To clarify my statement about Velvia. I was speaking only of colors and saturation, not of DR. Sorry for the confusion.
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
As for these other 2. They are the RAw files. 7543 was the one I posted above and 7544 is 1 stop darker
This is the proof, that you did not need HDR. The first shot (the one with the higher exposure) is perfect. See the histogram: about 3500 green pixels clipped, 0.0425% of all green pixels, it is unnoticable; it was not easy to spot those pixels at all.

The other, darker shot did not contribute to anything. If anything, then a higher exposed shot could be used to lighten up the tree trunk.

Btw, using ISO 50 with this camera is detrimental to the quality: it reduces the number of levels to 3100. I think it reduces the dynamic range as well by some degree, but I am not sure of that.



Have fun and please excuse my dusty sensor.
Well, ask the image for forgivenes :)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Really? wow thats interesting. If you would asked me to guess I would have said 7.
What is the Dynamic range of other films like some popular Kodak's or Some good Illford B&W film?

To clarify my statement about Velvia. I was speaking only of colors and saturation, not of DR. Sorry for the confusion.
As for latitude in films, most color neg emulsions are somewhere around 6 stops. B&W emulsions can range from 6 to over 10. Even an entry level DSLR will probably do 8 stops of DR depending on the amount of noise you'll let slide, and a pro level camera like your 1Ds2 is probably closer to 9-1/2. (And yes, ISO 50 kills that by at about a stop, so best to stick to 100 and up.)

As far as liking Velvia for its color and saturation and NOT latitude, I understand :)
 

Homey

New member
Nice. Thanks Gabor.
I shot 5 shots of the same scene for the HDR. The image you said was perfect. I had 2 darker and 2 lighter than that one.
The PhotoBola program..
Is that a stand alone program or a plug in?

I am asking the image for much more forgiveness than just dust on my sensor. LOL.

Thanks for the tip on ISO 50 too. I will never use it again.

Jack. I'll keep my eyes open but let me know the next time your running a Photoshop workshop.
 
Top