I think this is a very legitimate use of HDR. Using it for architectural photography allows you to capture a lot of the detail without necessarily having to set up complex lighting.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Ivar, these are very nice. Can I offer a small piece of advice from an architectural photographer (and an architect). Architectural shots tend to look best with corrected verticals, unless you're shooting a skyscraper from ground level or trying to create a dynamic effect. Don't mean to preach, you were probably going to do this anyway.
Personally I use the exposure fusion method on Photomatix rather than HDR, it usually gives more natural results. Though your shots are very natural anyway.
Everything is relative, people are different, art is subjective ... otherwise we wouldn't have Republicans and Democrats. I personally try to express what I saw and for that reason I totally agree with Ron C's comments. My only goal is to overcome the restrictions of the camera capabilities. But I also do like the images that pop out and hit you right in the face as pieces of art. Stuff in this thread is pretty amazing.
Even though I struggle with Photoshop to do the blending and I haven't figured out how to avoid the dark edges, here is one of my shots some of you have seen from Toroweap, Grand Canyon. Blended 3 images.
I'm in the "don't like it" camp. I really shouldn't be as there are instances where it's been used successfully and you don't notice the effect. By that, I mean many HDR photos look way over processed. Where correctly done (in my opinion), use of HDR techniques should not be noticeable.
Architectural photographers have used the technique to successfully photograph interiors for some time. In many of those shots, you'd hardly notice the processing--the space just looks evenly lit using existing light.
I'm one of those architectural photographers. All of my interior photos are blended using Enfuse and then edited. www.davidgfisher.com If the photos have the overcooked look, it's the photographer who's to blame, not the technique.
Someone's been up in Page. Love that first one Brad. Very natural
Thanks Dan. the Horseshoe Bend one was a challenge for me. It was taken in very low pre dawn light and I was trying to bring out the details in the shadows. Many of my first tries ended up looking like a cartoon painting. This was as close as I could get to what I saw.
Great images all! Here is one of my favorites... It was taken in a old church that was incredibly dark inside with midday overcast sun outside. 5 bracketed exposures, PhotoMatix, and Lightroom. PhotoMatix tends to be a starting point since it creates rather flat images. LR was used to bump up the color and contrast.
That's a great article Schmoo. I'm very new to photography and maybe that explains why I like HDRs? Weren't many photographers resistant to the idea of Photoshop in the beginning? I see HDR as just another useful and creative tool. I see photographs that often appear much less realistic created in Photoshop.
A Recent 3 Shot HDR Done In-Camera w/basic post in Lightroom
Just got around to PP this. 3 exposures combined. Ya .... my wife is mad too that it took this long to catch up
Ack! sorry about that. I accidentally removed the original. Will repost so we all don't see a white block.
In reference to the above article...my wife likes the HDR rendition of the cactus vs the original picture. IMHO most HDR photos allow one to see texture where a regular photo may not readily portray. Being able to "reach out and grab" the shot may go miles than just looking at it. Just a thought.
Original (normal exposure minus the under and over exposed):
Recipes?
Great shots in this thread! I would love to see some of your settings in Photomatix for a more 'natural' look. Specifically:
Details Enhancer or Tone Compressor? I assume the former
Strength:
Color Saturation:
Luminosity:
Microcontrast:
Smoothing:
White Point:
Black Point:
Gamma:
Here's one of mine that came out okay
I find that most of my shots feel a bit too 'cooked' but I'm struggling with how to squeeze out a more natural HDR shot out of Photomatix.
Thanks,
E
I think Scott is on to something. I am not sure that HDR works equally well in all different forms of photography, though. Certainly not SOME portraits.
I think the reason people - non-photographers - like hdr images ( if they are not way overdone ) is that they look more like the eye can see.
What I mean is that hdr images show more detail in highlights and shadows than typical images with their more compressed grey scale. What we forget is that until recently, the vast majority of images published or displayed, did not offer this kind of detail - think of 25 ASA Kodachrome like seen in Bound for Glory, or your dad's box of positive transparencies. Now images can display significant shadow detail.
In my own Popular Photos, few HDR images make the top 20, but after that they really are far more common than the percentage ratio to normal images shot eg ~20 out of my top 112. ( Not my choices remember, but viewer's choices.) I do not shoot and post anywhere near 1 HDR for every 4 shots in my Smugmug gallery. Maybe 1 in 25 to 1 in 50 would be more accurate.
HDR images are taking over in the publishing world - look carefully at the images in Time magazine, or the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today and I think you will see what I mean. I do not mean haloed, WOW - look at me - but pictures with far more detail in the shadows than we ever used to see in magazines or newspapers - I think many of these are clearly HDR or HDR like by image processing. Or maybe by multi frame in camera processing even, it will continue to grow as well.
I think this trend will continue at we begin to see more and more of our images on LCD displays with their much larger contrast ratios than ink on paper prints, which will favor images with more detail in highlights and shadows.
I love fine art prints, but if LCD displays continue to get cheaper and lighter, I can see a day when images may be displayed on an LCD rather than paper. Some are displayed as large scale transparencies now.
For me, Photomatix just gives me a flat tiff that needs to be run through PS for final image editing. I post no images straight from Photomatix. I am interested to hear how many have a finished product from Photomatix only, without a pass through PS, LR or another image editor.
A new attempt. After reading this entire thread and posting above, I thought I would give a recent fireworks shot a try. I posted an LR-processed version earlier today but wasn't thrilled with it. Had to drop the blacks to bring out detail in the crowd. I decided to produce two tiffs in LR - One as shot, the other with +2 exposure. Brought them into Photomatix and played with the sliders as follows:
Strength: 100
Saturation 40
Luminosity -3.4
Microcontrast +2.6
Smoothing -4.3
White 0.4
Black 0.003
Gamma 1.002
Sat Highlights +4
Sat Shadows -1
Microsmoothing 5.9
Then brought the finished photo back into LR where I added contrast (+15), brightness (+10), black (+3), clarity (+20), sharpend and reduced noise.
And on a note regarding the popularity of HDR, our town just held its annual Festival of the Arts. The Best of Show went to an okay/bit too cooked (IMO) HDR shot of one street in town. I volunteered for a few hours in the photo exhibit (as two of mine were on display) and was awestruck by the attention that this shot received. I found these comments in our local paper particularly interesting:
"This year, Kipp won two awards for his two unique, color images, printed using the latest, hottest digital-camera technique in photography since Ansel Adams “speed-dried” his darkroom prints in a microwave oven." and "With this software program [Photomatix Pro], just about anyone with a camera can become a top-rate photographer."
I think Scott is on to something. I am not sure that HDR works equally well in all different forms of photography, though. Certainly not SOME portraits.
I think the reason people - non-photographers - like hdr images ( if they are not way overdone ) is that they look more like the eye can see.
What I mean is that hdr images show more detail in highlights and shadows than typical images with their more compressed grey scale. What we forget is that until recently, the vast majority of images published ordisplayed, did not offer this kind of detail - think of 25 ASA Kodachrome like seen in Bound for Glory, or your dad's box of positive transparencies. Now images can display these shadow detail.
In my own Popular Photos, few HDR images make the top 20, but after that they really are far more common than the percentage ratio to normal images shot eg ~20 out of my top 112. ( Not my choices remember, but viewer's choices.) I do not shoot and post anywhere near 1 HDR for every 4 shots in my Smugmug gallery. Maybe 1 in 25 to 1 in 50 would be more accurate.
HDR images are taking over in the publishing world - look carefully at the images in Time magazine, or the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today and I think you will see what I mean. I do not mean haloed, WOW - look at me - but pictures with far more detail in the shadows than we ever used to see in magazines or newspapers - I think many of these are clearly HDR or HDR like by image processing. Or maybe by multi frame in camera processing even, it will continue to grow as well.
I think this trend will continue at we begin to see more and more of our images on LCD displays with their much larger contrast ratios than ink on paper prints, which will favor images with more detail in highlights and shadows.
I love fine art prints, but if LCD displays continue to get cheaper and lighter, I can see a day when images may be displayed on an LCD rather than paper. Some are displayed as large scale transparencies now.
For me, Photomatix just gives me a flat tiff that needs to be run through PS for final image editing. I post no images straight from Photomatix. I am interested to hear how many have a finished product from Photomatix only, without a pass through PS, LR or another image editor.
Awesome feedback, Jim! And forgive my limited exposure to film photography (not much pun intended) but I have always envied film photographers for their amazing dynamic range. When I'm processing a photo, shadow detail is definitely what I go for. But I have yet to use "HDR" in the traditional sense to achieve that. Mostly it's personal laziness and not wanting to introduce more complexity in my workflow, but halos are definitely not required.
Awesome feedback, Jim! And forgive my limited exposure to film photography (not much pun intended) but I have always envied film photographers for their amazing dynamic range. When I'm processing a photo, shadow detail is definitely what I go for. But I have yet to use "HDR" in the traditional sense to achieve that. Mostly it's personal laziness and not wanting to introduce more complexity in my workflow, but halos are definitely not required.
Schmoo, your indoor industrial architectural decay shots are naturals for hdr type processing.
I thought Photomatix with all its bells and whistles would be very complex to learn, but the reality is I rarely move any of the sliders in Photomatix, other than the black, white and gamma sliders, which I manipulate to catch the full range of values on the histogram. All the real work is in PS still, nothing new there. I just drag the three or four RAW files from the display in LR to Photomatix, create my 16 bit tiff and drop it to my desktop on its way to Adobe Camera Raw.
That's a great article Schmoo. I'm very new to photography and maybe that explains why I like HDRs? Weren't many photographers resistant to the idea of Photoshop in the beginning? I see HDR as just another useful and creative tool. I see photographs that often appear much less realistic created in Photoshop.
A Recent 3 Shot HDR Done In-Camera w/basic post in Lightroom
In reference to the above article...my wife likes the HDR rendition of the cactus vs the original picture. IMHO most HDR photos allow one to see texture where a regular photo may not readily portray. Being able to "reach out and grab" the shot may go miles than just looking at it. Just a thought.
I tried to edit these in PhotoMatix and just couldn't get the results I wanted, and it seemed to really stomp on the detail and sharpness, like it always got the different renderings misaligned all the time or something. So I went back to doing it manually.
only HDR thread I've read where everybody seems to "get it" - and by get it, I mean shares the same opinion as me
I'm certainly on the keep-it-natural side of the fence.
I adjust it till I like it, then back it off a little...
Lots to learn yet!
It seems the process can leave a lot of clean-up to do because it brings out so much detail.
In the reflection of the plane you can see everything on the dock, including me and my tripod
Comments
I think this is a very legitimate use of HDR. Using it for architectural photography allows you to capture a lot of the detail without necessarily having to set up complex lighting.
Personally I use the exposure fusion method on Photomatix rather than HDR, it usually gives more natural results. Though your shots are very natural anyway.
Cheers
Chris
Become a fan of Chris Humphreys Photography
Even though I struggle with Photoshop to do the blending and I haven't figured out how to avoid the dark edges, here is one of my shots some of you have seen from Toroweap, Grand Canyon. Blended 3 images.
http://sgonen.smugmug.com/
I'm one of those architectural photographers. All of my interior photos are blended using Enfuse and then edited. www.davidgfisher.com If the photos have the overcooked look, it's the photographer who's to blame, not the technique.
You photo is subjectively stunning.
1.
2.
http://bgarland.smugmug.com/
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
http://bgarland.smugmug.com/
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
What They're Not Telling You About HDR Images
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
Good post Schmoo. I totally agree. Non photographers, almost universally, love HDR.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
A Recent 3 Shot HDR Done In-Camera w/basic post in Lightroom
Look lovely, but I'd brighten it up a bit.
Ack! sorry about that. I accidentally removed the original. Will repost so we all don't see a white block.
In reference to the above article...my wife likes the HDR rendition of the cactus vs the original picture. IMHO most HDR photos allow one to see texture where a regular photo may not readily portray. Being able to "reach out and grab" the shot may go miles than just looking at it. Just a thought.
Original (normal exposure minus the under and over exposed):
The Holy Trinity of Photography - Light, Color, and Gesture
Great shots in this thread! I would love to see some of your settings in Photomatix for a more 'natural' look. Specifically:
Details Enhancer or Tone Compressor? I assume the former
Strength:
Color Saturation:
Luminosity:
Microcontrast:
Smoothing:
White Point:
Black Point:
Gamma:
Here's one of mine that came out okay
I find that most of my shots feel a bit too 'cooked' but I'm struggling with how to squeeze out a more natural HDR shot out of Photomatix.
Thanks,
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I think Scott is on to something. I am not sure that HDR works equally well in all different forms of photography, though. Certainly not SOME portraits.
I think the reason people - non-photographers - like hdr images ( if they are not way overdone ) is that they look more like the eye can see.
What I mean is that hdr images show more detail in highlights and shadows than typical images with their more compressed grey scale. What we forget is that until recently, the vast majority of images published or displayed, did not offer this kind of detail - think of 25 ASA Kodachrome like seen in Bound for Glory, or your dad's box of positive transparencies. Now images can display significant shadow detail.
In my own Popular Photos, few HDR images make the top 20, but after that they really are far more common than the percentage ratio to normal images shot eg ~20 out of my top 112. ( Not my choices remember, but viewer's choices.) I do not shoot and post anywhere near 1 HDR for every 4 shots in my Smugmug gallery. Maybe 1 in 25 to 1 in 50 would be more accurate.
HDR images are taking over in the publishing world - look carefully at the images in Time magazine, or the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today and I think you will see what I mean. I do not mean haloed, WOW - look at me - but pictures with far more detail in the shadows than we ever used to see in magazines or newspapers - I think many of these are clearly HDR or HDR like by image processing. Or maybe by multi frame in camera processing even, it will continue to grow as well.
I think this trend will continue at we begin to see more and more of our images on LCD displays with their much larger contrast ratios than ink on paper prints, which will favor images with more detail in highlights and shadows.
I love fine art prints, but if LCD displays continue to get cheaper and lighter, I can see a day when images may be displayed on an LCD rather than paper. Some are displayed as large scale transparencies now.
For me, Photomatix just gives me a flat tiff that needs to be run through PS for final image editing. I post no images straight from Photomatix. I am interested to hear how many have a finished product from Photomatix only, without a pass through PS, LR or another image editor.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Strength: 100
Saturation 40
Luminosity -3.4
Microcontrast +2.6
Smoothing -4.3
White 0.4
Black 0.003
Gamma 1.002
Sat Highlights +4
Sat Shadows -1
Microsmoothing 5.9
Then brought the finished photo back into LR where I added contrast (+15), brightness (+10), black (+3), clarity (+20), sharpend and reduced noise.
HDR version:
Original (processed in LR):
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
"This year, Kipp won two awards for his two unique, color images, printed using the latest, hottest digital-camera technique in photography since Ansel Adams “speed-dried” his darkroom prints in a microwave oven." and "With this software program [Photomatix Pro], just about anyone with a camera can become a top-rate photographer."
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Awesome feedback, Jim! And forgive my limited exposure to film photography (not much pun intended) but I have always envied film photographers for their amazing dynamic range. When I'm processing a photo, shadow detail is definitely what I go for. But I have yet to use "HDR" in the traditional sense to achieve that. Mostly it's personal laziness and not wanting to introduce more complexity in my workflow, but halos are definitely not required.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
Schmoo, your indoor industrial architectural decay shots are naturals for hdr type processing.
I thought Photomatix with all its bells and whistles would be very complex to learn, but the reality is I rarely move any of the sliders in Photomatix, other than the black, white and gamma sliders, which I manipulate to catch the full range of values on the histogram. All the real work is in PS still, nothing new there. I just drag the three or four RAW files from the display in LR to Photomatix, create my 16 bit tiff and drop it to my desktop on its way to Adobe Camera Raw.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Darn that looks familiar!!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
This shot seems to be over done in my opinion. It just doesn't look real and the foliage is all blurry and distracting.
I personally prefer the original on this one. Just needs a bit of curve adjustment.<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
And a set here...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/philndingo/sets/72157624430948058/
I tried to edit these in PhotoMatix and just couldn't get the results I wanted, and it seemed to really stomp on the detail and sharpness, like it always got the different renderings misaligned all the time or something. So I went back to doing it manually.
http://www.phillipnorman.com
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
I'm certainly on the keep-it-natural side of the fence.
I adjust it till I like it, then back it off a little...
Lots to learn yet!
It seems the process can leave a lot of clean-up to do because it brings out so much detail.
In the reflection of the plane you can see everything on the dock, including me and my tripod
Learn Motorcycle Travel Photography! www.motojournalism.com
Way Out West - Canada to the Darien Gap
Follow me on Twitter
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page