HDR Photography

[webandgraphicsguy Profile Private message]

I am curious if any of you out there have done very much HDR Photography, and worked with Photomatix?
Joe

[CaptH Profile Private message]

My 2 cents worth is probably worth just about that much. I've compared the outputs from Photomatix, Dynamic Photo and Topaz. For me, I'll take Topaz. For me to set up and have to take 3 different photos to get a certain result, when I can use Topaz and "ONE" photo, and get very similar results is less trouble.
If you are curious like most photographers, I'm sure you will try more than one program.
I just didn't see that much difference. I'm sure there are instances where taking 3 different photos
will give a greater output, but I haven't came across it yet.

Enjoy photography and whatever one you decide

EH

[dnmilikan]

I use Photomatix and enjoy it's capabilities. This program does have two general ways of mapping the output and sometimes users don't understand that and do arrive at some pretty garish results. The program does have a learning curve. I believe that the matter of single or multiple exposures does depend in large part on the luminance range of the subject. If, on the one hand, a subject does not exceed the capabilities of the camera sensor than one exposure will probably be very nearly equal to a multiple exposure. If, on the other hand an extreme luminance range (exceeding the sensors capture characteristics) is encountered then a single exposure will not suffice...highlight clipping with a single exposure can never be regained in that instance.

These programs are tools...nothing more and nothing less. The results still come back to the photographer and his/her capabilities in utilizing them.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

[Alan Profile Private message]

Rather than taking a bracketed shot....would you get the same result in Photoshop by processing one RAW image two stops up and two stops down?

[dnmilikan]

Rather than taking a bracketed shot....would you get the same result in Photoshop by processing one RAW image two stops up and two stops down?

Alan,

Doing the bracketing in camera raw will work in some cases and fail in other cases. Digital cameras are generally recognized as having the exposure latitude of transparency film (appr. five stops). If we were to take a subject having an exposure latitude of four stops and we captured the full four stops with a digital camera then we could expand this range to eight stops by giving two stops more and two stops less exposure in camera raw. This could then be tonemapped back to a luminance range consistant with the display mechanism that this image will be viewed on or in.

If, taking another example, we had a subject consisting of seven stops luminance (a typically subject brighteness range) than we will have a situation in which either the highlights will be clipped (one to two stops overexposure) or we will have the same occuring on the shadow end of the scale. Highlights once clipped will not respond to any burning or dodging attempts since the information will be lumped onto an end of the sensor's characteristic curve. This compression will not respond to later attempts to decompress it.

Taking this example (scene brightness range of seven stops) if we give the subject three exposures. One being two stops over, one at the camera meter determined exposure, and one two stops under the recommended exposure. This can then be combined into a HDR program and extracted as an eleven stop exposure range which will then be tone mapped to a scale that is viewable on existing display means. In this case we have gathered all of the information available at exposure and this will be a totally different result than manipulating a single exposure in post processing.

I want to mention something that is vitally important in HDR photography. That is in order to have the best results from HDR we must know what the SBR (scene brightness range) of the subject is and to not blindly rely on two stops under, normal, and two stops over. One must know how to properly expose the subject and the way to do that is to determine the SBR of the subject. The way to arrive at the subject brightness range one must meter the shadows as well as the highlights.

If we had an EV of 3 in the shadows and an EV of 13 in our highlights we would arrive at a value of 10 when we subtract our shadows from our highlights. This would involve ten stops of exposure to capture all of the information that is inherent in the subject. If we exposed only one exposure and attempted to give additional exposure in camera raw, we would find that we would have clipped highlights no matter what we did. If we, in this case gave three exposure of -2, N, and +2 we sitll would not have the optimal result using a HDR program. We would be best served to give this exposure as -3, N, and +3.

For those who are just beginning this process it is equally important to note that in the multiple exposure regimen of HDR photography to always make exposure adjustments with shutter speed since to adjust the aperture would lead to noticeable demarcations in depth of field in each of the exposures.

I realise that I have strayed from your original question but felt it important to address all of the factors involved.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

[Alan Profile Private message]

Many thanks Donald for taking the time to provide a detailed response. I appreciate that little is straightforward in photography hence the magic of the form.

Best wishes
Alan
Downunder

[PhilipWeir Profile Private message]

Donald, you may have strayed a little off topic but, as a beginner to HDR, I really appreciated the details. Many thanks.

Photomatix was a software recommendation for HDR of Prictical Photography in the UK a while back. I was just about to try it out when I found that PTGui, which I already own, claimed to have an HDR processing feature which I have tried. Unfortunately I've not had much luck but that is more than likely due to my own lack of skills rather than the software. I've also noticed that Paint Pro XII also claims to process HDR images. I've not tried it myself as it means upgrading from XI to XII. Not something I want to do just at the moment.

Regards, Philip

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

While there is software out there that does give the look of HDR (and does give an expanded tonal range to a degree), as Don points out, we are dealing with digital data. If the pixel is either saturated (255) or black (0), you can't extract any extra data from it. Anything less than "0" (dark) is simply not there and there is no way to extract that data. You have to take multiple exposures to be able to get values that cover the full range. Digital is very clear on not being able to get "blacker than black" or "whiter than white". The data just ain't there

mikey

[Frankie Profile Private message]

Joe,
I haven't checked this out yet but am very tempted to order it. Matt Kloskowski from the National Association of Photoshop Professionals is offering a training DVD on HDR and Photomatix. It covers the best camera settings and then how to use the Photomatix program to create two different HDR styles, a natural style and a fantasy/surreal style. It's available at KelbyTraining.com. As I said, I haven't checked it out yet but it looks interesting. I use Photomatix and like it much better than what Photoshop CS4 can do. I also have PTgui. Although I haven't reached the top of the learning curve on that program yet, I also find the HDR conversion falling short of what Photomatix can produce.

Frankie

[m.c.rude Profile Private message]

If the pixel is either saturated (255) or black (0), you can't extract any extra data from it. Anything less than "0" (dark) is simply not there and there is no way to extract that data. You have to take multiple exposures to be able to get values that cover the full range. Digital is very clear on not being able to get "blacker than black" or "whiter than white". The data just ain't there

In 8 or 16 bit pictures the information is defined in a number between 0 and 255. However in 32 bit pictures (or video) the information that is able to be seen is defined as being between 0 (black) and 1 ( white). The information for each picture can actually exceed the displayed value. A highlight can actually have a value of 1.5 or 2. This is useful because it keeps the white value white even if you lower the brightness of the image. The same applies in inverse for darker information. The HDR software you guys are talking about simply takes the extended information and allows you to map it to the visible range of 8 and 16 bit. More advanced software in video and 3D actually keeps the extended information and uses it.

For me, I'll take Topaz. For me to set up and have to take 3 different photos to get a certain result, when I can use Topaz and "ONE" photo, and get very similar results is less trouble.
If you are curious like most photographers, I'm sure you will try more than one program.
I just didn't see that much difference. I'm sure there are instances where taking 3 different photos
will give a greater output, but I haven't came across it yet.

Topaz Adjust is basically the same thing as the Photoshop Shadow/Highlight adjustment. A bit more artsy, but basically the same. It in no way gives you more information in the image. The same applies to digitally changing the exposure on a single image to create 3 images for an HDR image. If the information is not there....it is not there. I am not really a big fan of the surreal image; so I find the Photoshop adjustments faster and easier to use than Topaz adjust. There is another advantage. I do not have to pay for it since they come with Photoshop essentially making them free (which Topaz is not). Either method does not come close to giving the exposure that a properly created HDR image will provide; they simply bring out the details that already exist.

Since your images are being used for a 8 or 16 bit slideshow, it really does not matter what program you use. If you like what you are working with then use it. I personally use Photomatix and a proper exposure bracket to get tone mapped images for personal use. It is fast and easy to use. You can get pictures with a full exposure, or the artsy pictures that so many people are leaning to now days.

If you need the information that a true HDR picture contains then you will need a program like Photomatix to create it. You just have to remember that on an 8 or 16 bit device like your monitor, that the pictures will look bland until they are tone mapped out of their 32 bit state.

[dksledd Profile Private message]

Just one more thought -
I use Photomatix 99% of the time which works great. There is, however, another program and that is Picturenaught. This program works very well with a lot less functions. It is also Free!
Dick

[dnmilikan]

For those who enjoy reading, there is a pretty decent article on HDR in Photoshop User magazine this month.

[Mike Conley]

I have used PS, Topaz and Photomatix to create HDR images and prefer Photomatix from the three. Easy to use and it does a great job. You can check out my HDR work here: http://www.mikeconleyphotography.com Click portfolio than landscapes. There may be another one or two in the “other” gallery. I like the illustrated look for my HDR work but some find it over the top or too processed. Creating natural looking images is not only possible but very easy to do.

Mike

[Frankie Profile Private message]

Nice work, Mike, and your website is very easy to navigate. Thanks for sharing the HDR's. Did you use any tutorials when you first started?

Frankie

[amycramer Profile Private messageWebsite]

Hey Joe,
I used Photomatrix Pro for quite awhile, but am much happier with Corel Paint shop pro HDR function. It does a much better job of lining up the different exposures. I hardly ever use a tripod, which is encouraged, most are shot while hiking or kayaking. There is no way to use a tripod in a kayak. This shot was taken in midday and the contrasts were really bad. In the original photo you could not even see the kayakers, they were in the shadows. Just remember to check your edges, some cropping is almost always needed.
http://picasaweb.google.com/amyatparker/Hdr#
Just my two cents worth, Amy