Since there are some members on here that repeatedly comment on some HDR pictures, saying they aren't done properly but don't elaborate, heres a tutorial I came across that uses PS CS3...

http://abduzeedo.com/hdr-not-only-the-magic-effect

Is this better than just popping them into Photomatix? I'm not posting this to cause trouble... I just want to know what you guys deem as "proper".

And I'm not talking about the "Harry Potter" effect either!!

BTW, this site is awesome! Check out the Graffiti HDR tut while you're over there.

 

The program used to produce the HDR is not the problem people have. The problem some refer to is when people make the HDR too unrealistic looking.

 

Well, lots of people complain about using 1 RAW file vs. 3 RAW files at different exposure levels.

Anyway, I just thought this was a nice tutorial for people who want to try creating the HDR effect in PS CS3.

 

Ah, I see. Yes, the "accepted" way is to use more than 1 exposure. Makes sense to me.

 

Wasn't there a tutorials and How-to's thread around here somewhere?

 

theres a whole bunch here

http://tutorialblog.org/hdr-tutorials-roundup/

 

exactly, those photos with the water fall and the one of the boat, imo are HDR photos done right.

 

Awesome. Thanks guys. I must've missed it.

On a side note, is it possible to do "motion" HDRs with a camera that doesn't support AEB?

 

best website right here

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/cambridge-gallery.htm

 

Another HDR related question. Is there an ideal number of pictures to take for a proper HDR image? I'm going to assume it really depends on the subject and lighting...

As a rule of thumb, how far +/- do you go with the exposure for a good spread? +-2? +-3? I've seen lots of people use 3 RAW files to create some awesome results. Some only use 1!

 

As far as "realistic" looking HDRs go, I've always been a fan of Uwe and Bettina Steinmueller's work at Digital Outback Photo (http://www.outbackphoto.com/). I haven't read them, but Uwe actually has a three part series of articles on HDR posted at Canon's Digital Learning Center (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/).

 

3 or 5 is probably just fine, from what I've read.

3 exposures at -2 0 +2

5 exposures at -2 -1 0 +1 +2

I'm not sure if it's beneficial at all to do more than 5. I still have yet to try this myself....maybe I'll go out and do it right now.

 

What is HDR? HDR is a process where you gather and use data from a dynamic range larger (higher) than you can normally capture. And by 'normally capture', what you really mean is capture within one image. If you could capture the DR within one picture, than this is all a non-issue.

Let me make up a really oversimplified example:
Let's say a scene has an extreme dynamic range. Pitch black shadow to a superbright cloud. Let's say, the shadow has brightness level 1 and the cloud has brightness level 150.
Let's also say you have a 14 bit DSLR sensor which can capture roughly brightness levels 100 levels apart if you shoot in 14 bit RAW.
Let's also say that a 8 bit jpeg can handle a dynamic range 75 levels apart.

What you want to do is take two or more pictures to capture the dynamic range.
So let's say you shoot in RAW. You shoot a 'brightened' picture to the shadow's brightness levels 1-100.
Then you shoot a 'darkened' picture to shoot brightness levels 51-150.
Now you have all the scene data you theoretically need. Your histogram will tell you if you are dark/bright enough on each end.

You now use a HDR program to combine them back to 1-150 and process.
If you want a natural picture, you can 'throw out' every other brightness point and have a 8 bit jpeg image with brightness levels 1-75.
Some people like to jack up the shadows and compress it up to brightness levels 40-75.
I personally really dislike a very high dynamic range scene compressed down to a low dynamic range scene.
It's just too extreme and feels weird to me.
Shrinking extremely high dynamic range scenes down to a still high Dynamic range scene (high enough to show in a jpeg) feels far more normal.

That's just my opinion. Photography is still art - do what you like.

Using more exposures helps keeps the brightness levels 'smooth'.

Now, what does using 1 RAW instead gain you?
You can use an HDR program to squish the RAW's 100 levels down to the Jpeg's 75. But you don't need an HDR program to do that.
If you load the RAW into a RAW processor, you still have the same 100 levels to work with. HDR programmers however tend to know
what you are probably aiming for, however, and avoid forcing you to learn how to deal with curves and all that.

What is even less useful (arguably worthless) is taking an 8 bit jpeg and then using an HDR process to convert it into another 8 bit jpeg.


- Frank

 

 

Frank,

Thanks for breaking it down to layman's terms. I understand it a little better now.