[Jewelltrail]

I have never taken, er, made an HDR shot. but have shot with my K20d now for about 2 years. I decided to jump into the HDR arena, so I have come to this part of our awesome forum to pick the brains of our best and brightest.

Seriously, can anyone save me the pain I am sure to endure if I jump in cold, with no real knowledge of the art? I understand you need at least 3 shots and some software, but that is about it. Any pertinent advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

[cheekygeek]

Most people turn out abominations with Photomatix dialed to "11" but if you want to do photorealistic HDR, here's a very good tutorial for Photoshop:
Backing Winds: How to Create Professional HDR Images

[Black Magic]

It's really easy to go overboard on the effect when you are just starting out. I may have been doing it wrong, but it would take me quite a while to mess with all of the sliders until I got to a point in which I was happy with the image; perhaps there is an easier way to do it, but it definately took a lot of fiddling. Also, this might only apply to Photomatix, but after you are done with the sliders, and are happy with the image, it renders the final image which will look different than the preview. This is frustrating, so, if it is available to you, I would suggest a different program, perhaps CS2. Although, I have created some of my favourite pics with Photomatix.

[ma318]

this one goes thru the whole workflow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRPBX3IbXq4&feature=related


also this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBETWrA9tps&feature=related

[mithrandir]

You might also want to look into MediaChance's Dynamic Photo HDR:

Dynamic Photo HDR, high dynamic range imaging software with Anti-Ghosting

[Jewelltrail]

mithrandir, ma318, Black Magic, & cheekygeek---I can not thank you all enough for the help. It will take me some time to get through all of this, but I am already more knowledgeable than when I posted this thread.

mithrandir, I especially appreciate another option to Photomatrix. I use AE8, and do not have the full Photo Shop software, so a stand alone software for HDR will probably be best for me.

One more question. Instead of 3 separate exposures, can I use 1 RAW file and make 3 images from that which are exposed for highlights & shadows? Or do I have to take 3 separate images?

[ma318]

I think this was discussed in this thread.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/87285-anyone-used-...r-wedding.html

If you expose to the right (ETTR) with your single RAW file, you could get decent result by using just one raw file and from it create 3 exposures and then combine them again with HDR. But I would only do it if I have no choice (i.e. moving subject or I simply don't have three different exposures and can't shoot it again).

[Jewelltrail]

ma318: I think this was discussed in this thread.

Anyone used K-7 HDR for wedding?

Yes, it was discussed there, with even more information to guide me--thanks again. I do not have any concerns with movement. The reason I ask is I have thousands and thousands of Raw files from many awesome moments which I can not go back and duplicate. I was hoping some of these moments, at least to some degree, could be displayed in an HDR format. Thanks to mithrandir, I was able to download a trial version of DynmaicPhoto HDR. And thanks to the rest of you awesome people, I was able to get through the workflow and actually make an image. Though far from excellent, considering they come from one Raw file and are my first tries, I am delighted.

Once again, thank you all! What a great forum.

[dosdan]

, can I use 1 RAW file and make 3 images from that which are exposed for highlights & shadows? Or do I have to take 3 separate images?

Using raw gives you about 1 stop extra DR to play with compared to JPG. However if you you do a -2EV, 0EV, +2EV exposure bracket, that's 4 stops extra DR before you tone-map it down to a viewable/printable DR, so the flexibilty and potential performance is much better than 1-shot raw. The later is not HDR, it's more about tone-mapping a LDR image to get a certain look.

Raw is still better than JPG for exposure bracketing because you have more potential resolution & can easily fix WB issues.

Dan

[philbaum]

I think we've all got some older photos we'd like to use HDR on. I tried this the other day, and it worked. But noone should get the idea that a 1 image exposure is anywhere as flexible as a 3 or 5 image exposure HDR file. For example, the other day i took a multiple image HDR that was taken inside a building and it resulted in classic silver blank windows (over exposed). In LR, i was able to take a brush and locally reduce the exposure in those windows and up popped the nicest scenes through the window. In other words, there was a lot more dynamic range stored in a multiple image HDR file than in a single image HDR.

According to a book i have, the two most popular HDR programs are Photomatix and Photoshop. I don't have the $600 plus full Photoshop and sure am not going to buy it just to do HDR. I looked in PS Elements and couldn't find it in there, but perhaps i missed it - if someone can do it in Elements, please let us know.

Photomatix has more controls than any other HDR program, but to make it easy to get started, they provide about 5 standard preset settings that you can try so that you don't have to tackle all those sliders to start with.

There is a free donationware program from Germany for HDR:

Picturenaut Overview

I haven't tried it yet, but the website looks pretty spiffy. And of course the price is whatever you want to pay for it - can't lose on that offer. If you try it, please give us your opinions. i understand that some photographers actually keep different HDR programs for different applications.

What i've learned is that the HDR programs will in best practice, get you close to an acceptable image. But from what i can tell, most folks are still going back to their favorite PP programs to finish the toning.

This all sounds like more work than it is. Once you get used to HDR in a few days, its quite fast to use once you store your favorite presets or a standard preset.

[PeterInVan]

I like Photomatix and multiple images. Mostly I use a tripod, but I have has some success hand held.

Example:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4299750248_0e75a48ec4_b.jpg

[Canada_Rockies]

I have had the best results from a single file in Photomatix by using the Highlight/Shadow option. Using Lightroom, I create two files. One increases exposure by one stop, the other decreases exposure by one stop. This leaves me with two files, two stops apart. Photomatix then creates a file with more detail visible in the bright areas, and more detail in the dark areas, but the resulting file still is very dark in the dark areas, and very bright in the bright areas. I prefer this more realistic approach. You may not. The first file I did this with was a NEF from a Nikon D90 as an experiment for a student. The shot was a couple in open barn doors at the far end of a stable, embracing in silhouette. No detail was visible inside the stable, the outdoors was completely blown. I tried three files and things did not look real. I tried two stops each way, but again things looked unreal. Two files, under/over exposing the original RAW by one stop each works for me.

[Jewelltrail]

Wow, so much excellent advice here it is hard to put it all into practice. I have tried various combinations while working with 1 Raw file and it looks like you are right. There is an option to use the 1 Raw file, but that does not work as well as some of your ideas. Like you said, if you take the Raw file, and make 2 or 3 or even more images, all at different exposures, you get some superb results. The program makes it clear this is not really HDR but, to be honest, it looks more real than most of the HDR work I have been seeing and I like it more. Now there are even less hours in the day!

Canada Rockies: Using Lightroom, I create two files. One increases exposure by one stop, the other decreases exposure by one stop. This leaves me with two files, two stops apart. Photomatix then creates a file with more detail visible in the bright areas, and more detail in the dark areas, but the resulting file still is very dark in the dark areas, and very bright in the bright areas. I prefer this more realistic approach. You may not.

Yes, I am doing something very similar to this if not exact to this and am loving the results. In fact, though they not be HDR, the pics are awesome, and not too overdone like so much HDR I see. This software procedure is absolutely amazing as now all my thousands of old Raw files are reborn, with more potetial than ever. Surely the finished pics are not what I saw the day I snapped the shots; rather, they are pics which magnify everything I liked about the shot in the first place. I am really going to be basking in this for a long time.

Philbaum: There is a free donationware program from Germany for HDR:

Picturenaut Overview

I just may hop on this free program since I really do not need nor want full-blown HDR anyway. I just want a program that is giving me the awesome results I'm getting now, with as much speed as possible. I want to post a few shots, but being a trial offer of Dynamicphoto, all the pics I made come embedded with the company's logo--I have no problem with this, but it may violate someone's laws to post these here since I have not yet bought the software.

dosdan: The later is not HDR, it's more about tone-mapping a LDR image to get a certain look.

Whatever it is called, I love it--thanks for all the help!

PeterInVan: I like Photomatix and multiple images. Mostly I use a tripod, but I have has some success hand held.

Okay, I shall undergo the orthodoxed approach as soon as I have the time to get out and take some shots. I'll have to see if I can use the standard approach as well, or if it will be too much for my tatses. Thank you and thank you everyone for brining me into the HDR, or is it LDH-tone-mapped world.

[ma318]

I think I heard someone said the reason for learning all the rules is so that you will know how to break them later. In your case, you are a fast learner because you are breaking them before even learning them....haha...(this is meant to be a compliment!)

[Jewelltrail]

ma318 I think I heard someone said the reason for learning all the rules is so that you will know how to break them later. In your case, you are a fast learner because you are breaking them before even learning them....haha...(this is meant to be a compliment!)

With teaching like this here, how could I be anything but a quick learner?