Do you hate HDR too?

[DiaAzul]

I have found the biggest problem to be Chromatic fringing after the tone mapping, if anyone has had the same problems i would be interested to hear if you have found a way around it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Typically I generate HDR in CS3 and set the RAW conversion parameters in Bridge to minimise Chromatic Aberration before HDR processing starts. I also have DXO v5 which also does a good job of correcting lens distortion and aberration, in which case convert to TIFF first before processing. Both applications can remove sensor snot/dust bunnies across a series of exposures which cuts down touching up time - assuming that 1DsIII sensor clean isn't perfect, that is.

[innesfoto]

Hi DiaAzul

Thanks for the post, I tried running HDR through CS2 but was not very happy with the results from the limited tone mapping it gives. Maybe CS3 is better.
I have not tried DXO but I have read it has a pretty good Raw converter, I am interested in anyone who uses DXO before HDR as to wheather they have had good results. I have been told by a friend that tried it that it slowed the whole machine down to a snails pace because of its RAM consumption, So multi tasking while DXO is open is a NoNo. If anyone has experience with this I would be interested to hear it.
Regards
Andy

[PhillyPhotographer]

Hi DiaAzul

Thanks for the post, I tried running HDR through CS2 but was not very happy with the results from the limited tone mapping it gives. Maybe CS3 is better.
I have not tried DXO but I have read it has a pretty good Raw converter, I am interested in anyone who uses DXO before HDR as to wheather they have had good results. I have been told by a friend that tried it that it slowed the whole machine down to a snails pace because of its RAM consumption, So multi tasking while DXO is open is a NoNo. If anyone has experience with this I would be interested to hear it.
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

CS3 isn't much better. Photomatix is by far the better program. Adobe should buy it.

[DiaAzul]

Hi DiaAzul

Thanks for the post, I tried running HDR through CS2 but was not very happy with the results from the limited tone mapping it gives. Maybe CS3 is better.
I have not tried DXO but I have read it has a pretty good Raw converter, I am interested in anyone who uses DXO before HDR as to wheather they have had good results. I have been told by a friend that tried it that it slowed the whole machine down to a snails pace because of its RAM consumption, So multi tasking while DXO is open is a NoNo. If anyone has experience with this I would be interested to hear it.
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was having the same problems with previous versions of DxO. However, the latest version 5.04 has just flipped over from being a good concept, poorly implemented to something which is actually usable. You can download the free trial and see how it works for you.

Adobe's tone mapping may be weak for some people, but the way I use it (mostly to reduce noise in the image, improve sharpness and the accuracy of colour rendering) it meets my requirements - I'm not really one for heavily post processed images. You could also use CS2/3 as the RAW processor/merge and then a Photomatix plug in to do tone mapping (either that or export as an HDR file format from CS2/3 to Photomatix for tone mapping). That way you get the benefits of control over RAW processing in CS2/3 and tone mapping in Photomatix.

[rustyjaw]

Glad to see this thread still going. I think HDR suffers somewhat from being a fad. The tools are very accessible so everybody and their mother is making HDRs without really understanding what the technique can do for their photos. I see this on flickr all the time, particularly in the discussion groups, many people seem to think that HDR just is a highly processed image with no shadows and blotchy sky. Yes, I'm exaggerating although this does seem to be the perception among certain people.

But fad or not, the idea is sound and in the right hands can allow a photographer to capture light and shadow more faithfully than would be possible with a single exposure. And if faithful representation isn't their thing, they can capture light and shadow beyond what is perceptible and create a vision of the scene that is in a sense beyond real, at least if one limits what is real to what one can perceive...which is debatable.

None of this discounts the beauty of a single exposure, which allows the photographer to choose to omit details. That, of course, is an art unto itself and one that has a healthy history.

[innesfoto]

Hi Phil
Great demo shots, I must ask though, are these virtual HDR´s or true HDR´s
ie: taken with 1 shot and push/pulled or with three or more?
the reason I ask is, that shooting any moving object becomes problematic with true HDR
because of the ghosting problem in the photo merge.
I mainly refer to the supermarket shot where you have people walking about. I guess if you use a fast enough shutter speed coupled with a fast drive speed you can iron out most of the movement. But under supermarket lighting you will either need a high ISO  setting which does not bode well with HDR because of the multipied noise problem, or you would need a flash, and it doesn´t look much like you did that here.  
Do let me know,
Regards
Andy

[PhillyPhotographer]

Hi Phil
Great demo shots, I must ask though, are these virtual HDR´s or true HDR´s
ie: taken with 1 shot and push/pulled or with three or more?
the reason I ask is, that shooting any moving object becomes problematic with true HDR
because of the ghosting problem in the photo merge.
I mainly refer to the supermarket shot where you have people walking about. I guess if you use a fast enough shutter speed coupled with a fast drive speed you can iron out most of the movement. But under supermarket lighting you will either need a high ISO  setting which does not bode well with HDR because of the multipied noise problem, or you would need a flash, and it doesn´t look much like you did that here.   
Do let me know,
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The bridge is a 3 shot
The second diner shot is a two shot made into 4 exposures in photoshop raw
The third is a one shot made into 3 in photoshop raw.

[PhillyPhotographer]

HDR is just another and it can be used in many different ways. Someone recently asked me "Michael why do you do HDR photos ?" My response was " Because I can't paint with a brush." Hdr accounts for 70% of my print sales and I love what you can accomplish by using it.

[Andres Bonilla]

HDR is just another and it can be used in many different ways. Someone recently asked me "Michael why do you do HDR photos ?" My response was " Because I can't paint with a brush." Hdr accounts for 70% of my print sales and I love what you can accomplish by using it.





[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael I have to say that your photos are the best example of great HDR. I love the look  and the style.  Some people may not liked, I love your examples. The pseudo HDR is one RAW file saved at + stop and - one stop in Adobe RAW?

tHANKS,

Andres

[PhillyPhotographer]

Michael I have to say that your photos are the best example of great HDR. I love the look  and the style.  Some people may not liked, I love your examples. The pseudo HDR is one RAW file saved at + stop and - one stop in Adobe RAW?

tHANKS,

Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes
0, -2, +2

[Andres Bonilla]

Yes
0, -2, +2
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ooops! Michael I went to Adobe Raw but I could only save in TIFF, JPEG AND DIGITAL NEGATIVE, is there a RAW SAVING??

[Jonathan Wienke]

You don't save a RAW file, you save the processed RAW -, 0, +, as 3 separate JPEG, TIFF, etc.

[PhillyPhotographer]

Ooops! Michael I went to Adobe Raw but I could only save in TIFF, JPEG AND DIGITAL NEGATIVE, is there a RAW SAVING??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use Digital Negative

[Andres Bonilla]

Thank you guys, I saved them both as TIFF and Digital Negative with RAW embedded. When I processed them in Photomatix the file looked horrible, severely distorted and like solarized. When I see the file in Adobe RAW the -2 and +2 TIFF looks ok. I put them thru Adobe HDR and it said the photos don't have enough dinamic range to pull a satidfactory HDR. Should I use different settings? I will try to post a jpg of it.

[Andres Bonilla]

Here is the culprit. I see enough information to maybe pull an HDR? This is straight out of the camera with the default option. When I was playing with it I saw one stop either way without the image falling apart, even at two stops it did not looked as bad as it did thru Photomatix. Any ideas.

[PhillyPhotographer]

Thank you guys, I saved them both as TIFF and Digital Negative with RAW embedded. When I processed them in Photomatix the file looked horrible, severely distorted and like solarized. When I see the file in Adobe RAW the -2 and +2 TIFF looks ok. I put them thru Adobe HDR and it said the photos don't have enough dinamic range to pull a satidfactory HDR. Should I use different settings? I will try to post a jpg of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When converting 1 photo into 3 exposures this can happen. Also I believe photomatix does a much better job and you have more control than photoshop

[rustyjaw]

Here are some of my recent HDRs, all done with 3 raw exposures, 2ev apart. Merged and tonemapped in Photomatix.

[Andres Bonilla]

When converting 1 photo into 3 exposures this can happen. Also I believe photomatix does a much better job and you have more control than photoshop
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well jezz, I guess I am out of luck with this shot. I do have Phomatix and it looked horrible. I thought that photos with lots of shadows and hightlights would benefit from HDR. If anybody wants to play with the photo and try to tone mapped please do. Maybe I am doing something wrong.

[rustyjaw]

Andres,

I'm having trouble following what you are trying to do. I think what you are saying is that you have a single RAW image (the one you posted above) which you would like to tonemap. You are doing this by adjusting the exposure in Photoshop, saving out multiple versions, and then merging and tonemapping those files. Photoshop is giving you an error about 'not enough dynamic range' and photomatix just looks bad. Is that right?

I think the reason photoshop is giving you the error is that when it reads the EXIF data from the files you created, they are the same, which makes photoshop 'think' that the images cover the same dynamic range.

I'm not sure why photomatix would look bad, but have you tried just dropping the original single RAW image into photomatix to tonemap?

I don't understand the advice I often see to adjust exposure on the computer and export different versions for tonemapping. Since you cannot by definition add any new information to the image by simply making adjustments, how is this method any different than just tonemapping the original RAW.

[Andres Bonilla]

Andreas,

I'm having trouble following what you are trying to do. I think what you are saying is that you have a single RAW image (the one you posted above) which you would like to tonemap. You are doing this by adjusting the exposure in Photoshop, saving out multiple versions, and then merging and tonemapping those files. Photoshop is giving you an error about 'not enough dynamic range' and photomatix just looks bad. Is that right?

I think the reason photoshop is giving you the error is that when it reads the EXIF data from the files you created, they are the same, which makes photoshop 'think' that the images cover the same dynamic range.

I'm not sure why photomatix would look bad, but have you tried just dropping the original single RAW image into photomatix to tonemap?

I don't understand the advice I often see to adjust exposure on the computer and export different versions for tonemapping. Since you cannot by definition add any new information to the image by simply making adjustments, how is this method any different than just tonemapping the original RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you sir! Yes, I have read that some photographers use one shot to create a HDR, they saved in Adobe RAW at 0,-1,+1, Phillyphotographer did jst that with one of his examples and it looked really nice. I will try the original RAW in Photomatix. Yes, you unsdertood it right. Thanks for the advise. I think I need to go to Automate in Photomatix to do it.