Atherton & District Amateur Photographic Society

I've been having a little go at HDR today, only because I had 10 minutes to myself. Now, before I start, I'm not a fan of HDR at all, and I'm not saying that to alienate anybody and please, don't anyone take offence.

I'm also not an expert in HDR or the techniques with it. I also try to spend as little time at the computer as possible, spending a couple of minutes in Lightroom is the extent of my post production workflow.

For this, I have downloaded the demo of Nik HDR efex Pro and also the Lightroom plugin I posted the other day of Photomatrix.

Now, I went through Salford, so decided to find a building to try this out on. I took three bracketed images at 0, -2 and +2, in RAW ISO50, f4 using a Canon 5D and a 24-105L at 28mm.

In the photos below, the straight photo was the one at 0, the same three photos were used in both the HDR programs, with all post production inside Lightroom.

The first set of photos are how they came back from the HDR programs and the straight one. The only adjustments made at this step is Lightroom Lens Correction and cloning that bit of dust out I always forget about.

Straight

Single photo:


Nik HDR efex Pro


Photomatrix Plugin


Well, the single photo looks OK, I can easily see what I want to do to improve it, but it's a good, basic photo, as I would expect to take, neither good or bad, just a photo. Obviously, the two HDR programs work very different. The Photomatrix one looks a little sharp for me, but I think it has corrected the exposure. There are areas that look a bit soft, but then all edges look too hard to me for instance round the window on the right. The Nik one just seams to have blurred and dusted the whole photo. I think it looks a little bit less chiseled out that the Photomatrix, but I think the tree looks superimposed now, I have to say, I don't like the Nik one at all. I'm not overly keen on the Photomatrix either, but the straight one obviously need some post production to make it presentable.

Post Production

Now, to post produce the photos, I used a preset I have made in Lightroom ages ago, which is my favourite black and white preset, I use this one a lot. I then manipulated the image as I would any other, mainly a bit of exposure, and contrast. I haven't added any sharpening whatsoever, I have never sharpened any photo I've ever taken, and didn't want to start now.

Single photo:


Nik HDR efex Pro


Photomatrix Plugin


The Photomatrix one has taken out everything in the sky. I don't mind a pur white sky on a black and white, I definitely prefer it to adding another sky in there. The blacks have turned to black and I quite like that as well.

The Nik version is still quite a bit wishey washey and the areas that were dark are now the lighter, as in the top of the tower, as though the contrast has automatically been turned down. I played with this for my usual 2 mins and I'm actually quite happy with the results.

However, the straight version is still my favourite. I feel it is dark where it should be and light where it should be.

Conclusion

So what's my conclusion? Well, I don't really have one, that's about it. In colour, the Nik one is too blurred, but as though it has been powder coated. In black and white, however, I quite like a like bit of fake blurry grain. Photomatrix one is the one I think would give the best results, however, I'm still not convinced by it, the photo still look oversharpened and as though the lighting is not natural.

I still prefer to take an image and what is dark stays dark. I'm only really a portrait photographer and if I'm in a studio, I'll happily add another light, or reflector to add light, removing it to take it into darkness. I'm assuming that people use HDR to do just that, but from my first try, I'm not thinking to myself that I need to get out there and have another go.

It would be easy to say I picked the wrong subject, I'm not saying there isn't better, but there is plenty of texture in there and I can see from the results that the HDR programs did pull something else out.

I also took the same photos with my Olympus ePen, but somewhere between the living room and the kitchen, I've lost my memory card (doh). Maybe one of the kids ate it. I'll keep checking for a couple of days and let you know what develops (can't believe I just said that).

One of the reasons I hadn't even had a go at HDR is because you've got to go out and take the photos to use. If anyone hasn't tried, and would like to, here is a link to the images I took, feel free to do all you want with them, apart from sell them to Ikea or the like, thanks. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/64571007/Adaps/HDR/HDR.zip

One thing I don't understand is the methods I've seen on the web always say to use the lowest ISO rating. I always use ISO 200 on my camera as that is it's default. To use ANY other ISO rating, the software in the camera is converting your image. The best photo I could therefore take would be at ISO 200. Anyway, I followed a quick tutorial and got a quick answer.

Thanks.

Thanks Philip.

I think HDR is a very personal thing, there are all sorts of approaches and so many possibilities within each approach.

Even the start point can be different. For example, Gerry uses 2 stop intervals. I use seven exposures with 1 stop intervals. It could be five exposures. Then you choose your program. Then all the options within that program.

So there isn't any particular conclusion other than whether or not the end result is what we wanted to achieve. And we haven't even got to type of subject at this point.

Very interesting experiment though. Does it encourage you to pursue HDR further or not?

That's an interesting experiment and write-up, Philip.

I personally think that a key to good HDR is subtlety. I've seen some very good HDR images where the processing has been handled well and sympathetically to the overall image (perhaps most notably Keith Richardson). I've also seen images where it seems an HDR effect has been applied just for the sake of it, and it invariably looks 'overcooked'.

From your examples above, my preference is for the original image in black and white.

I think I'll have another go at ISO 200 and see if it gets rid of the washey dusty kind of effect I've seen here. I used the AEB on my camera, but I do have a remote control that I could ammend the exposures myself, so could do the full range of what my camera is capable of.

I remember one of Keith's that I think was a closed down pub in Wigan, very dramatic looking and thinking I should try HDR then, but it's finding a subject and I'm still not sure what image I think is a good candidate for HDR. To be fair, churches aren't my thing either. Maybe I'll try the inside next time...

One of the main reasons I tried HDR is I've ordered a new laptop and needed something processor hungry to test the difference between old and new.

Another try, this one is taken at the same time, but at f22.
I haven't cleared all my sensor marks.
I think the f22 makes it a little less washy. This is in onOne HDR efex Pro.

I'm not sure it's the best subject for HDR. To get a natural result from an image with a huge dynamic range is one way to use the technique:

Here the exterior was fully sunlit and the interior was all but dark. Seven exposures in 1EV steps gets it all in apart from the specular highlights.

Hi Phil.
A really interesting post. I too have recentlyly been dabbling into HDR. With the two programs you mention above. (Without much sucess i might add). So having10 Mins, I downloaded your three images and processed them in Nik HDR Pro, and finished off with a few adjustments of my own.

Now I dont want to hijack or detract from your post. But I would like to ask the other members to download the images, and proscess their way. So we could compare and discuss the results. Im a novice at this and wanted to get some hints and tips on processing skills, and not, this time camera skill.

Stu, that's not hijacking at all, kind of what I was hoping for, to be honest. I've always dismissed me doing HDR as it's not gereally suitable for what I photograph, however, I get the feeling that the two programs mentioned are not just a 'quick fix', but, there is a lot more to it than that.

Thanks for downloading and posting.

my attempt with your photos

I used photomatix and then photoshopped



link to full size

http://www.keaslaphotography.co.uk/hdr_photofull.jpg

Nice write up here

I think as John has said there are lots of different ways to doing HDR and obviously many subjects it works with and yet others it does not ... From my experience you need lots of contrast .. HDR will work with detail shots of say Manchester town hall but if you got a general shot from accross Albert Square I don't think the effect would work as well ... Williamson Mamorial in Lancaster is another that works well .. lots of texture, highlights and shadows ... I think Urbex locations work well for the "mad Colours" but I find that generally subduing the colours works well (in my opinion, you will see that my hdr shots have a leaning towards the B$W end of the spectrum).. sorta hdr monochrome with a few splashes of colour .

One thing that I have tried in the past (and this is work intensive) is the lay all the "HDR" shots one on top of another and then erasing through the un-required parts .. you end up with images that look more natural and in a sence more like John's door shot above (a tactic I used on some of my internal shots from Lancaster Priory, Also did "True" HDR but I had a play about too)... You also avoid the dreaded "mad colours" and haloing that you can get if not careful

But ultimately I do find it works with lots of contrast on the subject and also details as oposed to general shots .. maybe the subject matter you chose to test your HDR wings on was not the best.