This looks like an amazing place to shoot, i just don't like HDR unfortunately. I feel that with well exposed and saturated images they would have stood well on their own.
However, i do know that many do like HDR so its kind of each to their own i guess.
Like you say the first has very little difference, however the other two i do prefer as non-HDR, it shows off that old-industrial quality that the building has, makes the rust look very natural without being too red.
How many images did you take for the HDR? It looks like you didn't take enough of low end exposures for the HDR that's why it still has blown highlights.
n0b0 wrote:
How many images did you take for the HDR? It looks like you didn't take enough of low end exposures for the HDR that's why it still has blown highlights.
The colours look amazing though.
For each HDR shot I took 7 exposures that ranges from -2 to +2. Maybe I metered the mid point wrong.
The building is really dark inside and there are holes on the ceiling which is where the sun ray comes in. It is really hard to capture the dynamic range.
For proper HDR, forget that bracketed exposure and midpoint, that's for lazy HDR.
Work your way up from the darkest exposure or down from the brightest exposure at least with one stop difference in exposure. Darkest exposure should have the brightest part of the image (the hole in the ceiling in this case) shown clearly with no blown highlight. The brightest exposure should have the darkest part of the image shown clearly.
I recommend shooting in Manual mode using fixed aperture and ISO setting and just change the shutter speed. lso try to find the darkest/brightest exposure and record the shutter speed before you start shooting. Minimum 3 exposures, the more the better.
i am not sure what you are doing here, but let's just say that this is probably one of the few times when you could probably go bananas on the hdr effect and still get appreciation from purists like me. the location and graffiti are very apt candidates for extreme detail and "cartoonish" looks.
anyhow, what i'm more disturbed by is the fact that (as you observe yourself, accurately).. there is no additional dynamic range. in fact, if you compare #2 hdr and nonhdr version you have LOST dynamic range. the leftmost wall in shadow says it all. same goes for #5 actually. and #1 is not so noticeable, but there is hardly any difference in the DR there!
so what does this mean? it means that you could have done whatever you have achieved, without hdr.. by just simple contrast/highlight/shadow/saturation adjustments. if you must have more whacky color, use color balance or digital filters.
it is good to try out new techniques, but understanding your tools, instead of applying them blindly, that should be the way to go. of course we can go from point a to b eventually but why make one huge roundabout along the way?
n0b0 wrote:
For proper HDR, forget that bracketed exposure and midpoint, that's for lazy HDR.
Work your way up from the darkest exposure or down from the brightest exposure at least with one stop difference in exposure. Darkest exposure should have the brightest part of the image (the hole in the ceiling in this case) shown clearly with no blown highlight. The brightest exposure should have the darkest part of the image shown clearly.
I recommend shooting in Manual mode using fixed aperture and ISO setting and just change the shutter speed. lso try to find the darkest/brightest exposure and record the shutter speed before you start shooting. Minimum 3 exposures, the more the better....Show more →
I did use manual mode with set ISO and Aperture. What I didn't do is go from the darkest to brightest as you suggested. I will try that next time. In cases like this, the range would be quite large, do you suggest that I use one stop increment for each exposure?
night86mare wrote:
i am not sure what you are doing here, but let's just say that this is probably one of the few times when you could probably go bananas on the hdr effect and still get appreciation from purists like me. the location and graffiti are very apt candidates for extreme detail and "cartoonish" looks.
anyhow, what i'm more disturbed by is the fact that (as you observe yourself, accurately).. there is no additional dynamic range. in fact, if you compare #2 hdr and nonhdr version you have LOST dynamic range. the leftmost wall in shadow says it all. same goes for #5 actually. and #1 is not so noticeable, but there is hardly any difference in the DR there!
so what does this mean? it means that you could have done whatever you have achieved, without hdr.. by just simple contrast/highlight/shadow/saturation adjustments. if you must have more whacky color, use color balance or digital filters.
it is good to try out new techniques, but understanding your tools, instead of applying them blindly, that should be the way to go. of course we can go from point a to b eventually but why make one huge roundabout along the way? ...Show more →
Thanks for your advice. I am just a newbie and exploring with HDR. I am quite surprised to see the difference between the HDR and NON-HDR myself. Maybe I am not using the HDR tool right because I have a friend who use the same tool and get much better outcome. The good thing with taking multiple exposures for HDR is that you still have the exposures that you would take normally to work with.
wkhc168 wrote:
Thanks for your advice. I am just a newbie and exploring with HDR. I am quite surprised to see the difference between the HDR and NON-HDR myself. Maybe I am not using the HDR tool right because I have a friend who use the same tool and get much better outcome. The good thing with taking multiple exposures for HDR is that you still have the exposures that you would take normally to work with.
can you remember what sort of photomatix (you are using photomatix, right?) tone maaping settings you are using? if this is the direct output (without further tweaking in photoshop or other imaging programmes) then i suspect that either you are not getting the right set of images for expanded dynamic range, or you are setting the white and black point too extremely.
for the first case, the best way is to refer to the histogram, rather than basing it on your lcd. if everything is bunched up wayyyy to the left or right, you can probably dump those exposures. you should have something which starts with a little mountain to the left, all the way to a little mountain the right. beyond these two "rough markers" will not give you any more dynamic range, and if you do not hit those two markers then you are not getting enough dynamic range.
night86mare wrote:
can you remember what sort of photomatix (you are using photomatix, right?) tone maaping settings you are using? if this is the direct output (without further tweaking in photoshop or other imaging programmes) then i suspect that either you are not getting the right set of images for expanded dynamic range, or you are setting the white and black point too extremely.
for the first case, the best way is to refer to the histogram, rather than basing it on your lcd. if everything is bunched up wayyyy to the left or right, you can probably dump those exposures. you should have something which starts with a little mountain to the left, all the way to a little mountain the right. beyond these two "rough markers" will not give you any more dynamic range, and if you do not hit those two markers then you are not getting enough dynamic range....Show more →
I am using Dynamic Photo HDR. I think the flaw of my exposures is that I first find the "mid point" using the camera after I set the ISO and Aperture and then go 3 steps up and 3 steps down. I never checked the histogram.
