So, I go and say on an earlier thread that you can do HDR portraits, not just landscapes and promise to post an image or two. Well here you go.
This image was taken in the Palace of Westminster in a quick fire session, some of you will know the subject, though here that is unimportant.
What is important is that when I hurriedly took the shot I didn't finesse the lighting enough and the image was too contrasty. But with a simple manipulation of the RAW file I was able to produce three Tiff files, one good for highlights, one for mids and one for shadow. A quick blend in PS and it's done.
All that has been done to the images apart from the blend is a simple desaturation. No levels, no curves and it took about five minutes to do.
So, image one is the blend, image two the original and as this image isn't the best example of HDR I've included a landscape that uses exactly the same technique.
#1
http://www.liamhall.net/DC1.jpg
#2
http://www.liamhall.net/DC2.jpg
#3
http://www.liamhall.net/Lifesabeachborder.gif
I'm sure others here will have far better examples of a portrait with extended dynamic range. My point is simply that it can be done.
That is not what most consider HDR, because only one image was used. This is more like using the Highlight/Shadow tool. I much prefer the "before" photo.
Mar 20, 2008 at 04:03 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
An interesting way of bringing the highlights out but it is not what I or most people consider HDR. My camera does this automatically if I want it to or I can do it in PP using the d-lighting function on the raw file.
While others say it is not HDR (and maybe rightly), I think this topic "HDR Portraits" would be a very interesting topic to develop more fully here on the forum.
I don't have any examples myself, but I do hope others will post or try and post examples so we can discuss the issues/techniques etc..
It is my hope that this forum could offer more than simple posting of photos for typical "I like it" kinda comments. This forum could use some more "content" in the sense of discussions of techniques and I think that would stimulate more experiments and "fun" from the members. Of course my ideas of fun and growth may not be of interest to many here.
Anyway, thanks for posting the pics.
Also, I really like that seascape. Excellent image. Very 'tasty' for a BW guy like me.
Finally, I don't get the ref to the subject. Can you mention who it is? (Just curious)
elliotkramer wrote:
That is not what most consider HDR, because only one image was used. This is more like using the Highlight/Shadow tool. I much prefer the "before" photo.
The point is you don't need to comp two images together to extend the range. This is not the best example as there is little tonal range in the shot, that's why I included the landscape but there's probably a 3 stop increase in dynamic range by using this technique.
I am very glad you posted this example.
(Edit)
Anyway, thanks for posting the pics.
Also, I really like that seascape. Excellent image. Very 'tasty' for a BW guy like me.
Finally, I don't get the ref to the subject. Can you mention who it is? (Just curious)
Thanks Steady,
Yes I agree it's not a classic HDR image, indeed you have to look hard to see the difference. I've seen a few pictures on here that show the technique much better than I can do. Hopefully some people can post a shot or two!
As for the subject of the portrait, it is David Cameron, MP. He's the leader of the Conservative Party and quite possibly the next Prime Minister of the UK.
You cannot extend the range of one photo. It comes with all the info and therefore you are getting all the range out of the photo, but you are not extending it. Only with multiple images can you increase the dynamic range, and that is what is meant by HDR.
elliotkramer wrote:
You cannot extend the range of one photo. It comes with all the info and therefore you are getting all the range out of the photo, but you are not extending it. Only with multiple images can you increase the dynamic range, and that is what is meant by HDR.
Your right in a pure definition of HDR in terms of digital photography, but with RAW there is data that does not show up in PS and other photo editors and you can take advantage of this in your RAW converter software. If the intention is to increase the tonal range of the image there are many ways to do this without compositing two images together - shooting on film would be a good one
I do not want to argue with you, but you are simply wrong. Every bit of range can be brought out in a single exposure WITHOUT using the method that you used. There is absolutely no advantage to doing what you did. It is one way to achieve a goal that is easily achieved other ways.
elliotkramer wrote:
I do not want to argue with you, but you are simply wrong. Every bit of range can be brought out in a single exposure WITHOUT using the method that you used. There is absolutely no advantage to doing what you did. It is one way to achieve a goal that is easily achieved other ways.
I think we're getting lost in semantics here. The point of this thread was to develop a wider discussion about the use of HDR techniques (real or perceived) in portrait photography as it was mentioned on another thread that it is impossible to do in portrait photography; I disagreed. I know these are rubbish examples of an extended dynamic range, I stated as much in the original post.
Perhaps you have an image that can show this effect better?
Both of you are right... Kind of
liamh, your image is a HDR technique modified for a single image, and it was done very well. I like the exposure a lot, but elliot is correct in saying it is not a true HDR since it is from a single image. elliot is also right that there are many other ways to achieve the final result other than using this HDR technique modified, like with the shadow highlight tool to name one, however, as I said, I really like your image, but feel it should be called a mock-HDR, since HDR relies on multiple frames not multiple images from one frame.
As for HDR portraits, someone saying it cant be done...it cant (that is of course real HDR-Mock HDR as you have proved can be done).
It is an interesting technique and I have tried it before using a single image and bringing out as much colours as I can in both high and low range but having nothing even slightly worth showing. I found I can bring out much more from just using a single image then double or triple processing one image then using HDR methods.
It is a technique that does have possibilites in portraits but I am yet to utilise them myself. I think that it (real HDR) could be done and acheive wonderful effects using reptiles such as lizards, the colours you could bring out if they didnt move would be awesome. but finding a face that didnt move one mm over three exposures....hmmm
AdamRo wrote:
As for HDR portraits, someone saying it cant be done...it cant (that is of course real HDR-Mock HDR as you have proved can be done).
This one was a bad choice, for a start it was shot on a Hasselblad with a 33MP Leaf digital back on it, which means it's already capturing two to three more stops of dynamic range than your average DSLR. It was also a bad choice as there's no sun or sky in the image to more ably demonstrate the effect I was talking about.
I don't see why you can't do a multi-image portrait, I'll have a crack at one over the weekend and see if I can provide a better illustration of the effect.
i always shoot in raw, and for landscape i convert the single raw file to HDR using Photomatix. The resulting file is called "Radiance RGBE" (file extension ".hdr").
My next step is to "tone map" this radiance RGBE file, also using Photomatix, save as TIFF or JPEG file. For further post processing I use Capture NX (being a Nikon user).
Reading your post above, I tried this procedure to a portrait shot and here is the resulting image, without the NX pp (# 1).
Last March 1, and to get a "true" HDR result for people, I instructed my officemates not to move in order for me to take 3 bracketed shots. These were then merged also using Photomatix ( see pic # 2 in the following post).
To be honest, I am not quite sure how I feel about these picture-results. I guess, I will just try these procedures and if the end products are good I keep them, otherwise, discard.
Good stuff Stan. Can one human face have more tonal range? Love that face.
And thanks for sharing your workflows.
Both your shot of your colleagues and mine of the politician fall short in HDR terms because there is little dynamic range within the actual scene. I think we need to try shooting outside with the sun and some deep shadows - not easy to do in the UK as it's always cloudy
