Simplicius wrote:Out of pure curiosity, what was the range between your low-end and high-end brackets (in f-stop and/or shutter speed)?
I applied the same wisdom told to me about making panoramas - Keep the bloody F-stop (Aperture priority) set, change only the shutter speed. (+2 and -2 EV stops. Can't remember the exact shutter speeds, but it was rather high, there was a lot of sun and ISO 400, I still don't have a tripod
).
In this case I really can't say that HDR added anything to these pictures, and in fact subtracted one important thing. This doesn't really matter when all you want to do is learn how to use the process, but something you'll want to keep in mind as you become more comfortable with HDR is that it is only helpful in specific circumstances, i.e. those where you will lose detail in (underexposed) shadow or in (blown) brightness.
That was the reason why I tried it, as you can see I was shooting against the sun, or onto large sunny desert landscapes with great shadows in them. I wanted to have the sun and the view. (Even if I didn't have my cornea from shooting into the sun :8).
In all other circumstances, the use of HDR sacrifices contrast by elbowing in more information between 'true black' and 'true white,' which actually kills detail, and thus the photograph. For this reason, your third photo is by far the best one here, because you applied HDR without destroying the picture. Not only are the colors intact, but the contrast on the near slope has been preserved, which lets you see the detail of the stones and sticks. Compare that with your second photo, where the detail of the hillside has been transformed into smudges, and you can see the cost of superfluous HDR.
Yeah, I prefer bright contrasty photos. (You don't need to convince me), but it's an interesting experiment and allows flexibility, especially if i'm worried about a shot being over/underexposed. (which seems to happen a lot with "my" canon these days for some reason).
Maybe once I figure out how to do the process worth a damn, and to only apply it to the sky, that'll be most useful:).
Now, you say you don't feel that HDR "improved" the third shot any; this is true, and it is probably true because the dynamic range of that photo wasn't very high to begin with. But if the sun was significantly lower, it probably would have: you could have bracketed to expose detail in the deeply-shadowed canyon while keeping the contrast and color of the normally-lit near slope. On the other hand, Photo #2 was savaged by HDR because your high-end bracket was for OMG THE SUN, so the process had to compress that great brightness into the overall range of the image, and the result is - as you put it - ice cream. Other than the sun, the scene's dynamic range wouldn't have been that high and could have been shot normally with good results - or with postprocessing using the advantage of RAW.
Other than the huge glowing ball of fire taking up half the shot, the dynamic range would have been fine?
.
So, HDR hints from a guy with no reason to use HDR at all: set your brackets to capture detail in the brightest and darkest parts of the shot, but still be careful about over- and underexposing, and still keep in mind shadow and highlights in your composition. That is the central point: the purpose of HDR is to capture detail that would otherwise be lost, not to catch all the light bouncing around in every cranny of the shot. The former gets you this:
Well, that was my intent! (what you said) It's just that i'm rather crap at it. (and I persist in not using RAw except for rare occasions or here when melding the shots into the HDR. I really should muck around with it, but there's so little time, and it takes up so much damn space...)
while the latter gets you mush.
But Ice cream as a mush is a milkshake
. Tasty and delicious to drink. Just like your ______.
It's very important to preserve contrast because shadow is what separates the elements in a photo from each other. The reason those kooky full-daylight HDR cityscapes are so hard to look at is because there is so little contrast keeping so many small areas of bright, bright color separate. Shadows help us make sense of what we see.
Strong shadows often do. My problem is usually with too much light in fact, less so with shadows. (These days it's pitch black by the time I finish work, and a strong bright winter sun the rest of the time).
I wonder, having read only a little about it, if boning up on Ansel Adams's Zone System of exposure would be useful for people who want to use HDR skillfully, since the purpose of the Zone System is to expose (and print) to capture the optimal tonal range. It might be a useful conceptual framework.
Maybe, but that assumes the ability to use the basic tools first. (Photoshop/RAW/Photomatix). I really should take a digital darkroom course, but my schedule is getting ever more tangled, and if I do find time for a course before my life goes to hell for 4 months, i'd rather it be something involving the outdoors and actually going out to take photographs.
So, HDR away, but just remember that if you want detail and sharpness, you need contrast.
There must be a way to do both! Possibly through slapping them together or...something. With chocolate chips.
And I'm not just saying that because I'm a whore for colorful, contrasty (and LDR) slide film.
Aren't we all?
Sorry for the essay,
Not one bit, I like people who actually give advice/critique and whatnot, it's why I bother uploading these shots. (that, and your essays are masterful on the subject
).
and if you want to go for the FPS or crazy-color look as an aesthetic choice, why, you can.
Can I post about it constantly in one liners too?!?
I have seen an overdone-HDR photo for sale in an art gallery, so there exists at least one serious photographer who'll contend that the 'HDR look' is artistically relevant or whatever.
Well, it beats a white piece of paper
. HDR even when overexposed can be great looking, it's just a very fine balance between night time wonder and "damn, paint can slipped".
...All that said, I don't know what you know or don't know about RAW, but I have heard that it is most useful when shooting in RAW to expose to capture the greatest amount of information in the frame, i.e. you want to expose for your highlights as long as you don't blow them.
As I said, i'm terrible with RAw and going for the highlights, I don't work with RAW at all. (though I should..)
Then you sit down to postprocess, and marvel at what you can do with your curves and sliders vs. trying to postprocess in JPEG. It may even save you the trouble of HDR-ing in many cases.
Yeah, I tried taking some shots in RAW for the greater dynamic balance range (they weren't interesting enough to upload though, just a few plants and naked people from a Rocky Horror picture show). I haven't managed to find a great difference in it yet.
(I would like to try RAW for my A570is, but I can't comprehend the CHDK hack. I'm only good with knobs, dials, and levers, it seems.
)
You sucks for you
. Try bracketing and hdr instead then
.
