Thoughts on HDR Imaging

While the latest trend of surreal high dynamic range (HDR) images doesn't get much play on NPN, I have seen some discussion of HDR imaging here in the past. As outdoor photographers, we are often challenged with photographing scenes that span a very wide dynamic range. I recently gave a presentation on the topic to the Southern Oregon Photographic Association. Instead of just talking about the latest software and the "cool" HDR affects you can produce, I decided to focus on the idea that extending the dynamic range of what the camera can "see" has long been a goal of outdoor photographers and that there are many ways to effectively extend the dynamic range in an image. The presentation was well received, so I decided to adapt it in to an article on my blog. It is a bit long winded, but perhaps of interest to some. If you like, you can check it out HERE.

I would also be interested to hear of other techniques people use to extend the dynamic range in their images. I focused on the ones that I use regularly.

PS-I'm posting this over in Digital Imaging too, so sorry for the repeat.

I'd disagree on your broad description of exactly what HDR is. In the broadest definition of the sense, I'd argue that you are largely correct, but when you ask a random photographer what they think HDR Photography is, I'd wager the most frequent response you'll get is the "bracket and blend" definition. I've never, ever heard of anyone suggesting that using Grads qualifies (though again by definition, I suppose it technically does).

My personal feelings about HDR is that while manual blending of two or maybe three exposures is all well and fine, HDR has become all about letting the computer do the work for you. You have some great examples in your article of how a manual blend will completely trounce the capabilities of programs like Photomatix, but what I'm seeing is that people a) don't know how to blend manually, b) don't want to take the time to blend manually, c) don't understand how to expose for varied lighting conditions or d) any and all of the above.

I think the the vast majority of people view HDR as either a means to avoid learning how to actually deal with uneven lighting conditions (maybe subconsciously) and then over time it slowly becomes ingrained in their thought process that since HDR processing can keep the detail in shadow areas, they should HDR everything to maximize the amount of detail they get without realizing that the contrast and depth of the image is brutally sacrificed in the process. Now I'm not necessarily opposed to HDR techniques, but I think that until a photographer has learned how to shoot without relying on HDR processing to restore detail and tonality, it will be nothing but a crutch and impede any and all development and understanding of the art.

Excellent Sean, really well done. I think that explains the current state of HDR as I understand it very well.

I too have never heard of anyone calling a grad a method of HDR, but I like it. That's essentially what it is, a method of expanding the range of light you can capture. I find it interesting how willing some photographers (especially those who learned on film?) are to accept grad lines that, IMHO, really don't look good, and personally think blending can be superior for the reason you mention.

Bryan, I agree with you. HDR blending and other computer techniques are something we should be doing _after_ we learn proper camera and field techniques for capturing the scene in the first place.

I'm curious, how many of us who blend by hand paint/dodge/burn as opposed to using selection tools? I almost always use selection tools with the difference mode, and find I get much better results than by painting.

Well said Bryan!

Great feedback so far guys. We are in agreement on many points. Bryan, I take your point on what the "random" photographer would think HDR imaging is, and that speaks largely to the purpose of the article...to recognize that there are many ways to approach the dynamic range challenge before going straight to the HDR software solution. In terms of other people comparing the use of graduated filters to HDR, Darwin Wigget does HERE in one of his blogs on the Singh-Ray filter site and he comes to many of the same conclusions I did.

The connotation that HDR has gained as a software solution is largely what prompted me to use the term "extended dynamic range" instead of "high dynamic range" in much of the article. In fact, EDR is the approach I take in my mind. When needed I look for ways to extend the dynamic range to fit the situation and my technique varies depending on how great a dynamic range I'm dealing with.

As someone that started doing a lot of software based HDR from the beginnings of picking up a camera, I have shifted away from it. I am doing what I can to work with what I have in the field and with grads with some manual blending when needed. My biggest frustration is that while you have some control over the image, you never have full control of the image when using HDR software. You rely on the software to calculate what it thinks is best for the images you have taken and we all know how software is always perfect.

It was a good learning experience, but I am learning to do things differently as I go and loving the extra control over the final output from the moment I open the RAW. I remember getting results that I did like, but as the software progressed I just didn't care for the way it handled the images. I'm still learning how to effectively blend.

I have a rather simplistic view on this topic: Go out to my garage and open my toolbox... You'll find 15 different screwdrivers. Usually there are two or three that will work for a given task - but one of them is the right tool to use. Same goes for HDR. It's just one of the tools - sometimes it'll work - occasionally it's the right tool for the job.

Thanks for your thoughts Nick and Arlen. Nick, you and I have a very similar experience. As you can see from the angle of my article that I also can get much better results and specific control when blending vs using Photomatix. I think in the article I mention, like you, that the controls are global, fairly blunt and that the output often does not match the preview. The introduction of artifacts such as noise, fringing, hot pixels, etc. is also another major shortfall of HDR software.

Nice article Sean, thanks for posting this. I agree in general with your take on HDR. Most cases you see are horrible....I've really only seen a few that used HDR software well.

I like your articles because you include many quality example pictures to illustrate your points.
Thanks for taking the time to write and share this.

One thing about Photomatix for those who haven't used it, is that it also has an exposure blending option which I find pretty useful in certain situations, and the results tend to be more realistic than what I'm able to achieve through tone mapping . It would still have the other disadvantages over manual blending, though. Also, there is another technique that can be used to blend a photo, one which does not require as much manual work. It's Marc Adamus' idea, so perhaps he can explain it better, but it involves taking one photo with the gnd and another without, and blending in portions of the non gnd pic to eliminate any unwanted darkening of rocky outcroppings, lighthouses, etc.

As with all tools, one must make the artistic decision whether or not to employ them, and whether they are used exclusively or occasionally will depend on the subject matter, lighting, tastes of the artist, etc. I imagine some purists held negative views of gnd filters when they first began to be used with film because they allowed scenes to be portrayed in new ways. When used to maximize the dynamic range (and not produce gaudy or surrealistic colors) I see the hdr as simply an extension of the gnd. The overuse of any technique does not denigrate the technique itself. However, I believe the more tools a landscape photographer has, the more able he will be of adapting to the conditions nature presents him with.

Again, thanks for sharing this illustrative piece.

Interesting post going here, Sean. I think I am in with the majority. I hate the phony cartoon colors and whacked out contrast problems that an automated HDR workflow creates. Pesonally, I enjoy working with images in photoshop, and one-click solutions don't interest me at all. I view the art of photography as a process - all the way from pre-visualizing an image to the final print and presentation. Being the slightly anal perfectionist that I am, I want to do it all my way, by myself - so no Photmatix for this cowboy.

One thing I have been doing lately is a typical stacked exposure like most people use, but I will also double process each layer. Say I have a sunset seascape with moving waves and seastacks in the FG that also cross the horizon and protrude into the sky. If I take my FG exposure and double process it for highlights, and my sky exposure double processed for shadow detail, I now have two layers that fill in the gaps between the light FG and darker sky layers. The two double processed layers usually end up being close to each other in exposure. You can then take the best bits of each to help make any transitions between super high-contrast edges, or moving objects that would be ruined by a straight forward blend. Hopefully that all makes sense. I don't think I invented the technique, but I haven't seen anyone mention doing it quite the same way as I do. I'd be curious if anyone else has a similar workflow.

Aaron - Thanks for sharing your double process/exposure stacking technique. I can only say that it sounds brilliant and I can't believe I hadn't thought of that before. Now I'm all psyched to give it a try!

I've used HDR on a few rare occasions when the light range is so harsh and I've needed to blend over 4 different exposures to get *natural* shadow details, especially when shooting directly at the sun...other than that, I've basically used the process Aaron mentions. That has worked well for me in the past.

I have never used Photomatrix, but I'll say that it takes some amount of skill in Photoshop to create clean looking HDR images. The most common mistake when putting together an HDR image, is losing contrast by including too much detail in the shadows. It's easy to be seduced by the ability to do so...but I must recommend avoiding that temptation and making those areas darker than you might initially be inclined to lean towards.

Arlen has an excellent point about using the right tool for the job. It's nice to have a bag of tricks to use...it only serves to broaden your understanding of how to process to get the desired results.

Awesome article Sean...thanks for sharing!

Great article for sure!

If you want to do blends without that weird brassy/smokey oddness of most HDR apps look into Enfuse. Better yet if you use Lightroom Google LR/Enfuse for an excellent Lightroom plugin.