Noel here,i have been experimenting the HDR process and tried just using one image and making 3 copies of it in my editor and adjusting the exposure for each copy ie +2,-2,0 etc seems to work ok depending on the image used.Has anyone tried that with success? thanks, Noel.....
That might work for some images, but it defeats the purpose of doing HDR. The image you are adjusting has one set of pixels. Yes, you can brighten it up, or darken it, but you are not altering what was captured in the first place. You'll get much better results by capturing HDR images in the field and altering the exposures.
What you are doing really isn't HDR. It will work well for some images where you haven't lost too much detail in the blacks or whites but it doesn't give more tonal information than was originally present in the original capture. It won't separate tones very well in dark areas since there is a lot less information present - "blobs" are a frequent issue if you push it too far.
The idea behind a true HDR, where you capture the (or more images) at say -2, 0 and +2 for exposure is to capture detail in the highlights (for the -2 exposure), detail in the midtones (for the 0 exposure) and detail in the dark areas (the +2 exposure) and let software intelligently select the pixels from each exposure. By using three distinct exposures, you are adding to the total information contained in the resulting 32 bit file.
What you are doing can be done using layer masks in PS. It's tantamount to dodging and burning. Multiple images with different exposures of the same scene can be combined in the same way probably with better results. You probably can get add-ons, or actions that will do an HDR-style manipulation on a single image, saving you the trouble of making multiple copies. My iPhone can do it, so surely Photoshop can. The idea of making multiple images of the same scene with different exposures is that it overcomes the sensor's dynamic range limitations. I usually blend such images manually rather than allowing software to do it for me because I fell that I can get a better final image that way.
But then, I don't care for the surreal HDR look that seems to be so popular. I also still use old fashioned GND filters rather than HDR, whenever I can.
I can't really add anything to what the others said, except that HDR doesn't have to look unrealistic at all - that's just the default people tend to make by overdoing it.
For instance, this photo is a 5 shot HDR, and I don't think it looks like the type Buck is referring to at all. But the snow certainly would have been blown out, and the trees lost in deeper shadows, if I hadn't done an HDR.
Noel,
To your specific question, I've processed a number of images that did not have either the highlights or shadows blown out and have run them through Adobe Camera Raw twice - once for the darker areas that I might bring up a bit, and once for the highlights that I might tone down a bit. This is a quite legit method of processing that I recommend. It has two drawbacks:
1) if either the shadows or the highlights are blown out, there's no rescuing the detail in those areas. They are gone forever. You are limited by the dynamic range of your camera, which is typically around 6 stops.
2) if you are trying to brighten the shadows much at all, you will introduce noise into those areas that would not show otherwise. That's why many say to "expose to the right" or expose the image such that the majority of the histogram is pushed as far right as possible. Another way of saying this is to slightly over-expose the image, as long as you don't go too far & blow out the highlights. It may not look good in the initial view on the back of your camera or as a raw file, but when you adjust the exposure in PS, you can really bring out the color without introducing noise.
For the truly tough shots like a sunrise or sunset with a nice foreground, no camera on the planet is going to be able to capture that dynamic range with one image. With the 5DII, you can only pre-set your bracketing to three images, and a max of +2 & -2, along with the metered exposure. That's usually plenty with most shots you would be taking. I used it for years & rarely lacked for a good set of photos where in at least one the shadows weren't blown & another that the highlights weren't blown. The 5DIII has 3,5, & 7 shot auto-bracketing, with up to a 5 stop compensation, so it has much more flexibility. That's not to say you can't bracket manually as others above have talked about.
Best of luck in your venture into the "deep end of the pool". It can really broaden your ability to capture nature's wonderful scenes.
Discussion
5 repliesThe idea behind a true HDR, where you capture the (or more images) at say -2, 0 and +2 for exposure is to capture detail in the highlights (for the -2 exposure), detail in the midtones (for the 0 exposure) and detail in the dark areas (the +2 exposure) and let software intelligently select the pixels from each exposure. By using three distinct exposures, you are adding to the total information contained in the resulting 32 bit file.
But then, I don't care for the surreal HDR look that seems to be so popular. I also still use old fashioned GND filters rather than HDR, whenever I can.
For instance, this photo is a 5 shot HDR, and I don't think it looks like the type Buck is referring to at all. But the snow certainly would have been blown out, and the trees lost in deeper shadows, if I hadn't done an HDR.
To your specific question, I've processed a number of images that did not have either the highlights or shadows blown out and have run them through Adobe Camera Raw twice - once for the darker areas that I might bring up a bit, and once for the highlights that I might tone down a bit. This is a quite legit method of processing that I recommend. It has two drawbacks:
1) if either the shadows or the highlights are blown out, there's no rescuing the detail in those areas. They are gone forever. You are limited by the dynamic range of your camera, which is typically around 6 stops.
2) if you are trying to brighten the shadows much at all, you will introduce noise into those areas that would not show otherwise. That's why many say to "expose to the right" or expose the image such that the majority of the histogram is pushed as far right as possible. Another way of saying this is to slightly over-expose the image, as long as you don't go too far & blow out the highlights. It may not look good in the initial view on the back of your camera or as a raw file, but when you adjust the exposure in PS, you can really bring out the color without introducing noise.
For the truly tough shots like a sunrise or sunset with a nice foreground, no camera on the planet is going to be able to capture that dynamic range with one image. With the 5DII, you can only pre-set your bracketing to three images, and a max of +2 & -2, along with the metered exposure. That's usually plenty with most shots you would be taking. I used it for years & rarely lacked for a good set of photos where in at least one the shadows weren't blown & another that the highlights weren't blown. The 5DIII has 3,5, & 7 shot auto-bracketing, with up to a 5 stop compensation, so it has much more flexibility. That's not to say you can't bracket manually as others above have talked about.
Best of luck in your venture into the "deep end of the pool". It can really broaden your ability to capture nature's wonderful scenes.