# A new way of taking pictures...



## The_Other_One

Well, this is quite a distance from unedited, so I'll make a new thread...  Last night someone told me about High dynamic range imaging(HDR)  Basically, you take a series of pictures using different exposure settings and then combine them using software...  For a comparison, here's the picture I took using full auto on my camera.






Here's the same picture, but on manual mode(f4.0, ISO100, exposure going in 1 steps)  5 total pictures went into this one...






I realize it's not the best example, but it's my first attempt.  And you can see the difference   I think it's pretty neat stuff.  Expect to see more from me later as the weather clears up


----------



## apj101

colours look a bit deeper, looks good, but i cant really say which i prefer (ps I such at photos)


----------



## heyman421

trippy


----------



## Kornowski

It looks a lot better, I'll have to give a go sometime, How do you know what order and alpha to set the pictures to when combining them?

My camera has a 'Vivid' setting, it looks as if it'll do the same thing, I'll have to test this out.


----------



## The_Other_One

I have such color settings on my camera too, but I don't know if it does the same thing.  If you notice on the top picture, much of the detail is lost around the sky.  Many HDR pictures are made so you can still see the sky and the ground clearly.  I think a typical "VIVID" setting would simply bring out the colors on the ground, and leave a white sky...

Look around.  There are much better examples than what I've done...


----------



## speedyink

Yeah, I've seen some pretty kickass HDR photos.  Basically, the light is way more evenly distributed, which brings out details that would be under exposed and over exposed in pictures.  It's really cool, I've been meaning to try it but I haven't gotten around to it yet.  I dont know what software to use either..


----------



## The_Other_One

http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html#basic

Here's the software


----------



## speedyink

Thanks man 

Now to take some pictures...


----------



## 4NGU$

this looks like fun i suppose i best give it a go


----------



## DCIScouts

Hmm..., yeah, I'm not sure which one I like better either...  The leaves and flowers of the rhododendron look better for sure, but the rest of the picture looks like it's got some sort of florescent coloring on it.  Perhaps that's just what is going to happen on a rainy/cloudy day like that...  I'd be interested to see what other pictures look like.


----------



## The_Other_One

Here's another attempt at it...again a bad time.  Some low clouds were moving by and it was windy(so the trees were moving)  Note how you can see the clouds in the second picture.





Full manual(f4.0, ISO100, 1/160)





Using the above picture and 4 others(+ and - 2 steps)


----------



## DCIScouts

Definitely can a MUCH improved picture in the second one.  It's nice that you can actuallly see the clouds, instead of the sky being all a really bright, washed out light blue.


----------



## diduknowthat

Hold the camera still next time, it's blurring a bit .


----------



## PohTayToez

diduknowthat said:


> Hold the camera still next time, it's blurring a bit .



Uhh... I believe that's because it was windy... so the different pictures had the trees in different places.


----------



## The_Other_One

Dude, these were taken on a tripod.  5 pictures.  It was a windy day so yes, the trees will be blurry


----------



## PohTayToez

I'd imagine that a photography enthusiast such as you would have a decent camera, so it would have to be quite a bit of shaking to make it blurry.


----------



## The_Other_One

Just because a camera is digital doesn't mean it'd make any better/less burry pictures.  Film and digital cameras both work using the same principles of aperture, exposure, and such...  Now my camera does have an image stabilizer, but it still can get rather fuzzy, especially if I go beyond about 3x zoom or over about 1/4 second exposure.


----------



## DrCuddles

Why dont you just use the same picture when editing them instead of taking seperate ones?
Wouldnt that get rid of any blur when alpha layering them?


----------



## The_Other_One

Check the standard picture posted above.  See the detail in the sky?  This is none(when compared to the other).  You can't "make" details appear that aren't there.


----------



## Kornowski

> Why odnt you just use the same picture when editing them instead of taking seperate ones?
> Wouldnt that get rid of any blur when alpha layering them?



That defeats the whole object, you want the different exposures to get the different lighting effects and detail, simply editing the levels on the computer will do squat.

EDIT:

The_Other_One beat me to it 


> You can't "make" details appear that aren't there.


 Yeah, what I was trying to say


----------



## DrCuddles

Ahhhhh ok, i get you now


----------



## kobaj

Am I the only one who LIKES the first of both those pictures? Perhaps its your camera or program, but I think the bottom pictures look over saturated in color, and fake...Granted they are supposed to be like that but still.


----------



## speedyink

Here's my attempt 

Original:





HDR:


----------



## DCIScouts

Hmm..., with that pic, it looks like the one on top was taken a few hours after the other one, and that's about it (just a little bit brighter on the second one...)


----------



## speedyink

I noticed that the HDR images seem to severly loose contrast, which makes it look washed out to me.  On the plus side, look at the tires.  You can clearly see the treads in the HDR photo, so it does show that the HDR is doing its job.


----------



## The_Other_One

kobaj said:


> Am I the only one who LIKES the first of both those pictures?



Gimme some time    There are some settings to play with, and I know my examples aren't the best...  I mean, check this out;






I'm sure with better software(or better tweaking on my end  ) the pics could be quite realistic...


----------



## heyman421

I gotta tell you, that's one of the coolest thing's i've ever seen.

Is there a high-def. scan of that?  I'd love to use that for wallpaper.


----------



## The_Other_One

heyman421 said:


> Is there a high-def. scan of that?  I'd love to use that for wallpaper.


You know what...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/New_York_City_at_night_HDR.jpg

Haha, I might set it as my background too.


----------



## subtle

That is cool!!
I need to give it a go sometime...


----------



## tomb08uk

Can someone please state the differences, cant seem to notice anything.


----------



## subtle

You taking two (or more) pictures.
For example sun sets behind the buildings.
To take the first picture you take mesurements from the bright part of the scene (sky), which makes the buildings really dark and without any details.
The second picture you taking with the measurements from the dark part of the scene (which makes buildings looks ok but the sky is over exposed).
Then you combine these two pictures, so both, dark and bright parts of the scene are visible (no under or over exposure).
Like in the night city landscape here.
You are able to see roof tops, window lights, some clouds...
With just one picture (with measurements taken from the sky) you would be able to see clouds, but building lights will be over exposed (really bright and merging into one blurry ligth in some part of the picture).
In the end you get the effect which is close to what human eye can see.

At least I think that this is all about


----------



## Punk

It looks good!

Can you explain me exactly how to make those? I did not quite understand :S


----------



## subtle

Simply take some pictures of the same scene with different exposure settings and combine them in that software The_Other_One posted link to.

I'm saying "simply" without actually knowing it really is "simply" as I never tried that  

I'm not even sure you do that the way I said


----------



## kobaj

Psh, so I thought I would try it myself except I used photoshop and something like 16 pictures with this tutorial.  I tried a scene with lots of contrasting colors and darks and lights.  (And It was hungry and thats what was out. ) 

Original,





HDR, 





I like the color still in my original, but I can see what that HDR did with the details in the ice cream (in the tin roof tub). But I dont think Ill be doing this again, Setting up the tripod and spending an hour combining just aint worth it, maybe for outside shots...What do you think?

I have a huge 4megapixle 32bit .pbm, and all the original .jpgs, and pretty much any other file if anyone wants them Ill find a way to upload...


----------



## The_Other_One

OK, imagine you're taking a picture inside.  You have someone sitting on a couch and a window behind them(in view of course...)  It's a nice sunny day outside.  A fast exposure would capture only the window, leaving the rest of the inside too dark.  A longer exposure would cause the window to be white, but the rest of the "correct".  With the correct software, you combine these two picture and make one properly exposed picture.  More how the human eye would see it...


----------



## kobaj

I am such a retard, I uploaded the wrong image. Both I had up there were post production HDR images. I have uploaded the REAL original.

For all those wondering no, I did not "just turn the lights on". There is a windows behind where I was shooting this image, and the corner of the room has no lamps.  Therefor one gets the dark, light contrast. 

And If you still dont beleive me, Ill take a freaking picture OF it in the dark... :/


----------



## subtle

I took some pictures today and did that HDR...

This is the original picture (with auto exposure):






and this is HDR:






The HDR is a little "ghostly" because it was windy today (and my camera was a little shaky) 
I also sharpen the sky a little in CS2.


----------



## DrCuddles

Thats amazaing, it looks so good!
I have to give it a go now  !!!!


----------



## kobaj

Alrighty then, So Ive tried again.

Original,




Plus,





Equals HDR,





I kinda think the first looks better without my neighbors barn .


----------



## heyman421

it honestly looks better when you actuall cut the background and foreground and manually combine the frames, which is an old trick

It seems like HDR is just a shortcut

the HDR is cool for shots like the buildings, tho, and that cityscape shot, where it would take 5-10 exposures to capture every field, which would be nearly impossible to combine manually

but it seems like there must be a trick to using the HDR, because a lot of your attempts end up looking a LOT more washed out than the original


----------



## kobaj

Thats true, cutting and pasting would probably look better, but its a lot easier to just click "combine images to hdr" then to spend time cutting...I wouldnt call myself lazy, just time deprived. 

If I ever need a HDR image for something, I think I will just cut and paste, but I dont think Im ever getting a job in photography.


----------



## subtle

heyman421 said:


> it honestly looks better when you actuall cut the background and foreground and manually combine the frames, which is an old trick
> 
> It seems like HDR is just a shortcut
> 
> the HDR is cool for shots like the buildings, tho, and that cityscape shot, where it would take 5-10 exposures to capture every field, which would be nearly impossible to combine manually
> 
> but it seems like there must be a trick to using the HDR, because a lot of your attempts end up looking a LOT more washed out than the original



I don't think you need that many (5-10). From what I've noticed (for the last couple of weeks when I was playing with hdrs) 3 different exposures are enough. Or if you have really dark (bright) scene 5 shots. IMO.


----------



## Shiwen

I have ps cs2, but what steps do you take to join all the pictures together?


----------



## kobaj

File>automate>hdr

Thats pretty much it, the rest is self explanatory.


----------



## The_Other_One

Just taking random pictures as I have for the past few days...  I decided to give HDR another shot.  Also, this was one of the first times I tried shooting some pictures without the stabilizer on...  I mean it was on a tripod with a remote   Now if I could just hold the leaves still...


----------



## subtle

kobaj said:


> Alrighty then, So Ive tried again.
> 
> Original,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equals HDR,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda think the first looks better without my neighbors barn .



Since I tried HDR I fall in love with it!
I played with Kobajs picture (hope you don't mind  ). Here is what it looks like:




I Photoshoped it a little as well.


----------



## kobaj

Thats awesome!


----------



## tomb08uk

^Very good.


----------



## subtle

kobaj said:


> Thats awesome!



Glad you like it 
I couldn't get rid of that sun glare. That's probably because I know how to do 4 or 5 things in Photoshop


----------

