[ampere]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I think you are mixing focus stacking with HDR. The focus point doesn't change for multiple exposures that make an HDR image. And as most HDR images are landscapes (in general), the focus area is large enough to have everything sharp in the image.

I did not mean focus stacking at all. Since I mentioned of focus in foreground and back ground, I think it conveyed a wrong impression. Metering is the right word I should have used.

- Lets say you have a dramatic sky. To get that aspect, you change the exposure by metering it around that region. Hence the foreground details are missed.
- Similarly to get the foreground if you set you meter around the foreground, the exposure required would be different. Now if you shoot with that exposure, sky would be a wash out.
- Hence you bracket and blend.


In the case that you mention, instead of extracting you could also blend by bracketing the same shot. Any reason for not doing that? On hindsight, I see your point; that there are not much details on the sky which may get effected by exposure. So you may not need to bracket it. But if there are available such details/textures (say like sun light effects on leaves/trees, clouds in sky etc), then in my opinion we would need to bracket, as extracting the details would be that much more difficult from a single exposure.

Again this is just my opinion. I by no means, claim to know anything. Still learning!

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by ampere

I did not mean focus stacking at all. Since I mentioned of focus in foreground and back ground, I think it conveyed a wrong impression. Metering is the right word I should have used.

- Lets say you have a dramatic sky. To get that aspect, you change the exposure by metering it around that region. Hence the foreground details are missed.

That's not true for RAW images. Take the example I posted. In the original image, you don't "see" any detail on the bottom-left part of the image, but the detail is there to be extracted.

- Similarly to get the foreground if you set you meter around the foreground, the exposure required would be different. Now if you shoot with that exposure, sky would be a wash out.

True, irrespective of the RAW or JPEG.

- Hence you bracket and blend.

Hence I under-expose and work on the RAW file to extract details .

In the case that you mention, instead of extracting you could also blend by bracketing the same shot. Any reason for not doing that?

I find it more difficult to blend multiple images than work on one. You also need to have a tripod to make sure you don't introduce any misalignment in the images.

Again this is just my opinion. I by no means, claim to know anything. Still learning!

Yup, we are all learning all the time. I don't claim to know anything either. I just find working on single image easier (contrary to what you feel) than blending multiple images, so I was interested in finding out.

Everyone has a different workflow to achieve same result.

Ok, not on to HDR workflow itself. What software do you guys use for HDR blending? I will try the free version of the Photomatix plugin for Lightroom. Any other recommendations?

I got myself a new tripod too this week, so I ought to do some HDR (rather multiple exposures blending) now .

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

That's not true for RAW images. Take the example I posted. In the original image, you don't "see" any detail on the bottom-left part of the image, but the detail is there to be extracted.

You can extract as you rightly said. But assuming in the same image you also had clouds. How would we extract those details. All I meant was, if we have details lurking in both ends of the exposure, we wont be able to extract from both the ends.

I find it more difficult to blend multiple images than work on one. You also need to have a tripod to make sure you don't introduce any misalignment in the images.

I was in the same boat. Always tried single image enhancement, as even I mostly take handhelds. Then in on of the roadtrips, I borrowed my friend's tripod and just for the sake of trying an HDR, I tried a shot with the tripod. And sure enough I was pleasantly suprised by the results. I some how never liked the artistic or that surreal feel of an HDR. Hence mostly never went for them. But I also realized, you can just blend the exposures without majorly enhancing the details. That gives a natural look to the landscapes. Also for landscapes with wide angle I would recommend a Gorilla Pod to a tripod. I have one and its amazingly flexible. But yes that still does not negate the need for a regular tripod. However for treks and travels the G-Pod comes in very handy.

Yup, we are all learning all the time. I don't claim to know anything either. I just find working on single image easier (contrary to what you feel) than blending multiple images, so I was interested in finding out.

I would say give it a shot. Technlogy at our doorsteps and makes life much easier!

Ok, not on to HDR workflow itself. What software do you guys use for HDR blending? I will try the free version of the Photomatix plugin for Lightroom. Any other recommendations?

Most I think go with Photomatix which plugs in to PS/LR or Aperture. At 80$ its not value for money. My mother S/W (Aperture) itself came for 80$! I would recommend the Nik-Plugin bundle. They were extremely expensive. But after taken over by Google, their entire plugin bundle comes in about 100$ (post promo coupons). Definitely-Definitely worth it. Its comes with enhancement filters for noise reduction, black and whites, post and pre RAW sharpeners, HDR, General Color/Contrast enhancements etc. Each of these filters are really worth it. Earlier I was against all enhancement filters and believed in out of the camera photos with basic modifications. Then a very good photographer friend of mine told me with such plugins, you can't make a bad photo look good, but definitely make a good photo look better! So I took the plunge.

And the biggest quote by Ansel Adams which I love:
"You don't take a photograph. You make it" !

I got myself a new tripod too this week, so I ought to do some HDR (rather multiple exposures blending) now .

I had a big mental bottle necks about carrying tripods. Now after seeing many of friends I have come over that bottle neck. I am looking for one now! Currently dilly dallying between the Aluminium and Carbon fiber ones. There is a 2X difference in price. But friends are suggesting to the pump the money and go for carbon fiber as it makes a lot of difference.

PS : On a different note, I am trying to learn the process of focus stacking as well. Not any success yet! Long way to go.

[Dodge_Viper]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I under-exposed this by 3 stops to make sure the reflection in the water and sky doesn't blow out. Then extracted the details and colors out of shadows in post-processing.

@Gandhi. That's great amount of details recovered from 3 stops of under-exposure. Can you share the details on how it was done?

Originally Posted by ampere

Here is another HDR.

@ampere. So you shot one RAW image at normal exposure. Then how this was generated? Did you create multiple exposure RAW images from a single file?

I prefer to shoot one RAW and then create multiple exposures. Then use photoshop's tool of HDR to blend these files. Till now I used to select the surrealistic mode and play with settings till I got acceptable image. Few examples of these from my side:





Now the HDR which you guys created seems just perfect. I feel I have overdone it. How did you process that?

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Dodge_Viper

@ampere. So you shot one RAW image at normal exposure. Then how this was generated? Did you create multiple exposure RAW images from a single file?

The temple shot was a simple HDR plugin application to single JPEG image. The landscape was bracketted shots blended in the HDR tool.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by ampere

Then a very good photographer friend of mine told me with such plugins, you can't make a bad photo look good, but definitely make a good photo look better! So I took the plunge.

And the biggest quote by Ansel Adams which I love:
"You don't take a photograph. You make it" !

I used to think the same way, but had a recent change in mind . It does make a big difference.

[clevermax]

Guys, without doing any HDR stuff, you can easily blend exposures manually in Photoshop. That would sometimes produce better realistic images than an HDR.

I sometimes open up the same RAW with different EV settings through Camera RAW, and blend them into one picture in PS. It is so easy.

Forget even that, you can get pictures with good dynamic range straight from the camera, if you use options like Active-D lighting (Nikon), DRO (Sony) or even built-in HDR feature. You may then need to enhance the contrast a bit in PP then.

Example of blending:
http://500px.com/photo/27233179
http://500px.com/photo/15206999

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by ampere

You can extract as you rightly said. But assuming in the same image you also had clouds. How would we extract those details. All I meant was, if we have details lurking in both ends of the exposure, we wont be able to extract from both the ends.

Agree with all your points except this one. Here are 2 examples with details in cloud. Both processed from single RAW exposure. First is original exposure and second is processed.

Nothing spectacular in the image, just as an example.

Originally Posted by Dodge_Viper

@Gandhi. That's great amount of details recovered from 3 stops of under-exposure. Can you share the details on how it was done?

I use Adobe Lightroom to process RAW files. It will be difficult to explain all the steps here as that particular image involved lot of processing. Exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, blacks, whites, clarity, vibrance, sharpness, noise reduction, graduated filters, local brushes etc.

Lightroom is an amazing software and I would say it's must have for any photography enthusiast. It's easy yet very powerful. I'm not an expert at getting everything right when I click camera's shutter, so I rely on Lightroom to make up for that. All I need to worry when shooting is composition and exposure. I can take care of colors, WB, sharpness, noise, distortion, chromatic aberration, fringing etc later in Lightroom.

But post-processing shouldn't be used as an excuse either. I do try to get as many things as possible right in the camera, but time doesn't always permit when we are with friends and family on vacation.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Guys, without doing any HDR stuff, you can easily blend exposures manually in Photoshop. That would sometimes produce better realistic images than an HDR.

I dont have PS/LR. I use Aperture. Hence was not aware. My camera does not support the HDR mode. (I have a Canon 550D). Need to upgrade sometime later.

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Agree with all your points except this one. Here are 2 examples with details in cloud. Both processed from single RAW exposure. First is original exposure and second is processed.

See this is what I am saying. In order to extract details from the sky, contrast got added to the foreground as well. That may not be always welcome. Assuming you wanted to extract the highlights of sky without wanting to compromise the details of the foreground will need to blend. Now thats only to point for the reason. Finally it depends on us, on how we want to see it. May be in PS, one can use layers and extract contrast for a location. I have never tried that since I dont have PS.


Simply put, if I dont have the tripod while shooting, I will underexpose just as you did. If I have a tripod, I would go with HDR.

[Torqueguru]

@Nilanjan
Oops! Never realized that I didnt update the location on my profile. Thanks for the reminder.

A portrait of a Jaguar


Regards,
TG.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by ampere

See this is what I am saying. In order to extract details from the sky, contrast got added to the foreground as well. That may not be always welcome. Assuming you wanted to extract the highlights of sky without wanting to compromise the details of the foreground will need to blend. Now thats only to point for the reason. Finally it depends on us, on how we want to see it. May be in PS, one can use layers and extract contrast for a location. I have never tried that since I dont have PS.

Added contrast to foreground was intentional. Not a side-effect of bringing out details from sky. I probably added too much clarity like I always do, which caused the halo effect around edges.

I think we should stop here, others might be getting bored in all these discussion. Let's get back to sharing photos.

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@Nilanjan
Oops! Never realized that I didnt update the location on my profile. Thanks for the reminder.

A portrait of a Jaguar
Attachment 1105289

Regards,
TG.

Amazing portrait. You captured the expression nicely. Is this Seattle Zoo?

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I think we should stop here, others might be getting bored in all these discussion. Let's get back to sharing photos.

True. But lets still have these discussions once in a while.

Many a times I get these very very basic doubts, for which I dont get the answers easily.

[Dodge_Viper]

We can have a dedicated thread towards post processing, wherein members can post photos alongwith basic summary of post processing details done.

Or maybe within this thread itself a short summary below picture would also do .

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Dodge_Viper

We can have a dedicated thread towards post processing, wherein members can post photos alongwith basic summary of post processing details done.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifti...rt-thread.html

This thread has many aspects discussed. But I think we can use it for discussing post processing aspetcs.

[nilanjanray]

A tigress shot during the moment of eye contact. One usually has 1-2 seconds to take that shot.