While I have seen HDR (High Dynamic Range) tools used with restraint, enhancing a photograph rather than overpowering it, I have seen it used more often to give everything the same value. Those of you who have taken our workshops know what I mean. Values are the lights, darks, and midtones that make any piece of artwork interesting. In fact, in photography, the dynamic range is a term used to express the ratio between the maximum and minimum black-and-white measurable light intensities. Whew! In other words, a photograph with a broad range of values represented has a high dynamic range; a high-key (very light) photograph, on the other hand, has a low dynamic range.
The new DSLR cameras give you somewhere around 7-8 f/stops of dynamic range, better than some of the old films, but still not as much as the human eye can discern. We see details in the highlights and shadows that the camera cannot quite capture. The great advantage of using HDR (High Dynamic Range) tools is to increase that dynamic range to somewhere closer to 10-11 f/stops.
We teach techniques in our workshops to lead the viewers’ eyes into the image, not out of it. The danger in our minds is that too heavy a hand can put all the values on the same plane, thus confusing the eye. Where should one look, if there are no values to lead one into the photograph? Where is the drama? Remember, the eye goes to where the lightest light meets the darkest dark. If there are no real lights and no real darks, and if it is light on the edge of the frame where it may meet a dark background, that is not necessarily a good composition feature. Different people look for different effects, to be sure, but as photographers, rather than photo illustrators, it is something to keep in mind. I happen to be a photographer and not a photo illustrator, so I come at HDR with that bias.
As with any new technology in Photoshop, I did some experimenting for different effects that did not venture beyond the pale. I actually bought Photomatix that gets excellent reviews. Some reviewers have written, and I tend to agree, that some of the local contrast is lost in Photoshop CS3. Photomatix’s tone mapping seems to prevent this from happening.
My very first HDR image was one of a Maine lighthouse. It is a place I have photographed often over the years, and a place to which I always return. How to give it that Sunday punch? It is a very white building against usually a very clear, blue sky, unless, of course, it’s cloudy. It was late-afternoon sunny when I did my shots this spring with HDR in mind.
I have found that one does not always have to do seven or nine shots to come up with the input necessary to produce a good HDR image. This one was done with just three, seen below, with the middle one being the “correct” exposure. You’ll notice that the shadows are in a different place in each of the images.
I ran the three through the Photomatix tone-mapping mill, did a couple of tweaks, then in the final image did a little bit of burning to make sure the edge wasn’t too bright. This was the result…
It captures that late-afternoon look that I really like and brings out the detail in the window; yet, it stays within the bounds of photography rather than photo illustration.
The next one I did with one of Arnie’s photographs. There was a stormy sky that had lots of detail, but when photographed, one had to expose for either the sky or the rocks. I suggested to Arnie that five exposures might work just fine. They follow, so you can see the challenges presented by the dark darks and the light lights. When the exposure works for the rocks, the sky is blown out; conversely, when the exposure is right to bring out detail in the sky, the rocks go black.
Again, using the tone mapping feature of Photomatix, I tweaked it a bit and ran the HDR. In the final image, because the trees were too light along the edge of the frame so that they drew our eyes out there, I did some vignetting through burning to achieve the effect we wanted…
As you can see, the sky gained a lot of drama, while the red of the rocks came through. Click here for a larger version of this and the lighthouse above.
One of my more recent images was from our August trip to Arizona. I got up really early one morning to hike part way up a local mountain. Because of the steep climb and the near-record temperatures, I didn’t relish the idea of lugging up my tripod. I hadn’t brought my monopod because of airline restrictions, so I decided to give my worn knees a break.
In stitching and in HDR, it really is much better if you use a tripod, but when I decided to hike up, I didn’t even think of that with daytime temperatures close to 110 degrees. Once I reached the saddle of the mountain, however, I saw not only stitching possibilities, but HDR ones as well. There was a beautiful panorama, and the sun was producing what I call “ZOT light.” I am sure you’ve seen it. Those rays of light that go ZOT down on the landscape. The Hudson River School painters were famous for using it.
The combination of the two elements was irresistible, so sans tripod, I decided to try it anyway. I’ve always been pretty steady, and I had nothing to lose.
I found a good spot where I could brace myself, yet rotate. I did a series of three exposures each of nine overlapping shots. One of the series is shown below.
I then took each exposure set and made a panorama, so that I ended up with three panoramas in three different exposures.
Then, because I didn’t have my tripod, I had to go through a few more steps so that my new panoramas would work in Photomatix.
I have come up with a basic set of inputs that seem to work for me, so I ran the three new images through Photomatix with a tweak or two. Experimenting further, I decided to try the default setting which appears below the one processed with my settings. Larger versions may seen by clicking here.
Now you can see what I mean about HDR sometimes evening out the values so the photograph is not very interesting. The top one of these two, processed with “my” Photomatix settings, brings out the darks and lights. The bottom one above shows all the detail in the foreground and evens out the clouds so there is no drama. You’ll notice that the top one actually gave some added definition to the clouds and ZOT light as compared to the lower one done with the default settings.
Now, compare the original, “correct” exposure to the HDR version:
Comments from you are always welcome. Many people write us privately, but it’s fun for others to see the comments here. You don’t need to be a Google member to do so. Just click on the “comments” link below and post anonymously.
For those who missed it last week, we have uploaded a video with lots of photographs from Arnie, John, and me to our YouTube site called “People Portraits.”
Remaining fall workshops: Arches & Moab (UT); New England Fall Foliage (NH & VT); and Lighthouses of the Outer Banks (NC). For more information, go to our Barefoot Contessa Photo Adventures website.
New spring workshop: April in Savannah (GA).
If you wish to get notices when new articles are posted, there are two ways to do it. See both options below, Subscribe to BCPA’s Blog and Follow BCPA’s Blog. Even if you choose not to do that, please share this with your friends and relatives who love photography.
Tom,
There are two schools of thought and use on HDR, and both are valid, depending upon one’s point of view.
We, as you well know, teach photography, not photo illustration, and the effect of which you speak, are often more in the photo illustration domain rather than the photography one.
One of the things that bears repeating, I think, is that an HDR image need not stop there. It is rare than I do not then import an HDR image into Lightroom to modify it. I find that Photomatix and Lightroom work well in concert.
Hope this all helps!
Take care,
TBC
One of our New England participants could not post a comment, so I am doing it for him…
HDR software can truly be an amazing tool and, for sure, I’m a novice with it at this point. I’ve experimented and posted a few examples on my blog (blog.tomdwyerphoto.com) but I haven’t done as much with it yet as you have.
I’m concerned about what seems like a propensity for HDR software (I too use Photomatix) to exaggerate if we’re not careful. Skies often seem to exaggerate their darkness, in my experience. While skies are often certainly dramatic, I find myself wanting to try and not let them get too dark, too dramatic and therefore too ominous. Of course, the controls, at least in Photomatix, give you a lot of control in determining the final results. I’ll stay tuned for more of your insight.
Tom
Harold,
You are right in that sometimes, one can do better by sticking to basic photographic and compositional techniques to achieve the desired results. I have tried HDR on some shots and preferred my best exposure to the HDR version.
As with anything to do with HDR, everyone has a different vision of what he/she wants, so there are no easy answers here.
Is it worth buying Photomatix? Again, this is a matter of personal taste, but I think so. Compared to CS3, it offers more options, and the end results took better to my eye.
The lighthouse shot shows that getting crisp whites is not a problem.
In Arnie’s scene, because of the inherent wide tonality, getting good results could not have been done nearly as easily or as well in camera. Think of architectural shoots where multiple exposures are done in a specific order to bring the details out of the lights and darks.
I happen to use one-stop bracketing, although some people use two, and yet others use only a half-stop difference.
Play with the sliders to achieve the look you like. Each one of us has preferences, so unfortunately, there is no one right answer to your questions. Take the sliders to the extremes, just as you do in Lightroom, then come back to something appealing to you. Switch back and forth between sliders, since they work in concert with each other.
Next time you join us, we can go into it more in depth.
Good luck, and thanks for writing,
TBC
Care to share those basic settings?
You do not say how many stops of difference were used. My limited experience with Photomatix is that the shadows are brought out, the colors are improved, but the whites always look flat and I have to tweak in Photoshop afterward anyway. How many stops difference in exposures do you recommend and are 5 better than 3. In your opinion – from what can already be done in Photoshop and considering purchasing Photomatix, taking 3 to 7 photos, working the software and then havaing to tweak it anyway afterward in Photoshop is the final result better enough to warrant it all.
Thanks for your response.