What is HDR ???

[maverickh]

To all seniors,

Can someone kindly advise what is HDR and how can one go about doing it ?

I notice that this function is available for my K200D and it states 200% . Can this be increased beyond this level ? Kindly advise .


Thanks

[Tzzw86]

HDR is high dynamic range..

The programme uses a few photographs take at different exposures, (usually 3) One over exposed, one underexposed and one normal, and combines them together to form an image. Result would roughly be a visible sky with clouds as well as visible foreground. But of course editing would make some different looking pictures..

i use photomatix pro3 as my HDR Generator..
check out this website.. http://www.hdrsoft.com/ it will explain more..

imo, i think HRD makes a picture look fake, but its another form of art i guess..

[flowerpot]

Originally Posted by maverickh To all seniors, Can someone kindly advise what is HDR and how can one go about doing it ? I notice that this function is available for my K200D and it states 200% . Can this be increased beyond this level ? Kindly advise . Thanks

High dynamic range... higher the better so u can capture more details if the image is very contrasty...wat is contrast google it... but it can also means ur image will look kinda flat without some level adjustment...

200% thingie...to me just a gimick...claims to increase 1 stop of dynamic range, probably some software tweak, seems to prevent hightlights from clipping...but i shoot raw so not much diff for me...

[maverickh]

To Flowerpot & Tzzw86,

Thanks .

[darrrrrrrrrr]

franz, are you the guy that gave us a lift to the prata place frm the kampung?

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by maverickh To all seniors, Can someone kindly advise what is HDR and how can one go about doing it ? I notice that this function is available for my K200D and it states 200% . Can this be increased beyond this level ? Kindly advise . Thanks

this is not hdr, in the k200d, it is fake hdr,

basically the camera just does some in-camera equivalent of shadow recovery and highlight recovery ,which can be done in photoshop with the highlight/shadow tool.

hdr, in short, involves using programs to combine many different exposures (usually you keep ISO, aperture and white balance constant, and then take the same scene on a tripod with different shutter speed settings). this is in an attempt to overcome the limited dynamic range the camera sensor can capture compared to the eye.

for hdr, there are many sorts.. you can use photomatix if you just want fast results, which would give you things like these, if you tweak it very carefully in post process in photoshop (most photomatix results suck, imho).







they are really, not necessarily fake-looking, but they CAN have a sort of artificial feel to it.

an alternative is DRI (dynamic range increase), which is done by using layering in photoshop, this one involves a lot more work, but gives more natural results:



there is also one last alternative, which can be achieved in-camera, which involves the use of graduated neutral density filters to hold back the light for selected parts of the picture:





as you can see, you would probably need all these tools and gimmicks when the light is more contrasty, e.g. at the golden hour setting.. hope this helps.

[fengwei]

Originally Posted by night86mare this is not hdr, in the k200d, it is fake hdr, basically the camera just does some in-camera equivalent of shadow recovery and highlight recovery ,which can be done in photoshop with the highlight/shadow tool. hdr, in short, involves using programs to combine many different exposures (usually you keep ISO, aperture and white balance constant, and then take the same scene on a tripod with different shutter speed settings). this is in an attempt to overcome the limited dynamic range the camera sensor can capture compared to the eye. for hdr, there are many sorts.. you can use photomatix if you just want fast results, which would give you things like these, if you tweak it very carefully in post process in photoshop (most photomatix results suck, imho). ... as you can see, you would probably need all these tools and gimmicks when the light is more contrasty, e.g. at the golden hour setting.. hope this helps.

Although I've seen these before, I'm still amazed by these great photos. Really really beautiful!

[pinholecam]

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

This is THE site to ogle at HDR.

[denn23]

Hi,

I understand about the taking a pic at different exposures. but how do u take that pic of the swan? wouldnt the swan move when you are taking 3 shots? how do you prevent the "movement" in human, animals?

thanks much

Originally Posted by night86mare this is not hdr, in the k200d, it is fake hdr, basically the camera just does some in-camera equivalent of shadow recovery and highlight recovery ,which can be done in photoshop with the highlight/shadow tool. hdr, in short, involves using programs to combine many different exposures (usually you keep ISO, aperture and white balance constant, and then take the same scene on a tripod with different shutter speed settings). this is in an attempt to overcome the limited dynamic range the camera sensor can capture compared to the eye. for hdr, there are many sorts.. you can use photomatix if you just want fast results, which would give you things like these, if you tweak it very carefully in post process in photoshop (most photomatix results suck, imho). they are really, not necessarily fake-looking, but they CAN have a sort of artificial feel to it. an alternative is DRI (dynamic range increase), which is done by using layering in photoshop, this one involves a lot more work, but gives more natural results: there is also one last alternative, which can be achieved in-camera, which involves the use of graduated neutral density filters to hold back the light for selected parts of the picture: as you can see, you would probably need all these tools and gimmicks when the light is more contrasty, e.g. at the golden hour setting.. hope this helps.

[flowerpot]

Originally Posted by denn23 Hi, I understand about the taking a pic at different exposures. but how do u take that pic of the swan? wouldnt the swan move when you are taking 3 shots? how do you prevent the "movement" in human, animals? thanks much

u dun need 3 exposure shots to do hdr... the swan... should be a single shot...hehe

[darrrrrrrrrr]

use 1 RAW exposure to generate 3 or more bracketed JPGs then use those to do the HDR?

[kkleong]

Besides taking 3 or more shots of different exposures (more for static composure) OR
adjusting differing exposures with single shot and doing Photoshop with layering,
there is a quick and dirty method that uses DOS command - tufuse.
Execute the command just by varying the EVs.

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by denn23 Hi, I understand about the taking a pic at different exposures. but how do u take that pic of the swan? wouldnt the swan move when you are taking 3 shots? how do you prevent the "movement" in human, animals? thanks much

hi,

the swan is a tone mapped hdr from raw, because raw files contain more information than jpeg, it can be done.

so only a single shot was used, but you only gain maybe a stop or so of dynamic range, compared to real hdr. but sometimes you have no choice.

[maverickh]

Darrrrrrrrrr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
franz, are you the guy that gave us a lift to the prata place frm the kampung- YES


night86mare, kkleong, flowerpot, denn23, fengwei, & pinholecamera - thanks for the clarification and advise.

[denn23]

Originally Posted by night86mare hi, the swan is a tone mapped hdr from raw, because raw files contain more information than jpeg, it can be done. so only a single shot was used, but you only gain maybe a stop or so of dynamic range, compared to real hdr. but sometimes you have no choice.

ahh.thought so. although i always had this impression that doing a HDR on a raw is not recommended.

but seeing your pictures.. i guess one can be more confident of the HDR results by just using raw. =)

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by denn23 ahh.thought so. although i always had this impression that doing a HDR on a raw is not recommended. but seeing your pictures.. i guess one can be more confident of the HDR results by just using raw. =)

not really.. when possible i prefer to use hdr from jpg.. better DR, etc..

anyways, that swan picture is probably one of those one-off freak results.. i don't think i'll ever be able to replicate it again, in terms of reality-luck and/or tweaking in photoshop for naturalness.

but of course, yes, when you need the additional DR, and you think you do, then why not, can try whacking raw in photomatix, see if you get anything out of it.

[flowerpot]

Originally Posted by night86mare not really.. when possible i prefer to use hdr from jpg.. better DR, etc.. anyways, that swan picture is probably one of those one-off freak results.. i don't think i'll ever be able to replicate it again, in terms of reality-luck and/or tweaking in photoshop for naturalness. but of course, yes, when you need the additional DR, and you think you do, then why not, can try whacking raw in photomatix, see if you get anything out of it.

great photographers create their own luck...

[denn23]

Originally Posted by flowerpot great photographers create their own luck...

agree

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by pinholecam http://www.stuckincustoms.com/ This is THE site to ogle at HDR.

i don't think much of him, btw,

his stuff is so unnatural, it's like he's popularised artificiality

if you want GOOD photography in my book, for travel, you can look at david clapp or david noton, now, those are images to drool about, because of the great amount of effort and superb composition, not just gimmicky flying light

[kkleong]

Some hdrs are just over the top
Too much of a good thing maybe and making it looked like watercolor.