Hdr

[matt_xyz]

I think I also prefer my original hoverfly image. I should add that the HDR image was created from a single RAW file, rather than 3 separate shots.

Matt

[LoveT]

A very interesting thread, this! I'd like to get into HDR and have a go myself at some point, but I must admit that wildlife photography (apart perhaps from landscapes) isn't the first subject that comes to my mind for this technique.

The best use I've seen for it so far is from a chap called Garrie Day, who photographs then processes urban/industrial landscapes, using Photomatix Pro3 and tonemapping (disused factories, hospitals etc.) to fantastic effect - in my personal opinion. I love the work he's done; it's almost surreal and as I've said, entirely in my personal opinion, it works extremely well for me because I think this is what HDR is best used for.

I don't want to get into trouble for posting links to external sites, but if you Google 'One Mile Ahead', you should be able to navigate to his site - pick up his 'urbex' Gallery and enjoy the images (I've got it as a favourite!).

I'd really like to see if HDR can work with wildlife photography - well done to all of you who've had a go so far .

Thea

[Willrow]

Originally Posted by mh68

I think the more muted background of the non-hdr version looks better in this case Matt.

Bill, if your camera allows Raw shooting,you can develop a single Raw file 3 or more times (underexposed,correctly exposed and overexposed)and combine them to get an hdr effect, so multiple shots/bracketing arent always essential (although they do give the best overall results).The Raw file gives you the exposure latitude to be able to do this from a single shot.
Personally,as far as hdr landscape type shots are concerned, I prefer the more dramatic,overdone effect...to me hdr`s main purpose is to give a more "arty" feel to shots.Wildlife shots i`m undecided, it either works really well or it doesnt give any advantage - in most cases I think it`s uneccessary.

Mark H

Hello Mark,

Yes I'm aware of the Raw shooting capabilities you mention, whether I can do them justice is another matter...still my efforts at present revolve around trying to achieve good bracketed (5 image) landscapes with jpeg's and I'm also trying out as many of the HDR software trials as possible before committing to one I'm comfortable using.

I too feel that HDR leans towards the more artistic, I don't think it lends itself to 'natural wildlife shots' in fact it could even detract. I'm going to stick my neck out now and also say that I don't really think that you can get a 'real' HDR image from a single shot image, by definition it simply does not have the necessary dynamic range to produce a 'genuine' HDR image, Matt's hoverfly image above is an example I really cannot tell the difference between them.

Regards,

Bill

[mh68]

Originally Posted by Willrow

Hello Mark,

Yes I'm aware of the Raw shooting capabilities you mention, whether I can do them justice is another matter...still my efforts at present revolve around trying to achieve good bracketed (5 image) landscapes with jpeg's and I'm also trying out as many of the HDR software trials as possible before committing to one I'm comfortable using.

I too feel that HDR leans towards the more artistic, I don't think it lends itself to 'natural wildlife shots' in fact it could even detract. I'm going to stick my neck out now and also say that I don't really think that you can get a 'real' HDR image from a single shot image, by definition it simply does not have the necessary dynamic range to produce a 'genuine' HDR image, Matt's hoverfly image above is an example I really cannot tell the difference between them.

Regards,

Bill

Yep Bill, cant argue with any of that

Mark H

[DuncanE]

Just had a thought when I have been playing around with HDR images from my holiday snaps that there was a tread here.

After having a play, I am becoming more of a fan of this technique - but only on some images - where it works better on some than others. (Maybe thats just my photos!) I didn't get a chance to try any HDR nature shots but did plenty of landscapes.

The two HDR images I am proud of though, were of Polperro Harbour and a of a wooden sluce-thing in my old local patch. But this was using a trail of Photomatix so was covered in watermarks. I may have to get the "full version" or the basic version - which I've get to try.

[Badllarma]

HDR was/is brought in to capture the full dynamic range of lighting on a film sets to then use those results to match the lighting to a greater accuracy when integrating 3D CGI elements.

Notice the "to match" it was not even used directly.

It has since as it hit the main stream been used a a new "thing" / "fad" in photography which now is using HDR directly (which was never the original intention). What usually happen is two things when used badly it looks like over processed junk (but if that the look your after that's fine ), or when done well you may as well learned Photoshop levels, adjustment layers etc a little more and go the same effects.

It really should be viewed as a filter you can screw on the front of your lens to add "effect" it does not work for 99% of subjects but "may" work on a few. A bit like adding one of those star filters for instance.

I've used HDR or HDRI every one seems to forgot the "I" these days For it's original use up to 8 years ago and to be honest even then it was penned as the magic bullet but it still needed a lot of tweeking in various software packages to get it to as near as make no difference.

Would I use it for wildlife, err NO if you shoot RAW and run your files through the likes of Lightroom, there is a million and one sliders you can use to get the most out of the image without even touching HDR/HDRI.

BUT to experiment is a great thing and should always be tried

[Digifrog]

Originally Posted by Badllarma

It really should be viewed as a filter you can screw on the front of your lens to add "effect" it does not work for 99% of subjects but "may" work on a few. A bit like adding one of those star filters for instance.

...

BUT to experiment is a great thing and should always be tried

I see it more than just a filter effect. I see it as a style of photography that is unique. True, a lot of HDR images are overdone, but those that have beem done sympatheticallyto the original image enhances completely and brinngs a complete different dimension to photography.

Our brain acts quickly enough to see the world in HDR and to bring that to the cameras sensor should be seen as a step forward to the medium.

I more than experiment, to me it's my preferred technique. Nature is obviously a difficult subject matter to use in HDR due to obvious reasons like movement etc. but it shouldn't be discounted completely as a fad.

[pressld2]

Nearly two years after my last post in this thread I thought I'd drag it back, blinking, into the light as I've finally managed to spend a little bit of time playing with HDR. I'm still not overly impressed with the results but I suspect that's more down to me than the software.

Like most previous posters I'm much more interested in getting a natural looking photo that retains both highlight and shadow detail than I am in the more surreal effects of HDR (although I agree that they can sometimes be very striking).

I used an exposure bracketed set of 5 images from -2 to +2 at 1 stop intervals and had a go using three different proper HDR tools:

1. Photoshop CS3's Merge to HDR option
2. Photomatix Pro v 3.2
3. Dynamic Photo HDR v4.65

I tried pretty much all of the tone-mapping options each tool provides and spent hours tweaking to try and get the best results. All of them needed further work in Photoshop on the curves and saturation to get a final result that I was even remotely happy with (and in some cases I just couldn't get there).

This is the uncorrected (except for white balance) metered exposure...



It's lost most of the detail in the sky.

This one was created using the Photoshop "Merge to HDR" option and tone-mapped using "Local Adaptation"...



I think this is worse than the original as it has still lost detail in the sky and the foreground isn't as good either.

This one was the result of using the Exposure Fusion option in Photomatix and then selecting the Highlights & Shadows - Adjust option...



I think it's an improvement on the original although there is still not as much detail in the sky as I would like.

Next up is the HDR image from Photomatix, tone-mapped using the Tone Compression option...



Sky detail has reduced again and the foreground is darker too (possibly as a result of me mucking about with curves trying to rescue the sky).

Finally, this one was created using the "Eyecatching" setting in Dynamic Photo HDR...



This one has the best sky but I think it's definitely tipping over into the "unnatural" category. The "Ultra-contrast" option was even worse.

At this point I stopped using the HDR tools and tried using just two exposures - the best sky and the best foreground - and blending them manually. This one, created using the layer mask technique (see Digital Blending), is my favourite and is the one that I loaded into the Gallery...



The bottom line is I will keep playing with HDR as I think some of the unnatural results can be quite interesting but for natural looking images I'll probably stick with more traditional methods.

Dave P.

[Tringa]

HDR and wildlife?

Depends. I guess your Nikon does bracketed exposures so that will help, but it depends on the subject and in most wildlife photos I think it is very unlikely to work.

Whether HDR is good or bad. It is very much up to personal taste. I think it is a very good way of overcoming the limitations of the camera sensor and can produce some excellent results, but I agree with those that say it is easy to overdo.

I've tried a couple of free HDR programs, but find Photomatix the easiest to use. It is not free but you can try it for free (the free version leaves watermarks on the photo).

If you decide to buy it, Google for "vouchers for Photomatix". I tried a few and eventually found one that worked and got me about £15 off the price.

Dave

[Jim Ford]

I've never tried HDR, but from the images I've seen, the only subjects that really work are of 'urban decay' - derelict factories, abandoned machinery etc..

Jim