Hdr

[Digifrog]

Hello there

I have a Nikon D80 (plus a few lenses) and also Photoshop CS2 (PC). Both the camera, digital technique & editing software are new to me. Still a complete novice.

With all this, I want to experiment, and get good results with HDR.

Has anyone here taken any wildlife images using HDR? If so can you post a few thumbs? I've recently discovered the beauty of HDR and would love to get similar results. Any advice will be welcomed.

Thank you.

Scott

[Chris_Johnstone]

I've never taken any wildlife shots in HDR mainly because you need to have your subject still for a short time (at least 3 shutter actuations) otherwise you have to make the under- and over- exposed shots in photoshop. Landscapes - fair enough - that's the main HDR realm.

I personally think that a HDR Fox or dragonfly would look horrible but then again, I've never tried it and I would like to see the results.

Seasides and sunsets or both combined are the bomb!

Good luck

Chris

[The Black Rabbit]

I toy occasionally with HDR for static wildlife subjects just to keep experimenting in my new hobby!

HDR has the reputation for being all about skies and clouds - I don't think it is useful for just that....
It also has the reputation (deserved probably) for being all about dramatic light strength and radius, with massive contrast - but when you tone map an HDR image, you don't HAVE to go overboard with all that stuff...

For all images below, please click thumbnail and then the image to sharpen and enlarge them to full size.



An HDR weevil (stayed still JUST long enough)!


An HDR Cimbicid Sawfly larva (ditto)


An HDR shot of bluebells taken in a local wood ( has the effect or illusion anyhoo, of incresaing the DOF and light)...


Now I'm more than happy to admit HDR divides the photography world, and many images produced with the technique don't appeal to some / most.

I'm ALL for trying new things though, and adapting new techniques just to see what will happen....

TBR

[richardkm]

I've tried HDR on high contrast images, where I can't get the histogram to balance, e.g. when taking an object against a very bright sky, and had variable success.

Your picture of the bluebells is very sharp and beatifully exposed, but the lack of variability of the light makes it look unreal. To me, highlights and shadows are what give depth and drama to a photo.

[pressld2]

Never thought of using it for wildlife but your Cimbicid Sawfly larva has worked really well.

I've seen a few stunning hdr images of landscapes and building interiors (e.g. the York Minster interior at Vanilla Days : HDR Tutorial: How to create ‘High Dynamic Range’ images using Photomatix) but my meagre half-hearted attempts have been uniformly disastrous. Embarrassingly bad! In spite of the wealth of tutorials out there I've a feeling I haven't understood the process and am doing something fundamentally wrong.

Dave P.

[mh68]

Nice shots Doug

Dave, which program did you use when trying HDR?

I had a brief dabble using a program called "Dynamic Photo HDR" and the results came out ok....free program too (google it and you`ll find it easily).Might be worth a try....

Mark H

[The Black Rabbit]

Thanks Dave and Mark and Richard.

Richard - want to know what I honestly think about HDR shots for wildlife?
In my opinion, in many circumstances, HDR doesn't add that much, and as you say, does produce some "unreal" images.
But...
All a bit of fun though - I do like comparing results from different techniques, and some HDR shots of animals and plants do work out ok...


Likwise - I can be quite satisfied with my salty porage every morning for breakfast, but just occasionally I might throw a blueberry or banana into the bowl - just to see what happens.
I might get it wrong, or I might get it right. No way of knowing unless I have a pop...?

Doug

[zan]

It's just another style to use as far as I'm concerned. You can get some really excellent HDR images, and some that are just cr*p (like most of my attempts!). 9 times out of 10 you'll know you're looking at an HDR image, and whether that's ok or not depends on your views on post processing and where to draw the line.

But that's a *whole* other topic and I don't want to start it up again.

I haven't used HDR for wildlife myself as I usually shoot action shots. However, I think if I'd thought about it in advance it might have been useful on a few trips to e.g. the Farne islands where there are roosting black and white birds (especially on sunny, high contrasty days!). I might give it a shot next time i'm out.

Zan

PS the Cimbicid larvae is excellent

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by mh68

Dave, which program did you use when trying HDR?

I used Photomatix but only dipped my toe in with the free trial version. Thanks for the link - when I next get a bit of spare time I will give Dynamic Photo HDR a try.

Dave P.

[Chris_Johnstone]

I have taken (made) several HDR compositions most of the good ones are up on my site but that's the fruit of about 500+ shots to make them. It's very hit and miss but I really like the results you get in landscapes.

My new flash arrives today... time to play about.

Chris

[JennyS]

I toy occasionally with HDR for static wildlife subjects just to keep experimenting in my new hobby!

That weevil is a stunner!
(but I don't like the effect on the bluebell woods)

[Digifrog]

Thank you for the images. Ditto on the weevil, in macro as well. That's an amazing shot. I'd like to see the original correct exposure for that just so I can compare and contrast.

I've fallen for HDR. The best advice & quote I've been given is...

"If you look at HDR groups you will see that the majority of images are overprocessed. Common & bad mistake in my mind. I believe the key to a good HDR is to make it look as little like an HDR as possible. This means trying to be subtle when you are processing it, takes a bit of practice.
".

Good advice I think, & wildlife is a different kettle of frogs altogether.

Scott

[The Black Rabbit]

Digifrog - no worries - you asked if anyone had taken any HDR wildlife shots and I showed you my three.
I'll PM you my photography (flickr) site address so you can compare the weevil shots - one HDR, one with fill-in flash and one normal and no flash, and the sawfly larva shots of which I took 3 with the same 3 techniques also...

As for the bluebell wood.
Here's the same wood (albeit 20 yards or so away) at the same time, but NOT subjected to an HDR treatment.
I assume that most will find that a more "natural-looking" image. Fair enough as far as I'm concerned!

(Please click thumbnail and then the image to see it enlarged somewhat and sharpened).


TBR

[DuncanE]

I've often wondered if HDR would work for wildlife photography. Of course not for all instances but for some. I think looking at the pics above i think it proves it can - I do like that weevil photo.

Of course as everyone says and as with other photography it has its admirers and its critics, I have seen HDR pictures where I've said "I don't like that" do and others I've loved. I suppose its a "marmite thing", you'll like it or hate it.

[Digifrog]

Originally Posted by DuncanE

I've often wondered if HDR would work for wildlife photography. Of course not for all instances but for some. I think looking at the pics above i think it proves it can - I do like that weevil photo.

Of course as everyone says and as with other photography it has its admirers and its critics, I have seen HDR pictures where I've said "I don't like that" do and others I've loved. I suppose its a "marmite thing", you'll like it or hate it.

Hi Duncan

Two important quotes so far I have taken as good advice.

1. "If you look at HDR groups you will see that the majority of images are overprocessed. Common & bad mistake in my mind. I believe the key to a good HDR is to make it look as little like an HDR as possible. This means trying to be subtle when you are processing it, takes a bit of practice.
".

2. "Photomatix is a preferred processing tool as Photoshop generally offer flat uninteresting results".

Reading tutorials, and bearing in mind quote #1, Exposure Blending in Photomatix offer more realistic results than tone mapping. Tone Map or Exposure Blend, it's up to your personal taste.

I haven't yet experimented with EB, but it's realistic results I'm after. Especially for cityscape.

Here is a set from bristol_bounds flickr set. Whether they are tone mapped or exposure blended, I've yet to ask. The images are cityscape.

Bristol - a set on Flickr

I think my favourite is...
Under The Bridge on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
... simply for its subtlety.

Scott

[DuncanE]

I have to agree with you there the subtle ones do look the better from what I have seen.

[Willrow]

[quote=DuncanE;291968]I have to agree with you there the subtle ones do look the better from what I have seen.[/QUOTE

Perhaps if your happier with the more subtle natural images you will be more satisfied staying with traditional image editing, and forego HDR. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but personally I believe that HDR photography, especially when used for landscapes and statics can be works of art in the hands of good digital photographers that know how to get the best out of specialist editors such as Photomatix Pro, Dynamic Photo HDR etc.

If you have'nt already, do take a good look around the different HDR groups in Flickr (there are loads) and I bet you that you will always find something to enjoy, aspire to or just simply leave you feeling pretty good about modern technology at it's best.

I don't really feel moving subjects are recommended for HDR, even wind can affect the consistent results needed for bracketing ie plants, still insects on plants etc.

Regards,

Bill

[matt_xyz]

Here's a fairly subtle HDR image that I did a month or so ago:



and here's the non-HDR version:



I'm not sure which I prefer.

Matt

[glsammy]

The differences on yours Matt are very subtle, but that's the supposed aim isn't it?
I prefer the original one by the way.

[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

[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.