Single shot or Overcooked HDR?

[aim54x]

I have hit a bit of a brick wall with HDR lately, with it having been a long time since I have managed to coax out something I like. Here are a few images in single shot and HDR....is it worth the effort? Any tips? I am using Photomattix with a 9 frame bracket (1ev difference between frames)

[biggerry]

Hey Cam, first pair of images, the HDR has not achieved any more significant dynamic range than the single shot, any variation could easily be belted out of the RAW file. Personal opinion, ditch the HDR version on that one.

The second one is a different story altogether, the HDR version has definitely added somethign to the scene. Dialling it back 5% woudl result in a very nice perspective of what the eye actually saw.

Nice location too where are the plane pictures?

In terms of your HDR work flow, can i challenge the need to generate more than 3 bracketed frames? I have experimented with this and tried 7+ frames for HDR images and I typically find that you get the same result (or quite similiar) from 3 correctly exposed brackets, there are a few exceptions to this, for example I remember a few from tram sheds which had a large dynamic range but also very complex lines and shapes, these did seem to have better light smoothing.

On a side note, that second HDR shot looks very much like a scene outta CSS.

[rflower]

I agree with gerry. I preferthe real colours of the 1st Container shot. The 2nd (HDR) has the almost cartoonish colours and look, which some HDR merges exhibit (which is probably the bit that does not do much for me).

With the 1st one therefore, could you merge 2 images. IE keep the 1st shot, with the containers, and merge an underexposed clouds over the top.

On the other hand, I think with the 2nd series, the HDR is spot on. The tanks look natural coloured, and the clouds have a great ominous look and feel. It looks "natural" which I think should be the ultimate aim.

[surenj]

I agree with the others.

I would just dodge and burn the original files manually. It will give you heaps more local/creative control. btw these would be interesting lightpainting.... just need that large light they weer using on a helicopter for a search and rescue.....

Goodness, 9 frames would be alot of work/processing. Make sure you have like 30 stops of exposure to compress before you use that many frames. Remember you could pull almost 3-4 stops from the RAW file at this sort of ISO.

[Mr Darcy]

I agree with the general consensus on both. However, I understand where you are coming from with nine frames. It really is annoying that Nikon only allow you a max of 1EV between steps. You can get 2EV out of the RAW, so you need to go to 7 just to get something more than you can pull out of the RAW. Just remember you don't have to use them all. I have found I get best results if I shoot 7 or 9 frames, but then use only two or three of them.

On the first, I would be inclined to take your 0EV shot and manually merge it with your -2EV shot for the sky.
Overall I think the second set works, but the sky is a little TOO dramatic. I would pull the lowest EV out.

[aim54x]

Thanks guys....

9 frames - as Greg correctly pointed out, I can only do 1 ev difference, so shooting 9 frames gives me the largest range, yes I can pull out frames to reduce the load, but my computer doesnt mind using all 9 frames. More importantly though is the tip to remove the end frames (to bring things closer to reality)...I will give that a play. Going to 9 frames on the bracket means I dont have to process the raw to give me +2 and -2 on the end shots....this to me means less processing time.

With the 1st one therefore, could you merge 2 images. IE keep the 1st shot, with the containers, and merge an underexposed clouds over the top.

I dont know if that is any less work for me as I am not as keen on photoshop as some here are. But it is one way of getting that one right quickly.

On the other hand, I think with the 2nd series, the HDR is spot on. The tanks look natural coloured, and the clouds have a great ominous look and feel. It looks "natural" which I think should be the ultimate aim.

Natural is what I am after, I am uncertain if this is "natural" though. Thanks

I would just dodge and burn the original files manually. It will give you heaps more local/creative control. btw these would be interesting lightpainting.... just need that large light they weer using on a helicopter for a search and rescue.....

I will give this another crack...I did the edits on my laptop (yes the new laptop doesnt mind crunching 9 frame HDR) so dodge/burn is not as easy without a mouse. As for the chopper, I am sure that can be arranged.

Hey Cam, first pair of images, the HDR has not achieved any more significant dynamic range than the single shot, any variation could easily be belted out of the RAW file. Personal opinion, ditch the HDR version on that one.

The second one is a different story altogether, the HDR version has definitely added somethign to the scene. Dialling it back 5% woudl result in a very nice perspective of what the eye actually saw.

Thanks, I think you are correct with the 1st image, I'll give it another crack in CNX2.

Nice location too where are the plane pictures?

I think you will found them already.

On a side note, that second HDR shot looks very much like a scene outta CSS.

Maybe I should pretend it is a screenshot from CSS.

[surenj]

I dont know if that is any less work for me as I am not as keen on photoshop as some here are. But it is one way of getting that one right quickly.

Perhaps just use those control U points thingees.
I think for optimal dodging etc it's nice to have a tablet although some people swear by the mouse.

[Remorhaz]

Without sounding too repetative...

In the first I much prefer the original to the second. The only part of the second I like better is the sky and you may have been able to coax that out of the raw in this instance with a selective (Lightroom grad) exposure reduction and large clarity boost.

In the second example it's a bit more line ball. The second image is definitely better - you may have been able to simply reduce the exposure on the first and add clarity for grittyness and detail to get something more like the second - I'm not quite sure. Again I'm not quite sure you'd get those skies as good from the single frame.

Very nice work with the skies btw - I never look forward to doing a HDR with a lot of sky in it - I always find it goes "wrong" and I'm not one to do the final touches it needs in photoshop (e.g. blending in some of the original images).

[stubbsy]

Cameron

While I I'd echo what's said before in general terms the real issue with these is I find the subject matter incredibly dull (as in boring) so I just can't get excited about them no matter what you do with them - sorry