PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Try This HDR Technique?


Blue Bomber
12-19-2010, 09:57 PM
Most people use Photoshop's HDR converter, or programs like Photomatix to make HDRs. I just figured out how to do multiple exposure stacking HDRs, an offshoot of stacking images to reduce noise. This produces a realistic looking image (none of those blown out colors that aren't true HDR).

Let's start with the techniques for reducing noise that got me headed in the right direction. The first way is to take 5 or so shots at the same exposure, open them in PS, then stack (File > Scripts > Load Files Into Stack...), with 100% transparency at the bottom, then 50%, 33%, 25%, 20% etc. That averages out the noise.

The second way is to stack the images, then take all layers and turn them into a Smart Object (select all layers, then right click). Then go to Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode > Median. This has the same effect as the first technique. It's quicker to do, but you lose the ability to edit any individual layer (Smart Object turns all layers into one). No big deal if you're just reducing noise.

There's another technique I've found that uses the second noise reduction method, but instead of reducing noise, blends exposures. You can use as little as 2 images (expose for highlights, expose for shadows), too. After you stack the images, but before you turn them into a Smart Object, go to Image > Mode > 16 Bits/Channel. This significantly increases the dynamic range capability of the image. Significantly means beyond the range of the monitor's ability to display it. This is the most important step, as it will allow you much more headroom for adjusting highlights/shadows in the end (similar to a RAW file) .

Next, do the same as the second noise reduction method: select all layers, right click and Convert To Smart Object, then Layer > Smart Objects > Stack Mode. Here's the difference. Instead of Median you'll select Mean, right above it. This will average out the exposures of the layers. Now, you'll have a somewhat flat looking image. You'll want to flatten the Smart Object so you can edit it. Then, you can mess with the exposure of the image however you see fit (Levels, Curves, Exposure, etc.) to get it looking normal. The 16 bit conversion means you can bring up any detail that may still be hidden in highlights or shadow (as long as the detail exists in the original images). Once you've got the image the way you want, change it back to 8 bit (monitor color depth) and do your usual routine of preparing it for the web.

I'll have some examples up soon. :)

Canon20
12-19-2010, 10:13 PM
Interesting.......

Blue Bomber
12-20-2010, 10:56 AM
Alright, here's a sample:

http://www.chrisfiorephotography.com/upload/Forum.jpg

16 bit mode is what really helps, as you wouldn't be able to bring out much of any detail in the sky after changing the stack mode to Mean. You'd be stuck with the sky of that image, while you could still bring out a bit of shadows, but only to a certain extent (would bring up noise in other images along with detail).



I need to recalibrate my monitor after hooking it up to my new 5.1 system, so I can't see extreme highlights and shadows, but I did the best I could. If you're monitor isn't calibrated, you probably aren't missing anything. ;) And yeah, if you're working with photos, I'd highly suggest you calibrate your monitor with something like the Spyder3Pro or beyond. Makes a HUGE difference. See if you can see all the shades of white and black on this image:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/zWhiteCalCheck.jpg
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/zBlackCalCheck.jpg

If not, you're missing out on detail, and need your monitor calibrated. For instance, I can only see the top row of blacks, but no whites at all, which made recovering highlights in my images above a PITA. :)

psycho_clown3
12-22-2010, 11:19 AM
another HDR method I use well its not really HDR but because it uses 3 exposures I think it counts as HDR is like this photo I took.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4653611608_d5f2b4f98b_b.jpg

1st) I took a shot that was only for the sky so the sky could be a nice blue well exposed picture.

2nd) From the river to the mountains (going up) I took another exposure so the noise level would be lower

3rd) From the river going down to the bushes is another exposure so the plants would be well exposed.

what I did wrong was that I did it hand held and the shutter was a bit to low and I moved the camera a bit. But this is another way I do well exposed pictures to say. I should try these other methods

Blue Bomber
12-22-2010, 11:26 AM
How was this processed? Did you do the usual HDR in Photoshop, or did you cut and paste each properly exposed region?

psycho_clown3
12-22-2010, 01:43 PM
oops forgot to mention.

since its 3 pictures each one devoted to di
fferent parts of the picture ( remember this could change, I divided this picture to 3 parts others I broken them up to only 2 parts) I used Photoshop and

I had the picture for the sky in one layer
I had the picture from river up in another layer (underneath sky layer)
and started to erase the mountain parts from the sky layer, exposing the well exposed mountains in the background

Blue Bomber
12-22-2010, 01:58 PM
Wow, that must've been a PITA. Can you post up the 3 pics you used?

psycho_clown3
12-22-2010, 04:10 PM
Wow, that must've been a PITA. Can you post up the 3 pics you used?

yeah let me see if i still have them once I get home from work

psycho_clown3
01-14-2011, 09:42 AM
dang I never posted the pics lol
here they are: I had like 9 pictures of the same angle and different exposures. I think I used these 3
This one is for the lower part of the river:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5285259914_32e9824506_z.jpg
This one is for the sky:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5285259014_132774ec0b_z.jpg
This one is for the far mountains and above river:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5285257992_7dd65a39d0_z.jpg

Blue Bomber
01-14-2011, 10:01 AM
I've got the crappy version of CS5 here at work, so I'll give it a shot when I get home tonight.

psycho_clown3
01-14-2011, 10:10 AM
I think those are the 3 images that i used
like i said i had 9 of them and I cant remember which ones I used

mrluilou
01-14-2011, 10:34 AM
too much editing for me :gap:

psycho_clown3
01-14-2011, 10:51 AM
too much editing for me :gap:

its called exploring lazy butt

Blue Bomber
01-15-2011, 08:32 PM
dang I never posted the pics lol
here they are: I had like 9 pictures of the same angle and different exposures. I think I used these 3
This one is for the lower part of the river:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5285259914_32e9824506_z.jpg
This one is for the sky:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5285259014_132774ec0b_z.jpg
This one is for the far mountains and above river:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5285257992_7dd65a39d0_z.jpgHere's what my technique came up with:

Zero
01-15-2011, 10:01 PM
I just do the 3 exposures and merge them all together, either Photomatix or on Photoshop.
My last HDR shot was taken at night with three different exposures (I used shutter timing): 10, 15, and 25 seconds.

Blue Bomber
01-16-2011, 05:20 PM
Yeah, I've used Photomatix and Photoshop's standard HDR stuff, but they just don't work for me. They give me those weird pix that everyone thinks are HDR, but only because they're easy to make and the web's flooded with them.

Zero
01-17-2011, 12:03 AM
:sadpace:

:chuckles:

psycho_clown3
01-17-2011, 01:34 PM
Yeah, I've used Photomatix and Photoshop's standard HDR stuff, but they just don't work for me. They give me those weird pix that everyone thinks are HDR, but only because they're easy to make and the web's flooded with them.

I like HDR but I also started to like my new method too of just focusing on different parts of the picture and making that work

Redline
01-20-2011, 01:28 PM
Yeah, I've used Photomatix and Photoshop's standard HDR stuff, but they just don't work for me. They give me those weird pix that everyone thinks are HDR, but only because they're easy to make and the web's flooded with them.

Photomatix works great. It's possible to keep the photos looking realistic (not over-saturated). You just have to get used to all the control points. Turning the saturation down is definitely the first step.