How to Create Professional HDR Images - …sonystas.locortes.net/HDR6.How to create professional...

All photos on this blog are copyright © Ryan McGinnis.

All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

How to Create Professional HDR Images

Sweet sassy-mollassy, I've been Dugg!

Hi, Adobe!

Note: clicking any image below makes it larger in a new window.

If you visit here regularly, you've probably noticed that I post a

lot of High Dynamic Range, or HDR, stuff these days. Even if you

don't, you've likely seen HDR photos all around the net as

photographers both pro and hobbyist experiment with this

emerging artistic format. Personally, I was pointed to it earlier

this year by a fellow photographer & friend, Darren, and I've been

having a ton of fun with it since.

However, I've noticed as I look around that most of the other

photographers out there who work with HDR are creating images

that, while often extremely interesting, look absoloutely nothing

at all like the scene they were shooting -- and even if they do get

it close, they end up with photos that have an enormous amount

of HDR processing artifacts, such as halos. The reason for this is a

popular program known as Photomatix. Photomatix is actually a

very competent HDR assembler, but it's tone mapping functions

Licensing

Stock photography by Ryan McGinnis

at Alamy

About Me

Ryan McGinnis

View my complete profile

Blog Archive

▼ 2009 (36)

▼ May (1)

Church in Vermont

► April (4)

► March (8)

► February (13)

► January (10)

► 2008 (98)

► 2007 (132)

Siguiente blog» Crear un blog | Acceder

of 46Backing Winds: How to Create Professional HDR Images

24/05/2009http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html

tend to look a bit on the silly side. At least in my opinion.

I've come to believe that there are few things in the digital

photography world that Photoshop can't do better than most

other programs. HDR turns out to be one of them. Photoshop CS2

has a little-known (it seems) built-in HDR assembler that, while

lacking the "make my photo look like a bucket of saturated paints

gone awry" tone-mapping features of Photomatix, is capable of

creating extremely realistic or extremely surreal HDR images.

I've been using Photoshop CS2 for most of my HDR images, and

lots of people have been asking me what I do and how I do it.

Wonder no more! It's actually pretty easy. Let's get started. :)

What you need:

1. A digital camera that allows you to set exposure manually.

2. A sturdy tripod.

3. A subject (i.e., what you're taking the picture of) that does not

move.

4. A computer with Photoshop CS2 installed.

If you have a camera that supports it, it also helps to have a

"cable release", which is basically a little shutter button that

attaches to your camera via a wire, so when you push the button

to take the picture, you don't nudge the camera at all.

First off, you need to take the photographs. Because you are

attempting to create a high-dynamic-range image, it makes a

very good deal of sense for you to set your camera so that it

shoots your photographs in your camera's RAW mode. The reason

for this is that the RAW format captures more dynamic range

data than is available in the alternative, the JPEG file. It also

gives you a great deal of color temperature latitude -- you can set

the color temperature of all of your photos very easily after the

► 2006 (320)

Favorite Posts

All the HDR photos I've ever taken

April 23, 2006 Stormchase

May 26, 2006 Stormchase

Cranes, Part 1

Cranes, Part 2

Cranes, Part 3

Nebraska Capitol in HDR

Experiments in HDR portraiture

New York City at Dusk

The entire month of June, 2006

The entire month of July, 2006

Links

Storm Track

StormWiki

Hollingshead Storm Photography

Cyclone Road (blog)

Storm Nut (blog)

SPC SWOD1

SPC Meso Analysis

HPC 7 Day

Earl Barker's Models & SITAWARE

NCEP model runs

COD Nexrad

CIRA full res GOES images

COD Central Plains SFC plot

Storm reports archive



fact. You also need to set the camera to manual exposure mode.

Tripod your camera so that it doesn't move, then compose the

scene you want to shoot. Note that, like long-exposure

photography, HDR works best when your subject isn't moving.

Also, if your camera has a changeable ISO setting (most do), set

it as low as possible to avoid noise. Meter your scene. Select the

aperature you wish. The object here is to bracket your photos

(i.e., take a photo of the same scene several times with different

shutter speeds), either automatically or manually. Some high-end

cameras bracket automatically, some don't. It's important that

you change the shutter speed, NOT the aperature -- the reason

being that since you will be combining several images to make

one, you don't want your DOF to change between shots. Once

you have your scene set, your camera set and tripoded, and your

settings set -- take your pictures. I personally usually like to take

quite a few photos over the range -- for example, I'll take photos

at -6EV, -4EV, -2EV, metered EV, +2EV, +4EV, and +6EV. That

may seem like a bit much, but going overboard doesn't hurt

anything and gives you more latitude in toning. However, you can

get by with less, as I have in the below example:



Okay, so you have your three (or more) photos! Transfer them

from your camera onto your computer. Done? Done. Now, how do

you take those three photos and create a new, magical HDR

image? Simple.

First, find your three photos either using Windows explorer or the

Adobe Bridge program that comes with CS2.

Highlight them, and open them with Photoshop at the same time

by dragging them into Photoshop.



Okay, you've got it open. The important things to do here are to

A: make sure that all three photos are the same color temperture

and tint

B: make sure that you turn off ALL the automatic checkboxes.

You can pick any color temperature you think looks like what you

saw -- the important thing is that they're all the same. Done?

Now click "Done". By clicking done, you are telling Photoshop to

remember these settings -- which is important, because in a

moment you're going to have Photoshop automatically open all of

these photos up again.

Okay, now to make the HDR. Go into the File menu, then the

Automate submenu, then select "Merge to HDR":



In the dialog box the pops up, select the files you want to use to

make the HDR. Do not check the "Align automatically" box,

unless you screwed up your tripoding and moved the camera

between photos. The automatic alignment feature doesn't usually

work so great, so it's really a last resort.



You will end up with a preview window that shows you a preview

of your HDR that looks like this:

Just click okay -- you don't need to adjust the histogram up there

at all, all that effects is the preview, it has no effect on the final

image. (*edit*, okay, it DOES affect the baseline for the curves in

the next step but for all practical purposes it doesn't matter for

what we're trying to do. Thanks to Adobe for pointing this out to

me.) After a loooong while (or a short while if you have a fast

computer and a lot of RAM), it'll finish and show you your new

HDR image. Cool! You can save this file if you want; it's a 32 bit

image file that contains all the exposure data from all of your

shots. Doesn't look like much, but that's because you don't have

an HDR monitor. One day, HDR monitors will be commonplace --

so keep that file handy. :)

But wait, we're not done yet! We want the photo to look good on

our monitor. How do we do that? Easy, we downsample. Go to

the Image menu, the mode submenu, and select "16 bits per

channel".



You end up with a new menu. Toggle the Histogram arrow at the

bottom to show the histogram. Go into the little menu at to and

select "Local Adaptation":



Click OK. Whoa! Crazy, huh? Doesn't look so great, most likely.

This is just the preview window, though, showing you what it will

probably look like when Photoshop is done converting it. The first

thing you need to do is bring the left hand side of the histogram

to the beginning of the shadows information, as shown below:



Okay, cool! Looks better. Now work the curves until you're happy.

If you don't know how to use curves in Photoshop, wikipedia or a

search engine is your friend. :) Here's what I did to this one:

When you're done, click okay. After a little while, viola! You get a

nice 16 bit image. Tone this to your taste using whatever toning

tools you know. Save it as a 16bit TIFF file, if you like. However,

when you're done, you need to downconvert it to 8-bit in order to

save it as a JPEG. Go to the Image menu, the mode submenu,

and select "8 bits per channel".



Viola^H^H^H^H^H Voila, the finished product has arrived!

Save it as a Jpeg and you're done. See, not too hard -- and it's a

great new world of photography to explore.



1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»

BTW, in the near future I'm going to post a tutorial about just

what I meant by "use your own toning skills". Digitally toning (i.e.

color correcting) a photograph is quite a process, but most of the

interesting stuff about it is easy to digest and learn, and can often

be done quickly once you're practiced.

Posted by Ryan McGinnis at 10/10/2006

264 comments:

Darren said...

Whoa! Now THAT'S a blog post!

Now if only someone would link to it from Fark or sumpin'.

: )

11:52 PM

Nigel said...

Can't wait to try this out.

Great post. I found this on reddit.

11:45 AM

donkasprzak said...

Is there a web solution that would allow me to view this in HDR

format or a "HD" type supported format?

1:38 PM

Ryan McGinnis said...

Well, if you happen to own a $50,000 HDR monitor, you

probably can view this in HDR if I made a copy of the image

available in it's native 32bit mode. Of course, 32 bit images of

normal 8 megapixel size are like 90MB large... :)

2:31 PM

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ryan. I hd tried HDR before, but did it all wrong by

trying to get the image right too early. Thanks for your tutorial,

now I know how to do it. A suggestion: I tried direct import of

the RAW files, and import of the TIFFS translated via Adobe

Lightroom with a constant regulation of colour temperature (all

the rest was zero). The TIFF files worked much better, I believe

due to superior translation of Lightroom. I also found that

curve adjusting is better done in Photoshop after the

translation to 16 bit.

Fabio



7:34 AM

Mike said...

Terrific article -- thanks. I will have to sell a kidney or some

such so I can afford CS -- I made do with Elements at the

moment.

7:43 AM

g.adams said...

Excellent post, what sort of camera would you need to produce

these results? what camera did you use for this example?

7:45 AM

graham said...

That's awesome. I have used PSCS2's HDR option before, but

never downsampled to make it look good. I guess I just

expected PSCS2 to make it look good all by itself!

Thanks!

7:52 AM

Andrea said...

Viola?

Shouldn't be the frency "voilà"?

8:43 AM

Anonymous said...

All this work for an HDR so that you can downsample to 8 bits

and save as a lossy JPEG? Is this a joke?

8:53 AM

curt said...

Great post! You've been Dugg, son.

9:03 AM

Anonymous said...

Unless this post is only meant for my friend Viola, you mean

"voilà".

9:08 AM

tobias-digital said...

Thanks alot dude, that's very interesting!

9:19 AM

Lance said...

Found this blog through this Digg post just now.

Very nice. That is a great photo. What building is that?

9:27 AM

Lance said...



That's what I get for not reading the previous blog posts... it's

the Manhattan Church. :P

9:29 AM

Richie said...

I have to say I disagree with your assessment of Photomatix.

My photos photos are all done with Photomatix and come out

quite realistically. You're right that many people take HDR to

the extreme and their results are cartoony, but with practice

and an artistic eye, the results can be great! In my experience

with HDR images in Photoshop CS2, the results are much

grainier and dull than with Photomatix. Thanks for the post!

9:39 AM

Ray said...

You can always try photomatix

9:41 AM

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all the information Ryan! I can't wait to use it!

9:41 AM

Anonymous said...

thankyou!!!

Matt

10:19 AM

WTL said...

Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I've been

wondering how to go about doing this for a while and like so

many other things, just haven't gotten around to looking up.

10:52 AM

Anonymous said...

It's "voilà", not "viola. Viola is an instrument. ;)

Nice tutorial.

11:01 AM

IbnGoogle said...

For those who don't have a "cable release" an alternative is to

use the "timer release" on your camera.

11:18 AM

Claude said...

Thanks for this post, really helpful

11:26 AM

Jack said...

Great post. Thanks!



12:41 PM

Anonymous said...

You don't need a HDR monitor to make use out of these types

of images.

For folks who do any 3D work, HDRI are used to light scenes.

Either directly or complementing an existing light setup.

Outstanding post for those interested in the creation of their

own images for this type of use. :)

1:16 PM

Anonymous said...

also check out HDRshop for assembling and viewing HDR

images. Its free, easy, and works great, but doesnt have as

many tone mapping features. Ive been using it for a few years

now when creating HDR light probes for 3D renderings. It also

support Paul Debevec, one of the HDR pioneers..

great write up btw.

-unparent.com

1:30 PM

matt said...

which digital camera would you say is the best for HDR

images? im looking to get a bew camera and ideally if their is

such a beast one that shoots images in HDR for you if thats

possible

1:34 PM

Anonymous said...

nice post. BTW it's voila not viola (wich means "raped" in

french)

2:20 PM

Steve said...

Hey nice man!

2:46 PM


Hi! I used a Canon EOS 20D for that sample shot (and all my

digital shots, really). For the sample shot, I used a Canon EF-S

10-22 lens. I highly reccomend this lens; it's been one of the

best purchases I've ever made.

3:22 PM


Tell you what -- if you can find photographic paper that can

render 40 stops of light information, I won't downsample. :) I

suspect you don't really have a lot of experience with

photography.



3:24 PM


For the most part, any digital camera that allows manual

adjustment of settings and will mount on a tripod will work for

taking HDR photos. If you can afford it, it's best to get a

camera that has "auto exposure bracketing" and has a port for

a cable release. I think there's even a Nikon model out there

that will take up to 7 bracketed photos in a burst -- and while

I'm a huge Canon fan, Canon currently offers nothing like that.

The most shots a Canon will bracket in a burst is 3.

3:31 PM

Anonymous said...

Ryan - great post. I am in the market for a new camera.. how

much is the lens you used on this camera? What type of lens is

it? I am trying to decide between the rebel XT, EOS 20D, Nikon

D80, and Nikon D70. All seem to be pretty great cameras. Any

advice? Thx

4:56 PM

Joshua said...

Can this process be used when only shooting a single RAW file

(and then converting several exposures of that later)?

5:02 PM

Zachary said...

Thank you Thank you Thank you.

I'm so glad that someone finally posted an article that just says

what all of the photographers have been thinking regarding a

lot of the HDR stuff that's out there.

I'm pretty tired of seeing these immaculately haloed creations

that look more like cartoons than what you'd see. My least

favorite effect is the tendency of photomatix users to make

people look like porcelain dolls... gives me the heebs.

again,

THANK YOU

5:13 PM


No, the process really doesn't make much sense with a RAW

file. I think Photomatix will allow you to tone-map RAW files,

but all you're really doing then is giving your normal photo that

comical Photomatix "look". Photoshop won't let you do it at all.

In reality, the point of HDR is to capture more dynamic range

information than can be displayed on a normal screen at one

time. The only way to do this, short of buying a $40,000

medium format digital back, is through taking multiple

exposures.

If you want to do a tone-mapping type thing to a single RAW



file with Photoshop CS2, try using the "Shadows and

Highlights" tool once you have the RAW file converted and

opened in photoshop. If you're really photoshop savvy, you can

also open the RAW file in several different exposure values and

then compost them with layers in a single file. Kinda like dark-

room masking, only with Photoshop.

5:15 PM

ChrisN said...

Richie - sorry, but I have to disagree. Less cartoony than the

vast majority of Photomatix results, but still not realistic.

5:22 PM

Chris Taylor said...

I am hoping HDR will be moot pretty soon. Theoretically with a

digital camera they can make a camera where EACH pixel is

exposed and shuttered individually. Giving you essentially

perfect dynamic range. we just need someone to invent this in

a practical manner :-) every HDR shot I have seen so far is

simple stunning !! I never dreamed of doing it this way. in the

past I would shoot one for land once for sky and "merge" them

in photoshop something which I was never overly adept at.

they looked MUCH better than either seperate image but you

could tell they were "put" together. These shots are simply

stunning !! I can not wait to start playing with this software.

Going to do some shooting this weekend!

6:12 PM

Anonymous said...

all that clumsy work can be avoided by buying Phase One

digital back (used, on eBay for example). It has more dynamic

range than classic color slides and puts all digi SLR's on shame.

Click and that's it.

Dagg

7:29 PM

中国女生 said...

真奇妙。

长知识了，我也学学。

1:25 AM

Matt said...

Thanks for the post. It looks great and I will certainly give this

a try the next time I'm out taking photos with my tripod. I am

forever impressed with Photoshop! Keep up the great work.

3:56 AM

Pete Carr said...

I've gotta disagree. Sure your example shows a nicely blended

result but its got no pop, no whoa. You couldn't do this or this

with Photoshop. I'm one of those people that doesn't care

about the method only the result. I've made a tutorial using

Photomatix that does a good job about how to avoid the pitfalls



you mentioned. You could easily generate the shot you

produced using Photomatix and get "professional" results.

5:20 AM

Scott Vieth said...

To change the subject completely, where were these pictures

taken?

I think I know, because if it's where I think, I went to high

school next door. :)

8:07 AM

Adrienne L. Travis said...

You've got a minor grammatical/usage error that changes the

whole sense of your statement here:

I've come to believe that there are few things in the digital

photography world that Photoshop can't do better than most

other programs. HDR turns out to be one of them.

Photoshop CS2...

This bit makes it sound like Photoshop CS2 is NOT good at this

-- what you want is something like, "HDR turns out NOT to be

one of them..." or "HDR isn't one of them...", the sense being

that HDR is YET ANOTHER thing that CS2 does well.

Sorry, just that i know if it were me i'd hate to have an

archived post around for eons with a minor error like that!

Hope you don't mind...

10:45 AM

Lanoitarus said...

Now I just need to run over and steal back my camera from my

cousin before he sees this post and starts playing with it

himself....

Great post!

*runs out door*

10:46 AM

en3r0 said...

Great post, I deff need to try this out!

God bless,

-en3r0

3:13 PM

Andrew Glazebrook said...

A very interesting tutorial. Many thanks !!

4:00 PM




Pete Carr wrote: I've gotta disagree. Sure your example

shows a nicely blended result but its got no pop, no whoa. You

couldn't do this or this with Photoshop. I'm one of those people

that doesn't care about the method only the result. I've made a

tutorial using Photomatix that does a good job about how to

avoid the pitfalls you mentioned. You could easily generate the

shot you produced using Photomatix and get "professional"

results.

Hi, Pete! While I respect your opinion, you have to understand

that to me, the examples that you use look... well, pretty

stupid. Dramtically overprocessed without an eye for detail,

completely unrealistic without point. This is exactly what I'm

trying to avoid by using Photoshop. Granted, I can understand

that some might prefer their photos to look the way you've

demonstrated, but I don't. I think they're pointless and faddish

and are more a reflection of a computer's algorithmic

interpretation than an artistic interpretation. My LDR

downsamples of HDR photos may not look like an

impressionist's nightmare, but I am pleased with how they've

come out.

4:23 PM


By the way, Pete -- I just noticed while reading your tutorial

that you aren't even working with HDR images, you're

Photomatix-filtering Jpegs. Either you didn't read my article, or

you really aren't comprehending just what "HDR" means.

4:29 PM

Dan said...

Very nice Ryan, I didn't even know my camera could do

bracketing (or what bracketing meant) until I read this tutorial.

I just wish I could afford that 47k BrightSide display to view

these images in their full glory.

5:10 PM

Mark said...

Pertaining the the photoshop portion of the tutorial, how does

one pull up the dialog box used to set all photos to the same

color temperature and tint? It appears that this is upon

opening the photos, however on my computer, the files simply

open in CS2. Thank you for any assistance.

1:22 AM

Pete Carr said...

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause any offence. For the record, if

you had properly read *my* article :p I'm using 16bit Tiff's

generated from RAW files, not Jpegs. There has been lots of

discussion online about what HDR truely is. I honestly don't

care. Its all about the end result. I've ran tests and using my

methods there was no real difference between a "true" HDR

shot and the way I do things. Using my guide you can achieve

results like yours if you wish or you can be creative. The whole



point of my guide was to demonstrate various ways to allow

artistic interpretation.

While I respect your opinion, you have to understand that to

me, the examples that you use look... well, pretty stupid.

Dramtically overprocessed without an eye for detail, completely

unrealistic without point...

I think they're pointless and faddish and are more a reflection

of a computer's algorithmic interpretation than an artistic

interpretation.

Don't hold back at all ;) Just for the record, I currently have 5

of my HDR shots in galleries around Liverpool, UK. I also have

interest from a gallery in Italy. I think you'll find that my

images have plenty of artistic interpretation.

4:25 AM


Hi, Peter! Don't worry, no offence taken -- I just disagree with

you. Since you think there is no difference between what you

are doing, in creating HDRs from a single RAW with 12 bits of

color data, and, say assembling a 32bit file from 20+ stops of

information, it would appear that you simply don't understand

what it is that you are doing. It's not that there is no difference

between "real" HDR and the "pretend" HDR you are doing, it's

just that you don't understand it. And, as you said, you don't

really care enough to take the time to figure it out.

I'm not saying what you're doing isn't interesting, even if I

don't particuarly care for it -- it's just that it's not HDR

photography.

4:30 AM

Pete Carr said...

Hey Ryan. Phew, thats ok :) I know there are a lot of people

out there who are very very strict about HDR photography.

Whether mine is true HDR or just higher than LDR I don't really

know and I'm not really fussed :) I'm in it for the result and its

a technique that allows me to be creative. I'm in it for the art

not the tech specs :) So far I've had a lot of support for my

work, from galleries, artists, and magazines. Its a bit upsetting

when someone calls them stupid, but hey its the net and

everyone is allowed free speech and it is your site after all. I do

like your photo but I'm a big fan of really bold images and

thats what my "HDR" technique allows me to achieve.

5:47 AM

Pete Carr said...

Oh I forgot to say, yes those shots you linked to are OTT and

bad HDR images imho. One of the reasons I did my guide was

to hopefully teach people how to avoid such images.

5:48 AM

Anonymous said...



Cool! Can you do this (or fake it) with older version of

Photoshop?

11:38 AM

Kevin said...

Hi,

i have the same problem as Mark, i can't find how to set all

photos to the same color temperature/tint...

Please help

7:16 AM


Hi! It's not too hard -- all you have to do is select all of the

images you want to use in the HDR in Windows explorer and

then drag all three of then at the same time into Photoshop.

Photoshop will give you the RAW files in a preview window,

with the files as thumbnails on the left-hand side and the RAW

file you're currently working on on the right. To quickly change

all the color temperatures at the same time, select one of the

RAW files on the left, press CTRL+A to select all of them, then

go over to the setting on the right and punch in whatever

temperature and tint you want.

Note that this only works with RAW files -- you can't do this

with JPEGs or TIFFs. Another great reason to shoot RAW! :)

4:16 PM

Kyoko said...

Hi all.

I'm pretty new at this HDR and I'm trying to jump on it.

(thank you for being dugged, because without your post, I

would never know or learn this method and wanting to try it

out)

First and foremost, Do I need a $2000 camera before I try

this?

All I have is the dsc-n1 that I just bought recently.

If there's a book, or a tutorial that I Can read more about this

technique, I would be greatly appriciate it!

Thank you again!

If there's no such book, maybe Ryan can make one :)

2:51 PM



Tom Kirkham said...

Great explanation of HDR and it's techniques. on another blog,

I questioned if you could do (as they stated) whether you could

do HDR with just a single shot on RAW. Well, of course not.

Can't wait to try this technique.

8:00 PM

socks said...

I own a Digital Rebel not the XT model, and for someone not

"into" photography I like it better, just becaose of the nice big

pistol grip. The XT is quite a bit smaller in the hand. Mine is

6.4mp. I agree the stock lenses are plastic, light and low

quality though.

Now, a question about HDR photography. I'm in the adult

entertainment industry, can this apply to a photo of a model? I

guess the only way is to take one photo of the model, and then

many more of the background without the model in it?

Or perhaps three cameras stacked on top of each other linked

to shoot at the exact same time? That even possible? :)

Gotta say I like those new 39mp cameras, some sites are

already using them, offering 6000x4000 images in some cases.

7:54 AM

MS said...

In your example HDR is great for static subject matter,

shooting above and below the EV reading. What about taking a

Raw file, converting it above, below, and at correct exposure,

and then creating an HDR image out of those 3 images? Then

you could created HDR images from moving subjects, people,

etc...

10:17 AM

Anonymous said...

Ryan,

It is great that you and Pete are both such advocates of your

methods! Both make interesting ways of extending our

artwork. Thank you both for sharing!.

10:26 AM

Anonymous said...

WOW. Very good tutorial.

I found this at

http://thephotostation.net/forums/showthread.php?

p=114586#post114586

11:33 AM

QT Luong said...



I am not a big fan of PS' HDR. Most the time the results look

unnatural to me. For instance, in the example given in this

blog, the blues in the stained glass is too saturated and dark. I

find that often I can create a more convincing composite by

working manually with layers, often in less time than it does to

tweak HDR. The other problem with HDR is that if there is a

slightest difference between the images, HDR will create very

visible artifacts.

6:43 PM

QT Luong said...

To qualify my previous post, I sometimes use HDR in images

where there is a complex mix of dynamic ranges which would

make layers work too time consuming.

6:46 PM


That's definately true, QT! HDR has its limitations, that's for

sure. I, too, also do a lot of layer-masking work; it's actually

the method that I prefer for most shots. But there are some

shots where HDR really, really works.

I think that the look of HDR downsampled images will improve

dramatically over the next few years as software companies

refine their tone-mapping functions.

6:59 PM

Q-bo said...

hi, I have a question: what is the "use" about HDR image? (for

what)

Is it possible to get a true 32bits image copy?

10:51 PM

cor said...

Not too sure what you mean by "EV" and how this is set. Could

you explain?

4:04 PM

Anonymous said...

"Tell you what -- if you can find photographic paper that can

render 40 stops of light information, I won't downsample. :) I

suspect you don't really have a lot of experience with

photography."

My thoughts exactly... prolly some "Know It all" Point and

shoot weekend warrior...lol STFU moron..

10:16 AM

Benito Aramando said...

Ryan, your comment is the second I have read today saying

that the cartoonish tone-mapped images we see a lot of at the

moment are a fad, and it's really good to hear. Until today I

thought the bizarre appearance of these images was an



inherent characteristic of "HDR" images, and I was quietly

impressed by them. I have now read 2 good explanations of

the process (one of them yours) and seen some good, natural

examples, and now I know they can look natural I have to say

I really don't like them any other way. I now see the

strangeness not as an integral part of a cutting-edge new

technique, but as a sign of the inexpert application of that

technique (though I appreciate some people like it as an

artistic style). I would be glad to see the back of most of thi

style of images.

As a bonus, I also now know what to do with some bracketed

sets of an HDR scene I recently shot which I didn't fancy layer-

masking!

8:33 AM

Lluís Gerard said...

Great post!!! Is too easy to make a good HDR image with your

steps. Thank you!

3:55 PM

Marv said...

Great info here...nice post and I couldn't agree more with some

of your comments about the influx of HDR images and how

they can often appear unnatural. (Now, if I could have

someone give me info on how to obtain CS2 on the cheap, me

and my Nikon D70 would be off to the races. I wouldn't expect

anyone to post that info online but email me at

[email protected] if you have any ideas...) :)

6:16 PM

Sleepeng in said...

Wow, finally i have finded i nice tutorial for made my own hdr

pictures

9:58 PM

JDLphotos said...

Great tutorial. I'm new to HDR and have gotten some great

results but although I start with 300dpi images they always

end up at 72 and print out looking bad. Any thoughts on this or

am I screwing up somewhere in the process?

8:04 AM

Dual Action said...

Great Tute, dude. Thank you. I will try this out next weekend. I

found you via del.icio.us.

11:48 PM

Anonymous said...

First things first, thanks Ryan for an informative tutorial on

HDR. This is an interesting area of photography and you've

done a good job explaining your techniques. While I prefer the

subtler effects your approach produces compared to those

espoused by Pete, I think you were a bit harsh in your



response to his comments.

There is another approach I read about recently that I've been

meaning to try out. It results in more realistic photos as well:

http://www.tofahrn-foto.de/index.php?lg=en&pg=tipps.dri

5:31 PM

Anonymous said...

Ryan, I find the example photo to be flat and utterly boring

looking. It looks like a technically perfect, soul-less

redendering.

Pete, your examples are garish and over the top.

HDR is nothing new; photogs have been compressing the range

of their images to squeeze as much as possible into the

precious few stops of their paper since the art of photography

began. Many old photos with that beautiful "glow" are a direct

result of this - however, the effect is but a facet of the image,

not the overriding theme, such as the examples put forth on

this site.

Using a technique for the sake of using it usually results in the

creation of stunning examples of that technique, but otherwise

unmemorable images.

7:35 PM

Nathan said...

Found this from googling hdr photo tutorial or something like

that, nice writeup thanks man.

12:13 AM

Pete said...

Why thank you Captain Anonymous. Isn't art fun kids.

9:24 PM

Millsbury said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:09 PM

Anonymous said...

heya, great tutoprial. i found it just before i went away for the

weekend. i discovered something i didnt really think about

while reading it though. you cant really use it on the ocean, or

during high wind/cloudy days, as both the clouds and the

ocean move too much between frames. a shame really as the

weekend i went away to test it was a stormy, windy day by the

ocean.

2:24 AM

Anonymous said...

Wonderful article.

You explained it to the letter, and all is left to do - it just do it.



Thank you :)

Gilad Benari

5:29 AM

Anonymous said...

Thx to both Ryan and Pete for two very useful guides.

7:36 AM

Anonymous said...

Anyone know if this technique will work with JPG images? It

seems to me that it should, but I'm curious if anyone has done

it.

Thanks,

Tim

www.pbase.com/tim32225

12:28 PM

Deklin Devine said...

Hey man I would like to thank you very much with your help I

created this:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43941729/

HDR Panaramic view from my rooftop of the Philly skyline. So

again, thank you very much for the tip :)

9:47 PM

perspective said...

so i just have to use RAW format for HDR?

I am used to clicking my images in JPEG ... i think i have to

change that! :) thanks for the tutorial!

8:52 PM

Anonymous said...

Great post Ryan - have already had some good results

following your tutorial.

What tone mapping tool do you use?

9:10 AM

Sceme said...

Hey. I found this tutorial by googling and I just want you to

know that you really kicked me forward on this subject and I

just can't keep testing this over and over again on different

scenes :D

You cleared things up for me. Many things.

9:42 AM

paul said...



great tutorial, thank you

4:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Hi...Very nice tutorial!! :) But - you mention that I should use

any "toning tools" that i prefer. Can you mention a few? I don't

know any... I am quite new to HDR

6:26 AM

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this. Excellent Tutorial. Very much agree on

Photomatix. It simply overcooks otherwise fine images!

Best

Brian

3:00 AM

Anonymous said...

I haven't processed any HDR images yet but I've been looking

at examples and reading advice on the technique. It seems to

me that all examples, whether PS, Photomatix or whatever

look either artificial (which is OK if that is what the owners

want)or very flat.

I think the reason for the flatness is the inverse square law:

the amount of light received at any point is inversely

proportional to the distance of that point from where the light

is transmitted. This is why distant views look duller than close-

ups.

However, the way things look is nothing like the inverse square

law suggests. Consider two objects 10m and 100m away: the

inverse square law says the far object will be only 1/100th as

bright as the near object, and something 1000m away will be

only 1/10,000th as bright.

When our eyes were evolving, if they just went with the

inverse square law,things more than a few metres away would

be too dim to see: no good if hunting and dangerous if being

hunted. I think this is why our eyes developed with a non-

linear response, close to a gamma of 2.2.

The inverse square law is equivalent to a gamma of 2. If our

eye had a gamma of exactly 2 everything would be exactly as

bright, so the value of 2.2 gives a slight difference in

brightness with distance. I caculate that the 100m/10m ratio is

about 1/1.6 instead of 1/100; the 1000m/10m ratio is about

1/2.5 instead of 1/10,000.

With a normal picture file, the pixels in the foreground are

naturally brighter and also look natural because of the gamma

of 2.2 in the processor. However, HDR tone mapping ignores

the relationship of the pixel to its place in the composition and

just works on local contrast. The result is that the distance-

related brightness is lost and the image looks flat.



If I am right in all this, a tool like Paint With Light (download

fom http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm) can restore the

visual effect of distance.

7:21 AM

Gary said...

Great bit of work which you should be congratulated on. I have

used Photomatix and PS for HDR but this tutorial was still

useful. Laughing my head off at Richie who says that he can

create images in Photomatix that are not cartoony - then

provides a link to HDR cartoons! Made my afternoon.

10:11 AM

Elliott Asbury said...

Brilliant, simply brilliant.

3:58 PM

Anonymous said...

thanks ryan for this nice article.

4:27 PM

Pete said...

Hey Ryan. I thought you might be interested to know that this

site is ripping off your article, and mine and various other

people.

9:01 PM


Thanks, Pete! I'll be sending a DMCA takedown letter to Google

soon. I'd suggest you do the same -- it's the only way to get an

infringing work removed.

2:22 AM

trungson said...

Great, thanks for the detailed tutorial.

7:00 PM


Doing a bit of cleanup to try to remove words that's generating

PSAs in the ol' banners... I'll be reposting other's comments

cleaned up a bit. :)

10:48 PM

Anonymous said...

Geez Pete Carr,what a kell-joy!

10:50 PM

Anonymous said...

Pete Carr said...

Jeez being anonymous, such a kell joy :p Can't even get my

keyboard warrior freak on now.



For what its worth, I do have the time to read up on all the

complexities of HDR but my point was simply that if you get a

result that you're happy with, then why should there be an

issue about whether its 32bits or 31 or 30 or even that evil old

29? The images do have a higher dynamic range than a normal

shot. My guide uses the same methodology Ryan's does using

3 RAW files to produce a single HDR image. It also explains

how you can use 1 RAW file if you want to. The whole point

was that its not about the technology behind it, it is about

teaching people how to produce something a little bit different.

How different is up to them.

Either way, people have a new fun toy to play with. Whether its

via Photoshop or Photomatix people can use these techniques

to enhance their photography. Can't hurt to see both sides of

the coin.

10:51 PM

Anonymous said...

Millsbury said...

Good tutorial, thanks! I shoot architecture and had given up on

PS's built in HDR and have been manually layering/masking

exposures. The results have been good but it is very time

consuming. Looks like I was getting fooled by the bad-

appearing 32-bit results, will have to revisit the techinque.

Flat, soul-less images?? Anybody who has tried to shoot

architectural interiors with bright windows would kell for an

easy way to make a balanced, neutral, "boring" photo that

captures the complete range. This technique is certainly a step

in the right direction!

10:51 PM


Hi! I used a Canon EOS 20D with a Canon EF-S 10-22 lens. The

lens is around $700, but Sigma makes a similar lens (the 10-

20) for around $200 to $250 less. The Sigma lens is very

competent if you get a good version of it -- myself, I tried one

out and found that my copy was defective. Hence the switch to

the Canon lens, which hasn't let me down once.

Personally, I shoot Canon, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to

cameras. Canon cameras tend to handle digital noise better

than Nikon cameras, but in all honesty, they're fairly

comperable. Whichever brand you pick, know that you're stuck

with that brand more or less forever, since lenses that fit

Canon camers don't fit Nikon cameras, and vice versa. Since

you can easily spend thousands of dollars on good lenses, you

can see why you'd be motivated to stay with one brand. :)

If you're going Canon and are budget concious, try the Rebel

XT. It's a very, very good camera for the money. If you have a

bit more to spend, get the 30D. Personally, if I were on a tight

budget, I'd get the Rebel XT without the lens (the lens that the

Rebel XT comes with is pretty terrible) and then buy some

good lenses to go with it.



10:53 PM

kaddafy said...

hello!

i don't no if you go read this but i trie to do this at home and in

the last step the photoshop gives me a error telling : could not

complete the merge to HDR command because a command

was not available.

i don't no what to do can you help me?thanks

12:52 PM


Hi! That's a new one to me. Assuming every thing else was

done right, you might want to try reinstalling your copy of

Photoshop CS2.

4:21 PM

Anonymous said...

"Photomatix is actually a very competent HDR assembler, but

it's tone mapping functions tend to look a bit on the silly side.

At least in my opinion"

For an image technician, that is a lot of nonsense. It is usually

the idiot using the software (often they call themselves

photographers even) who causes these ugly artifacts.

2:00 AM

Joergen Geerds said...

Unfortunately for me, most of my objects move during my long

exposures, so the automatic HDR conversion doesn't work. I

usually resort to the older stacking method (works in 8 or 16

bit):

1. brightest exposure goes to the bottom, darkest on top

2. copy the rgb brightness (luma) from the layer below and use

it as the current layer mask

3. blur it slightly (to taste)

4. repeat with all remaining layers (all but the lowest layer

have masks now)

5. manually fix the masks for objects that were moving or don't

need HDR treatment

6. put an adjustment layer on top of the stack (levels or

curves, as you like) to get the contrast back

7. adjust layer opacities to taste

the result is a nice rich 16 bit image with no artifacts. Here is

an example from my website newyorkpanorama.com

9:36 AM

Marianne said...

That's a great explanation . . . and I mostly agree with all of

your thoughts.

You are probably not the guy who will be willing to admit it

(though you'd be good at writing the tutorial), but is it possible



to achieve the "pop" with CS2?

There are a few photos I would prefer to look a little more

"HDR," but would rather not buy another program

(Photomatix) just for that purpose ...

4:29 PM

xavier said...

hi, i didn't know how to contact you easily so i leave a

comment after this post.

Thanks a lot for the tutorial, it's very helpfull, and i came to

translate it to let more people try HDRI.

Let me know if there is any trouble making a translation of

your material, (i know i should have asked before i actually

translate your article).

http://www.virusphoto.com/2373-composer-des-images-

hdr.html

Best Regards,

Xavier

8:53 AM


Hi, Xavier! That's no problem at all -- I don't mind people

making translations of this. :)

11:27 AM

Anonymous said...

for those of us stupid people can you elaborate a little on

setting temperature and tint?

3:14 PM

Anonymous said...

Hi!

Thank you so much,

This is the exact information what I need to start with.

yellow

2:44 AM

Hugo Machado said...

Great explanation on a complex subjet. Cheers!

8:17 AM

Jeff said...

Thanks, this is awesome. I just got a Canon 20D and have

been wanting to try some HDR shots.

2:02 AM

Motaz Abuthiab said...

Nice tutorial, thanks for sharing, I got good results from the

first try



thanks again

9:16 AM

Jonathan Lumb said...

Brilliant tutorial thanks, I was previously using a trial version of

photomatix and wasn't aware that Photoshop also had HDR

capability. As you mentioned, the photos produced have a

more realistic air about them.

Jono

6:16 PM

Travis said...

Does anyone know if it's possible to rapid fire at diferent pre-

set exposures? If so, How?

1:07 PM

travis.topham said...

Ryan,

Ok, so I've answered my own question about the rapid fire

exposure. HOWEVER, I have another question. I am going

through all the steps to produce an HDR photo (as outlined by

you), but I think I need help when it comes to the Histogram,

or maybe I am doing something ealse wrong. I am a

professional graphic designer so I understand photoshop, but I

need to understand photo manipulation. I've purchased a PDF

book written by Jack Howard entitled: "HDR: An Introduction to

High Dynamic Range Photography." But I'm doing something

wrong! I'm kind of throwing out an SOS if you know what I

mean. Please write back.

Thanks,

Travis

P.s. I new to this whole Blog thing so I don't know if posting

personal information is a good idea but here is my e-mail:

[email protected]

7:15 PM

NobleMan said...

How? This must be a very important topic, 119 comments?

Now that's a community.

10:36 AM

Marcos Issa said...

Very nice tutorial, thank you, Ryan. I'd like to put a link in my

website or translate to portuguese, can I?

Regards,

Marcos

2:19 PM



Tarquin Churchwell said...

I think HDR is great. I am experimenting now with RAW. I have

only had my XTI since January. I will be looking to your blog

for lots of HDR information

1:38 PM

Massimo Fiorentino said...

Brilliant! Thanks for sharing!

3:56 PM

James said...

Awsome man, so cool.

9:28 AM

matt said...

Hi,

thanks for the useful tutorial. I have trouble during process

HDR images with CS2. Maybe you can help me...

I load the files in to the HDR merging plugin but after that I

have to set the EV manually... after that I get a message:

"there is not enough dynamic range in these photos to

construct a useful HDR image" what do I miss?

Thanks!

3:24 AM

Matthias Köbrich said...

great tutorial. i was always searching for a description like this.

i hope it´ll work with your tutorial. but nevertheless i think that

it won´t work with my sony cyber-shot DSC-P8 with 3.2 MP...

i guess i have to buy a hdr-cam...when i´m rich.

4:56 PM

Anonymous said...

Hello,

This is some great stuff!

But i can't seem to get the 3 pictures in 1 window..!? Can

somebody please help me?

Thanks

5:43 AM

Anonymous said...

I only have photoshop 7, does that mean I have to uninstall it

and reload cs2 in order to create HDR images.

4:03 PM

Carolyn said...



I stumbled onto this wayyyy late, but awesome! Loved every

bit. I too perfer PS HDR over everything else, so thanks for the

primer!

3:21 PM

dx-xel said...

good tips for me..I really like to design using photoshop..

10:28 PM

annerose said...

These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole

site. I thank you for your comment.

3:37 PM

Anonymous said...

wow... this is the best HDR tutor i have seen it so far.

thanks

3:24 AM

my360vr said...

your HDR tutorial was wonderful.

but i have one question. if i want to do panoramas photo which

require to HDR a few photos with all same level of settings

during the process.

is there any methods in photoshop that do one and apply to

the next photos.

cheers

3:54 AM

Anonymous said...

As an overview, I think HDR is not about having monitors or

materials that show the whole dynamic range as is (as I don't

think the eye could see that much information in one go, that

is what the iris is for). It is more about compressing the full

dynamic range into something that is viewable and therefore

obtaining detail in all areas of the image.

To another previous comment regarding the inverse square

law.

You have your law correct, however you have made an

incorrecet assumption when talking about objects closer or

further away (I think your example was 10m and 100m).

The light is not actually coming from the objects, it is coming

from the sun. When you look at the difference between 10m

and even 5000m, they are still very small relative to the

millions of kilometres the light has already travelled. This is

why things appear to have a relatively similar brightness.

The slight dulling effect from distant objects is actually caused



by refraction and scattering of light due to dust particles in the

atmosphere.

An additional comment regarding the bracketing on Canon

cameras; You can get more than three exposure brackets, at

least on 1D or 1Ds series cameras, but only by using personal

functions which must be set using the computer.

Interesting post, and I look forward to trying some of the

ideas.

9:32 AM

Jeff said...

To the anonymous guy who commented on the inverse square

law:

I don't see how that law really applies here. An equally lit

object 100 miles away should be just as bright as one 10 feet

away, if you ignore the effects of impurities in the atmosphere.

Sure the *quantity* of light is smaller at 100 miles, but so is

the area the object occupies on your retina. So the brightness

should be the same, no?

12:05 PM

ford pittsburgh said...

wow! great post! thx a lot!

12:46 PM

christian clavadetscher said...

i can't belive it!!!! there are still people who can explain on this

earth!!! thanks a lot for your detailed and exact explanation!!!!

just one little thing ;-) voilà is written like this....

thank you soooo much

christian from switzerland

9:25 AM

Anonymous said...

Anyone gang-operating 3 still cameras (one for each bracket)

for HDR?

No need then for a tripod.

3:58 PM


I don't think that would work as you planned. First off, you

would end up with parallax -- so the only kind of photos you

could do using this method were shots of things far away.

Second, you'd still need a tripod, as aligning the photos would

be somewhat difficult, otherwise (and likely still won't be

perfect, even with the tripod). The only advantage is that you

could capture moving targets with this method, so long as they



were moving very far away and you had a method to exactly

synchronize the firing of all 3 camera shutters. :)

1:59 AM

Kathleen said...

Dear Ryan I have photoshop Vl does that matter ? Very few

articles catch my eyes but this one I read to the end , thank

you I will try as soon as you tell me . If I don't have what I

need is there a place where I can download the software for

free .

4:11 PM


Hi! Unfornately, old versions (pre CS2) don't do HDR -- you

have to have a newer version. And no, there is no way to get it

for free.

5:37 PM

Xacret.T said...

it's possible to make hdri images even without photoshop - try

to google for request like "hdri tutroials" "hdri software for

photos"

And Great Respect to author!!!!

---

Sorry for my english. My native language is russian =)

10:11 AM

Curt said...

Pete and Ryan really are the two sides of the HDR coin. I

personally think that there's room for both philosophies. Why,

you could produce and HDR image in Photoshop and

Photomatrix using the exact same bracketed image, and come

out with two separate but amazing results. These are exciting

times in photography, and we're lucky to be present at the

dawn of a new age in technology, and simply looking at the

world. Hell, regular film photography is still valid, and why

can't people do everything. I shoot with a Nikon D80, a Crown

Graphic 4 x 5, an old Minolta 35mm, and even my cell phone

when I feel like it. Have fun with it. That's all that matters.

4:06 AM

Curt said...

And the "viola" thing. I think that you were ironically

misspelling it as I have seen done before. A lot of people seem

to be missing the joke. But then again, maybe it was

accidental. Great article, by the way.

4:11 AM

TW said...

Excellent post.

I quite like the output of photomatix - sometimes - but it is

really good to see something which generates more "natural"



HDR for those times when that is just what you want.

Well done for getting the information across in such a

straightforward manner.

2:29 PM

Anonymous said...

Thank you once again. I tried this for the first time today and

the end result was amazing.

1:30 AM

Andrew Prokos said...

One other thing should be noted. You can merge different

exposures to somewhat better effect in some cases simply by

layering two or more bracketed exposures in one photoshop

file and using masks. I do this on occasion with very tough

lighting situations when I am using chrome film. The exposure

latitude simply isn't wide enough for very contrasty scenes so I

will expose for highlights and shadows and merge them. --

Andrew New York City Location & Fine Art Photographer

1:45 PM

John Franco said...

Is there a way to create HDR images by changing the exposure

settings in an imaging program to say -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3

and then doing an HDR merge instead of having to shoot 7

pictures first? Seems a lot simpler.

John F.

2:32 PM

daniel said...

Hai Ryan,

thx for sharing this tips with me,..but how about if I had only

one photo? I just found this video on you tube shows how he

could manipulate single photo become HDR photo, what do you

think about that?

this is the link of that video

http://denmuel.blogspot.com/2007/08/photoshop-hdr-

effect.html

and you might wanna take a look antoher video,..

http://denmuel.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-to-create-hdr-

photos-with-photoshop.html

i think he uses the same technique.

thx

denmuel

great post anyway :)

2:46 PM




As I explained in the tutorial, it is not possible to create an

HDR image with only one image file, unless you happen to own

a $15,000 camera that has an extraordinarily wide dynamic

range. The entire point of taking several photos is to capture

more light information than your camera's sensor can capture

in one go. If you only capture one shot, then you are by nature

taking a non-HDR photo. You can apply all the photoshop filters

to it that you want or run it through photomatix, but you'll just

be applying manipulations to a non-HDR image.

5:13 PM

Anonymous said...

HDR Tutorial:

http://journals.fotki.com/GBENZ/creating-hdr/

Sample images:

http://gbenz.fotki.com/twin-cities/

10:31 PM

Mikaela from sweden said...

hey, I cant click on the automate-- thing like you wrote. In the

files. What can I do? :/

3:43 PM

Deborah Kay said...

"in the near future I'm going to post a tutorial about just what

I meant by "use your own toning skills". Digitally toning (i.e.

color correcting) a photograph is quite a process, but most of

the interesting stuff about it is easy to digest and learn, and

can often be done quickly once you're practiced."

Did you ever do one? I'm interested in this HDR process, but

can't afford a program like Photomatix, being a poor student.

;)

Also, I live in Lincoln too. It was a nice surprise to find that out

about you!

4:37 PM

traveler home owner said...

Thank you very much for this information.

7:14 PM

Anonymous said...

No offense, but do photographs really have to look realistic?

Isn't the interpretation of how the image is produced part of

the photographic process as well? As far as I understand it, it's

much more than simply subject and framing. Personally, I

enjoy "thinking outside the box". If you think photography

always needs to produce "realistic" images, then where do

photograms, false coloring, and poloroid transfers come in? My

opinion is that photography is simply a method of creating an



image that is a work of art. That image may be realistic, or it

may be completely different from what the scene really looked

like. The point is that it's up to the photographer to decide. In

some scenes, the "cartoony" look really works. In others, a

more realistic approach might work better. It depends on the

subject matter and what effect the photographer wants to

create. I agree that the "halos" around objects that can be

created by Photomatix are hardly ever desired, but usually

they are a result of inexperience by the user. However, the

super-saturated "pop" of some Photomatix-processed images

can be desirable, especially if it enhances the particular image.

I try to think outside the box with my photography. To me my

camera is my paintbrush and my computer is my canvas. As

long as the end result is pleasing to the eye and creates the

mood I want, it doesn't matter how realistic it looks.

4:11 AM

Blackpool Hotels said...

That image may be realistic, or it may be completely different

from what the scene really looked like. The point is that it's up

to the photographer to decide. In some scenes, the "cartoony"

look really works.

Posted By Blackpool Hotels

Date: 19th September 2007

4:35 AM

Anonymous said...

There's no way to get Photoshop CS2 for free? Ya'll haven't

been on the Internet long enough. ;) Software is information,

and information is always free, as it should be. You just need

to find the right sites. Cheers.

7:58 PM

Anonymous said...

Thats a great tutorial. I tried it out and I am very impressed

with the result. I will be using this method more often, though

I think Photomatix as its good points too.

Thanks alot!!!

Jonathan.

10:47 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey, I have a quick question for anybody out there who can

answer it..

If I'm trying to take the 3 or more pictures all at different

exposures and I am outside on a sunny day, the lower

exposure shots are not turning out. Any way to fix this?

6:59 AM

ammaro.com said...



thats amazing. thanks for the guide, seriously. i just ordered

my canon rebel xti, should be here in a few days. really looking

forward to using your guide

thanks again

4:36 AM

Anonymous said...

Thanks Ryan for your tutorial that I had made my first HDR.

But I had some problems.

First, the PSCS2 couldn't open the 3 raw files shot with Nikon

D80, so I had to shoot another 3 jpeg files again. Following

your tutorial, the HDR image came out.

Second, the image couldn't be saved as jpeg format after

downsample from 16 bit to 8 bit. So I saved it as tif format.

Please tell me why?

Thanks again!

2:17 PM

Anonymous said...

I simply wanted to post a link to a site that might be f use and

a table of cameras that does autobracketing as well.

http://www.hdrlabs.com/tools/autobracketing.html

and then the site as a whole as well.

http://www.hdrlabs.com

Karl

7:56 AM

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the tutorial, though I think I enjoyed reading the

comments more than the actual blog post. I have done a few

HDRs that I would consider successful so far, both using

photomatix and photoshop CS3. I agree that CS3 is more

natural-looking, however sometimes more artsy-looking photos

work in certain situations.

For those of you whos camera's can't shoot in RAW, you can

definitely do HDR photography, but a JPG won't retain as much

information as a RAW file, so my suggestion is to shoot more

photos. If you normally would take 3 bracketed shots in RAW,

why not take 7 JPGS, eventually you should cover all the

needed information and tone.

I know there's a LOT of discussion on this subject (see the

flickr groups on HDR) but you can't create a TRUE HDR with 1

RAW and then taking different exposures from it. True, it will

have more information and detail in it than a JPG, but still not

as much as 3 or more RAW files. Usually it's called

tonemapping, and even if it resembles an HDR, there will be

less data in the details, but sometimes it is effective to get

more information out of a singe RAW file, especially if your

subject is moving and you can't bracket. But if you CAN, the

more shots the better to get as much range and detail as

possible.

Thanks again for sharing your information and ideas everyone!

9:19 PM



Anonymous said...

Don't forget that adobe CS3 has a 30 day demo for free! There

seems to be no limitations, so if you can't afford to buy it, at

least you can use it for a month. :)

9:32 PM

Krissanda said...

Thanks for this wonderful blog post! It makes HDR seem not so

intimidating :).I'm going to try it now.

3:19 PM

Will said...

Hey Ryan, thanks for this tutorial. I'm an avid photomatix user

but the PS technique you demonstrate works well too. I

sometimes use the old-fashioned method of layering in PS if I

want it to look more real. Your photos are great and I love

seeing Nebraska imagery since my dad is from Alma.

Take care

1:11 AM

Anonymous said...

Thank you ... verrrry easy to follow and very helpful! :)

12:49 PM

Anonymous said...

A question: Many HDRI pics will have moving people or objects

in them such as a car. How does one get 3 or more pictures of

the same thing at different exposures?

4:51 PM

Bryan Crump said...

I think you have a neat and informative tutorial. Every photo

done in HDR seems to require it's own individual care and

attention. It takes a lot more work to create a great HDR image

than it does with normal photography, but I think the end

result can definitely be worth it. With the right editing and

effects, you can get a clarity, depth and contrast that really

makes your photos pop.

11:31 PM

Anonymous said...

thank god someone took the time to set the world right on

what hdr photography is about. i was kinda getting tired of all

those over-haloed unrealistic comic-booky photographs over

the photoblogosphere and flickr that look like as they were

sitting in rain for the past two hours and rest of the crowd ooh-

aah-ing over them. maybe now we will see some real hdr

photography.

4:53 AM

Anonymous said...



VERY COOL!!

VERY VERY COOL!

1:02 PM

harlekkin said...

It definitely is an interesting article!

But I'm with Ryan on this one. Through Photoshop you can

achieve a lot cleaner and "realistic" looking images than

through photomatix.

Well, I shouldn't even say that. It is up to the skill of each

individual as you can tweak the image any way you want.

If Pete wants plasticy looking images that are dramatic but

kind of make you go "what's wrong with it", hey - his choice.

I prefer the well-balanced and rich images that are simply

pleasant to look at.

Pete's images are awesome in their angles and motives, but

the color and contrast simply throw me off.

3:38 AM

mackemsteve said...

Great post, just what I was looking for. I noticed way back in

the comments a guy called Richie said "My photos are all done

with Photomatix and come out quite realistically." Well I looked

at the link to his Flickr site and all his HDR shots come out

looking cartoon-y to me, more like an "artist's impression" than

"the real thing". They all display that exact "bucket of sturated

paint" style that you mentioned. Fine if that's the effect you're

after, I suppose.

1:12 PM

Lowongan said...

Amazing... this is what im looking for. Most of my picture i just

adjust for color, contrast and curve in photoshop. But you show

me a different way how to use photoshop.

Great Post :)

1:27 AM

Anonymous said...

Has the article "use your own toning skills" been posted ?

2:47 AM

SubZero said...

Hi, I have just read this article and found it great. I an amateur

photographer and have been wanting to try this for a while.

The only problem is, I cant open RAW images in Photoshop

CS2!!!



Am i right in thinking that the multiple images you take, HAVE

to be in RAW mode???

1:28 PM

Anonymous said...

Great article. I've been trying to play around with hdr for ages

with no luck. I've not moved on to using books to get a better

grip on mastering photoshop

6:22 AM

eet kreef said...

Excellent article - thanks

9:00 AM

PvR said...

Ryan, thank you so much for your work - I am new in HDR less

than a week and your tutorial finally explained me all!

with regards from Prague,

Peter.

1:14 PM

Lorne said...

excellent post, thank you!

11:34 PM

DMoose said...

Awesome, thanks so much!

4:13 AM

Deb said...

Wow, that was an incredibly helpful tutorial - thank you so

much for taking the time and sharing your wisdom with us!

9:06 AM

Peter Dyrholm said...

Well that does it....

Now I have to play around with HDR since I really like the

output you are getting with that.

Thanks for a great tutorial :-)

--peter

12:56 PM

hathu said...

wow that was an excellent HDR. i tried doing HDR before but

cudnt get it right. but aftr following your tutorial im ready to

start my HDR sessions! :D

thnx man

5:24 AM

The Athenaeum said...



Perfect Post, thank you for your hard work!

2:39 PM

Peggy said...

I'm way late. Just found this. I've always wondered what the

difference is in the HDR images you describe and the HDR

scans from Silverfast. I know there is more information in

those scans than in 48 bit color scans; does this have anything

to do with dynamic range?

I've scanned a number of images in HDR and find that the

lighter, higher tone, images do well, but the lower, darker

images have a lot of noise when treated as a raw file.

Are they completely different? I'm an avid hobbiest, not a pro.

8:06 PM

Anonymous said...

I think the biggest misconception is that many people don't

give the examples of the 3 or 5 images that you create the

HDR from.

http://luxal.dachary.org/webhdr/example.shtml has a good

example. You see 5 images, at the top, that show what you

start out with.

The photos to the right are darker, and therefore you see a lot

more detail in the "light areas". The photos to the left show

more detail in the "dark areas".

The HDR (at the bottom of the page) shows detail in all areas

of the image. So, you start off with an HDR image that, as a

whole, has the best overall detail in all parts of the image.

From there, you can keep it "natural", do a little histogram or

tone work, or you can really play with it and get some images

that have a lot more "pop". Its your choice.

RAW works better than JPEG capture, but either way, you are

going to get a better HDR than just one exposure.

I have a Pentax K10D. Great camera and under $600. It has

auto-bracketing of 3 or 5 images, which make it really easy for

me to merge into HDRs.

Great tutorial, BTW. I've had CS2 for over a year, and didn't

know that I could do this. I had been using FDRTools.

3:54 PM

Anonymous said...

Thanks so much for that - just googled cs2 hdr tutorial and

there you were. Great stuff. Can't figure out raw and cs2

(followed the download instructions but nothing) but I will try

this still.



Thanks again,

2:51 PM

Anonymous said...

@ritchie, Some of the worst hdr I have ever seen.

5:27 PM

Jennifer Gan said...

Awesome tutotials!

I love Photomatix. I always been interested in HDR but used to

do it with Adobe PS before. I just download Photomatix free

trial today.

Well, I got a question:

Can we make three fotos with different exposures from one

JPEG (or RAW) file with that free trial version? If yes, how?

Thanks so much cos I have no idea. Thanks. Cheers.

Jen.

5:10 AM

Bernai Velarde said...

This was a great post in 101 Hight Dynamic Range. Now I know

how to use it. Thanks! Bernie

10:22 AM

John Rocha said...

I like posts that give real detail on how to do something and

I've been interested in HDR for some time now - perhaps I can

make a little contribution as you talk about using a cable

release. In these circumstances I try to use mirror lock and a

remote release

Happy shooting

John rocha

3:41 AM

mangia said...

excellent post

8:00 PM

Tina said...

Great post. I'm going to try some HDR this wekend and post to

my blog. www.reflectedmemories.blogspot.com

Please check in to see how I'm doing.

Thanks ~ Tina

10:10 PM

Thomas said...



1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»

Newer Post Older Post

Thank you so much! Great post=)

10:37 AM

J Sneed said...

Anonymous said: When our eyes were evolving, if they just

went with the inverse square law,things more than a few

metres away would be too dim to see: no good if hunting and

dangerous if being hunted. lol...yet another law that just

doesnt match up with the evolution theory...theres also that

pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics too...I bet even Charles

Darwin believes in God...NOW.

6:34 AM

kerem caner said...

thank you VERY MUCH, all these informations are just great!!!

8:22 AM

Anonymous said...

thank you for posting this blog!!

12:22 AM

JR Photos said...

Thank you for sharing this I will give it a try...

Again Great tutorial

kep them comming man!!!

6:12 AM

Axel said...

>one day HDR monitors will be commonplace

That day HDR file formats (like HD Photo / JPEG XR) and HDR

cameras hopefully will be common place, too :-)

7:47 PM

Post a Comment

Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)



How to Create Professional HDR Images - …sonystas.locortes.net/HDR6.How to create professional...

Documents

Transcript of How to Create Professional HDR Images - …sonystas.locortes.net/HDR6.How to create professional...