Beginner How can I take better HDR shots?

Dael_Pix

Dael_Pix

Messages
1,618
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I took some HDR shots last week in the Yorkshire Dales of Malham Cove...... 3 exposures, some 7 exposures.....They were processed in Photomatix Pro 5.1 and they all seem unsharp.

How can I take better 'sharp' shots? Of course, I was using a tripod..........I took them at f11 on AV mode.

The images can be seen here https://www.flickr.com/photos/daelpix/
 
Dael_Pix said:
I took some HDR shots last week in the Yorkshire Dales of Malham Cove...... 3 exposures, some 7 exposures.....They were processed in Photomatix Pro 5.1 and they all seem unsharp.

How can I take better 'sharp' shots? Of course, I was using a tripod..........I took them at f11 on AV mode.

The images can be seen here https://www.flickr.com/photos/daelpix/
Click to expand...
A couple of things come to mind
On the darkest shot was shutter speed high enough
You mention you took them in a cove did you focus on say a rock or the sea if the sea the camera would refocus between each shot I often put the lens on manual after focusing
 
I'm not sure that they're not sharp. I think the problem is that they are way overcooked. These suffer from the garish cartoon-look that gives HDR a bad name.

Part of the HDR process is reducing the micro-contrast across the image. This has the effect that areas of sharp contrast - where dark tones suddenly meet light tones - are "blurred" into one another, for want of a better way of explaining it. So you get "halos" or a soft glow or blur around objects that stand tonally apart from their background. I think this is what you are seeing. This is nothing to do with your photography technique, you can't avoid it by doing anything in-camera. It's about the processing. You need to go easy on the sliders in the software.
 
I had a quick look and none of these need HDR processing. You have good dynamic range and could get a well exposed photograph in a single, well exposed photograph.

As an aside, and without wanting to sound patronising I've taking the very same photographs. I looked at one of my HDR photographs from about six years ago and is awful :)

Cheers.
 
Ghoti and Posiview are spot on. It is very easy to over cook HDR shots - I am embarrassed now when I look back at some of my early attempts. HDR is definitely an area where, IMO, less is more, and as mentioned none of the shots on your link have such a wide dynamic range that they need bracketing and merging of images.

Just keep on having a go; HDR is just another pp techniquue that used well is very useful and can give good results.

Dave
 
Border_all
Sea?
I used manual focus all the time and I focused on the rock face. I have no idea where I focused on 'The Stream' image.

- - -


I don't think they're 'over-cooked'. I have tried not to do this. They are not as bad as ones I've seen on YouPic and Flickr. Not too keen on the clouds though. And all the shots are grainy, I've got rid most of it in LR5, but it takes the sharpness away and the photos look a mess.

I like the Barden Bridge photo. It's the best shot I've taken of it. Colour is a little rubbish so that's why I changed it to Mono.
On the waterfall image, I like the look of the water with it being gin clear and seeing the stream bed. Not too keen on the waterfall being a light green. I need to work on it I think.
Malham Cove, View 6 (The one with lots of green) - I don't like this photo, there is too much green.

A couple weeks ago I commented on a photo of a log on YouPic and that WAS over-done, some people ganged up on me, saying "that is the way HDR is supposed to be blah blah blah", they sent me nasty messages about my images, they even placed them on a couple of my photos..... I had to contact support and they banned them!

I'll look at the video when I get the chance.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Border_all
Sea?
I used manual focus all the time and I focused on the rock face. I have no idea where I focused on 'The Stream' image.

- - -


I don't think they're 'over-cooked'. I have tried not to do this. They are not as bad as ones I've seen on YouPic and Flickr. Not too keen on the clouds though. And all the shots are grainy, I've got rid most of it in LR5, but it takes the sharpness away and the photos look a mess.
Click to expand...
They are overcooked. The problem you are trying to solve has come about precisely because they are overcooked. And you shouldn't be aiming for "not as bad as...", you should be aiming for "good".
The tone-mapping is too severe. Leaving you with indistinct areas where there should be sharp contrast. I'd bet the original images are adequately sharp, if not perfect.

If you like that gaudy HDR look then you're going to have to live with a little haloing and glow. If you want to get rid of the haloing and glow then you need to relax with the psychedelia.
 
You can see the problem very clearly in the two people in your picture called "the river".
 
Last edited:
I process the RAW files into Tiff with ONLY adjusting sharpness and clarity in Lightroom. I then process them in Photomatix and save as Tiff. Then I do a full pp in Lightroom adjusting CLARITY as required to remove "softness" and finally saving in Jpeg, you really need to work on your own settings in Photomatix as each picture is different. Over processing just doesn't work in HDR it takes away from the final picture. I quite like heavy processed images but NOT too much. Haloing is the hardest thing to avoid on Scenery/sky shots. A lot of this is personal taste and many purists hate HDR but done well I think it can create very pleasing images to look at.
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
This is the image that I commented on. My photos are not as bad as this horrible image! (hopefully you can see the image)
https://youpic.com/image/5385262/photo-taken-by-mackfitz858-with-sony-a77-in-florida-hdri

The original images are not sharp. I will upload the 3 images for one scene if anyone wants me to?
Click to expand...
But...
As has already been said, 'it's not as bad as someone else' isn't an aim. And it's certainly not helping with your question, which was how do you improve.

Well you won't improve if you jump on the defence. You know you want to do better. You have asked the question, now you just have to listen to and follow the responses.
 
Phil V said:
Well you won't improve if you jump on the defence. You know you want to do better. You have asked the question, now you just have to listen to and follow the responses.
Click to expand...
This. Read it again. And again.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
I prefer my HDR shots to not be recognised as HDR...;)
Click to expand...
This. If the first thing you see is "Holy HDR, Batman!" you've overcooked it. It's perfectly natural as a beginner, but it's also crucial to learn from the advice of those with more experience. When judging your images it makes much more sense to reference the masters in your chosen field than the eye-candy nonsense all over Flickr.
 
Looking back at the images again, yes I think you're all right.

I've deleted a few images on my flickr.

Here's a side-by-side shot of one of them.
  • Enhanced colour of grass in foreground
  • Enhanced colour of trees near cove
  • Enhanced colour of grass on hill on far right.
  • Added a touch of contrast from the bottom of the image at an angle to the first person.
  • Added sharpening: Amount: 34, Masking 48. Luminance 15

Merged by David Sunderland, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
I took some HDR shots last week in the Yorkshire Dales of Malham Cove...... 3 exposures, some 7 exposures.....They were processed in Photomatix Pro 5.1 and they all seem unsharp.

How can I take better 'sharp' shots? Of course, I was using a tripod..........I took them at f11 on AV mode.

The images can be seen here https://www.flickr.com/photos/daelpix/
Click to expand...

Define the number of exposures by the number of exposures needed, not an arbitrary odd number (sometimes it may be an even number that's required) and never defined by the bracketing limit of the camera. Once you know what image data is needed you'll also understand when HDR isn't appropriate.

Why are you using Av mode? - for HDR data capture everything should be in manual and locked down (manual exposure, manual focus).

Stop doing everything in Photomatrix - it's a decent enough tone-mapping programme but it's a very poor choice for editing colours,contrast, etc. Bring a basic file back into LR/Elements/Etc. Turn the saturation dial down.

Don't over-fill the shadows, they're needed for visual perception of depth. You may need to put them back in after tone-mapping.


Don't waste your time on "test" shots of non-HDR and/or boring scenes (usual one is a garden shed or car, bonus points for being original and using tomatoes) because the don't really teach you anything. Go take your camera and tripod to a small country church and practice on the interiors and stained glass windows. Expect to be taking 7-14 frames to capture the full dynamic range in some of the darker churches. The narrower the interval (in stops) between frames the smoother the tone-mapping will be.Shadows can be added back into a scene by layering in a darker exposure over the tone-mapped image at a low-ish transparency.
 
Last edited:
I payed £70 for Photomatix last week and I'm not about to waste my money by not using it just like that.

I'm taking another look at some of the images I took last week. The posted video is helpful :)
 
Dael_Pix said:
I payed £70 for Photomatix last week and I'm not about to waste my money by not using it just like that.

I'm taking another look at some of the images I took last week. The posted video is helpful :)
Click to expand...
You can use it, just watch those sliders. :)
 
Dael_Pix said:
I payed £70 for Photomatix last week and I'm not about to waste my money by not using it just like that.
Click to expand...
Who said to stop using it? - If you think I did I suspect your early HDR attempts may have already caused irrevocable sight damage.. ;)

Use Photomatrix for the tone-mapping, but don't pretend it's even a halfway decent general image editing programme. If you're using Photomatrix (or any other tone mapping software) properly the TIFF coming out of it should look flat, uninspiring, lacking contrast and saturation with a histogram stretching the full width of the dynamic range but with absolutely no clipping at all at either end. You then do the more traditional processing with the usual, more full-featured editing software (LR, Elements, PS, etc.).

Remember, when taking images there is no "normal" or "middle" or "0" exposure, there is no +1, -3, etc. You define the end points at the dark end by the setting (usually shutter speed) that gives no clipped highlights and at the bright end by the setting that gives no blocked shadows. You then choose your interval to determine the number of shots required between the two.

If you start out determining an exposure as if for a regular shot and then bracket equally around that middle point it's all very hit or miss as to whether you'll capture the full dynamic range. It's a short cut to the SIC-look of HDR, and it's very popular because it requires no understanding of dynamic range.


(SIC = Stuck In Customs, look him up if you want to make your eyes bleed..his tutorials are responsible for most of the popular conceptions of HDR)
 
For Dael, why do you feel this shot in particular needs HDR? In your comparison shot above, the original is, IMHO a better shot. The improvements in the HDR version could easily have been done with a couple of sliders in LR/PS: slight increase in saturation and contrast...

The clouds are incongruous - it's a sunny day, you wouldn't have very dark clouds like that, it's also removed the depth in the cove itself as Photomatix has removed a lot of the shadow.

I don't mind HDR in the right place, but this shot didn't really need it. It's mostly of use in a scene which has really high contrast which your camera can't capture normally in a single frame (e.g. without clipping highlights/shadows), hence why people recommend inside churches to practise as they usually have very dark interiors, but with very bright windows.

(BTW - I really like the egg and fork shot :) )
 
If the egg and fork shot was the first image on my photostream, I deleted it. It was a mistake and shouldn't have been uploaded.
 
Ah - shame.
But back to my first questions - why did you feel the need for HDR on the Malham Cove shots?
 
Dael_Pix said:
I took some HDR shots last week in the Yorkshire Dales of Malham Cove...... 3 exposures, some 7 exposures.....They were processed in Photomatix Pro 5.1 and they all seem unsharp.

How can I take better 'sharp' shots? Of course, I was using a tripod..........I took them at f11 on AV mode.

The images can be seen here https://www.flickr.com/photos/daelpix/
Click to expand...


Looking at your Flickr page, I'd say you're over processing the images... all the HDR shots are over cooked, unrealistic, and pushed too far. This always degrades the image quality, adds noise and generally just makes things look crap.

Back off on everything. The POINT of HDR is to compress dynamic range, not to make things look like a psychedelic nightmare.

The best HDR process by far is built into Photoshop CC. Photomatix is a bit rubbish to be honest. It's great for making these eye watering, over cooked tonemapped images, but if you want quality, then PS CC is the way to go IMO.

Tutorial here...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/the-ultimate-hdr-method-photoshop-cc-only.113/
 
Pookeyhead said:
Looking at your Flickr page, I'd say you're over processing the images... all the HDR shots are over cooked, unrealistic, and pushed too far. This always degrades the image quality, adds noise and generally just makes things look crap.

Back off on everything. The POINT of HDR is to compress dynamic range, not to make things look like a psychedelic nightmare.

The best HDR process by far is built into Photoshop CC. Photomatix is a bit rubbish to be honest. It's great for making these eye watering, over cooked tonemapped images, but if you want quality, then PS CC is the way to go IMO.

Tutorial here...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/the-ultimate-hdr-method-photoshop-cc-only.113/
Click to expand...

Cheers for the link to the tutorial, will have a read of this later
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top