how do you shoot hdr?

floydmoon1

Want to try out hdr.Got this off some site.just wondering if anyone has any other tips or suggestions other than what is said here.





Most digital cameras are only able to capture a limited dynamic range (the exposure setting determines which part of the total dynamic range will be captured). This is why HDR images are commonly created from photos of the same scene taken under different exposure levels.
Here are some recommendations for taking different exposures for the HDR image:

1. Mount your camera on a tripod
2. Set your camera to manual exposure mode. Select an appropriate aperture for your scene (e.g. f/8 or less if you need more depth of field) and the lowest ISO setting.
3. Measure the light in the brightest part of your scene (spot metering or in Av mode to point only the highlights) and note the exposure time. Do the same for the darkest shadows of your scene.
4. Determine the number and value of exposures necessary. For this, take as a basis the exposure time measured for the highlights. Multiply this number by 4 to find the next exposure with a stop spacing of 2 EV. Multiply by 4 successively for the next exposures till you pass the exposure measured for the shadows. (Note: For most daylight outdoor scenes excluding the sun, 3 exposures spaced by two EVs are often sufficient to properly cover the dynamic range).
5. You can make use of Auto-Exposure Bracketing if your camera supports it and if it allows a sufficient exposure increment and number of auto-bracketed frames to cover the dynamic range determined in step 4. Otherwise, you will have to vary the exposure times manually.

pete4130

What you get told on the tutorials online are pretty much the basics. Everythign else is trial and error. I've taken some shots I thought would be great for HDr and they turned out to look rubbish, or maybe I'm just rubbish at creating them. It's one of those things where you just have to keep trying and learning from mistakes.
I usually set the camera to take 5, 7 or 9 shots with the auto bracketing function, all 1 stop apart with the correct exposure in the middle. You don't have to use all of them, its just handy to have more info if you need it when creating the HDR. Use a tripod and if you can get a cable release for your camera this helps reduce camera shake from you physically pressing the shutter (if you are using longer exposure times). If your cam has a "mirror up" function, use that too so that you don't get any shake from the mirror slappping up too.

Other than that get shooting!

gerk86

without the auto bracketing function, the end result will be pretty noisy. I dont think all dslrs support AB or im stupid and cant find it on my d40

sasar

I use hdr for most of my landscape shots.
Usually 3, sometimes more separate exposures, all captured on manual, I change only the shutter speed. Then I stitch them together in Photomatix (automated hdr software) or manually in Photoshop (manual hdr).

PS. This might be interesting for you:
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm

Mellor

gerk86 wrote: »

without the auto bracketing function, the end result will be pretty noisy. I dont think all dslrs support AB or im stupid and cant find it on my d40

How does AEB affect noise, I thought it just automate the expoure offest, so the same results are taken if the photo is bracketed manually.
It know most Canons have AEB, Its on my 350D, so guessing everything else has it too.

vitaliysh

I'm curious about what's the difference if u making HDR out of 3-7 pictures differently exposed originally on camera (AEB), or if I create 3 differently exposed jpg from one RAW file...??

pete4130

Photomatix has the capability to create a "pseudo" HDR from 1 raw file. it isn't a true HDR as the dynamic range is limited to that of the original file. They don't work that well in a high contrast scene where the hightlights and shadows are spread far apart in terms of exposure.

Fenster

Do not tone map.

/stab

Seriously, 90% of the time it's going to look horrible and we'll be forced to grin and bear it. There's a huge potential for non tone-mapped HDR compositions that people just don't look at, in portraiture, architecture

<Insert Chapel photo as proof>

/rant

Okay, I've played a fair bit with tone mapping in the past, but it's just too easy to wind up with something that looks like a cartoon, and too hard at times to get a more subtle effect.

Mellor

Are you saying do not tone map a single RAW file create a fake HDR,
or do not tone map HDR images.

I'm a little lost as any thing i've read on it has a section at the start that mentions that a HDR has too much info on it to display on screen, each pixel having a number of values, tone mapping after the multiple file are merged into a HDR image sets which colour to show?

Fenster

Tone mapping is a personal peeve and I think at this point everyone here will tell weary tales of my whining over the subject.

It's not to say that I don't like tone-mapping, or that I haven't tried it myself, but I find it's simply too easy to come up with a garish cartoony composition that looks horrible. Look up "photomatix," "hdr" or "tone map" on Flickr at your peril!

That aside, I think HDR is a fantastic means to get really original portraits, landscapes and architectural photos (I use it on ruins a lot), if people ever got past just tone-mapping a perfectly good photo into oblivion.

To sum up tone-mapping: