1st Gen First attempt at HDR

Forgive me if you weren't looking for pointers, but here's what I would suggest.

First, I would download the free trial of Photomatix. It's much easier to work with and gives much better results. Past that, the idea is to bring detail to shadowed areas and add shadows to the bright areas. After that, it's all up to artistic expression and interpretation.

 

I can't help you there, I've never used Photoshop for HDRs

 

Photoshop Elements would be a option too, Made to manage and edit digital images. Does a pretty good job IMO. Would do what VicSkimmer is suggesting.

Much cheaper than full blown photoshop, very powerfull editing and great organizational abilites

 

I too, have tried to get HDRs to turn out "right". My Photoshop skillz are limited, so I feel your pain.
BTW, the question in your sig.... I don't think so. I am always looking to see what you put in there next. To have someone that works with you, to allow you to create those, is awesome. Also, I'm not sure, is that you? Sorry for my not knowing.

 

^ +1

(Why are the photos so small? I click on them and they do not blow up; they remain thumbnail size.:confused5

 

Are you taking at least 3 shots of the same view and bracketing the exposures?

This is the only "real" way of getting an HDR shot.

 

yep I have started attempting hdr and the method I have been told to use is multiple shots adjusting your f-stops over a dynamic range of +/- 3ev here is one of my friends' he uses 7 or more shots to do these:


image is copyright J.W. Lee photography and is used without permission but I know him .

 

yeah Jon is pretty damn talented. here is his site pretty sure if you email him he'd offer tips

 

It's not necessarily adjusting your f-stops, all that will do is give you pictures with different things in focus. The main goal is to adjust your exposures to give you one that is spot on, one that is slightly overexposed (to pull shadow detail from) and one that is slightly underexposed (to bring in highlights). HDR just helps to properly expose an image, since the camera can only properly expose either the foreground or the background in most cases. Past that it's all up to artistic interpretation. Here's a couple that I've done.

 

On the topic of HDR, it usually requires a tripod mounted camera to get the multiple exposures at different EVs--so that aligning the images is easy. Unless you have a Canon 1DmarkIII, which can make 10 exposures in 1 second. I actually proved this (both the 10 exposures in 1 second, and the HDR feature I'm about to mention.)
But with such high frame rates, you can get 3 frames (say -2EV, 0 and +2EV) in 0.3 seconds, effectively eliminating the need for a tripod, as the camera moves very little, if at all, in such a short time. I've made many of these sequences to get HDR images, but honestly, as Jason's examples prove, HDR is really more about the image and the subject than the technique. It really works for some images, and doesn't do a whole lot for many others.

 

Or, if you're shooting in RAW, you can bracket the photos in post processing as long as you aren't extremely altering the exposures. The effect is generally the same and keeps you from having to constantly take (and store) 3-10 images for each HDR.

I use Lightroom and just create virtual copies to bracket the exposures. That way it doesn't take up more hard drive space than it needs and it keeps you from having to align the images. That combined with the Photomatix plug-in for LR and I can create an HDR in probably 1/3 the time it would normally take me

 

Honestly, there are only a few people that I have seen who are really pushing HDR to be something beyond what you can get using RAW images and the highlight/shadows command in PS. I'd wager that about 90% of all HDR images are not that much different to images that could be created using one good RAW image and some serious PS work. That said, it'll always remain a novelty dimension of digital photography, much like panoramas, and fake-IR images. Only my opinion, of course.

btw, on the topic of recording/storing images. I got a 16Gb SDHC card for $30 at one of those big box stores a few days ago. When media is so large and so cheap, the issue of file size and number is essentially moot, IMHO.

 

That's awesome! The best I could find when I got my camera was an 8Gb for $30.

At this point I usually just expose images according to the foreground and bring the sky back with a GND filter via Lightroom. I like that effect much better, but HDR can have it's uses. I've seen quite a few that could never be accomplished with just post processing (though you can do some amazing things in PS). It's just another tool in the box

 

F-stops do exactly that.......change exposure. Does nothing for focus except change the field of view.

The rest of your explaination is pretty much right on. HDR is simply processing an image to show all of the detail available.

 

F-Stops control the size of the aperture, which controls the depth of field in a picture. A smaller F-stop indicates a wider aperture, which allows more light to hit the sensor, which requires a quicker shutter speed for proper exposure, which results in an image that has a shallow depth of field.

Shutter speed controls the exposure, and the aperture acts as a bottleneck on it, depending on the light available.

Assuming aperture is the only variable, increasing the F-stop will result in a narrower aperture, which restricts the amount of light that reaches the sensor, in effect stopping down the exposure, but it also alters the depth of field, and you don't want that with an HDR.

With digital SLRs these days (and high end P&S'), the camera will auto bracket an image by stopping down the exposure. When it does this, it alters the shutter speed, not the size of the aperture.


I know we're splitting hairs here because both can have the effect of altering exposure and their relationship is complex, but adjusting an F-Stop will not necessarily increase or decrease your exposure. Adjusting your shutter speed absolutely will though.

Edit: Actually I guess they both do, depending on which is the constant and which is the variable. I still hold that you would be better served to adjust shutter speed to avoid differences in the DOF though.

 

Guess it depends on what the camera is capable of doing, adjusting the apreture or shutter speed.

Of course I am still living in my old Nikon FE/FM days.....lol