# Mt. Ranier - First attempt at HDR. C&C please...



## brazilnutjr (Jan 12, 2010)

This is my first attempt at HDR.  The image is composed (and tweaked) of two pictures I took of Mt. Ranier from a dry creek bed.  Any critique or tips appreciated...  Thanks!


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 12, 2010)

..... ehem....clearing my throat!!!.....hackemmmm...

OK... THIS SHOT IS NOT HDR MATERIAL!!!!!!
Why on earth would you need HDR there.. A properly exposed shot would yeild a much better sharper image. I would shot it like this....

1. Stop down to around F/18-20
2.Shoot ISO 100 or lower..
3. Expose for 1/8th-1/2th a sec a play around with the exposure times to get it right.
4. If you have one use a ND filter. a 6-8 stop filter would be good there. Better yet.. A circular polarizer would really make the colors pop..

Word of advise...stay away from hdr for the next two months and learn basic shooting techniques. Then once you get it out of your system...sit back and marvel at your wonderful non hdr pictures... j/k

oh and BTW.... for a good hdr you will want 3-5 shot at different stops. 

but seriously hdr does have a place but this is just not one of them.. Truthfully a good filter would really make that scene pop.


----------



## Mulewings~ (Jan 12, 2010)

What does the original look like?  Could you post it?
I think it would help. 

The mtn looks off as do the colors,...that could be from HDR.


----------



## HikinMike (Jan 12, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> ..... ehem....clearing my throat!!!.....hackemmmm...
> 
> OK... THIS SHOT IS NOT HDR MATERIAL!!!!!!
> Why on earth would you need HDR there.. A properly exposed shot would yeild a much better sharper image. I would shot it like this....
> ...



While I do agree this is not HDR material, but why f/18-20 and 1/8 - 1/2 sec? You not trying to show movement, unless you want to see trees moving.


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 12, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> ..... ehem....clearing my throat!!!.....hackemmmm...
> 
> OK... THIS SHOT IS NOT HDR MATERIAL!!!!!!
> Why on earth would you need HDR there.. A properly exposed shot would yeild a much better sharper image. I would shot it like this....
> ...



Thank you Dan for the reality check and the tips.  (LOL)  I have much to improve, no doubt.  Thank you for sharing how you would have shot this.  I will continue to focus on the basics and hopefully make better contributions soon.  (Back to the old drawing board...


----------



## themedicine (Jan 12, 2010)

well, let me just say that this COULD have made a good HDR photo if you had taken more than two photos. Normally a minimum for HDR is three, and average around five. That way you can really underexpose and overexpose in the extremes, thus granting you with more dynamic range. Not just two photos of the same thing smushed together.

just saying.

go back and do it again!!


----------



## rallysman (Jan 12, 2010)

HDR could have worked here but wasn't necessary. If you don't have ND and Polarizing filters as previously mentioned it would be a decent substitute for them. 

Look up how to use bracketing on the D70 and set it for continuous shooting. Rattle off 3 pix @ ISO 200 with aperture priority of f18 or something in that range (for a larger DOF depending on subject distance). Mix those three and practice until it looks real, not too contrasty or like a painting. Make sure you keep the camera as still as possible.

I bet you could get better results from a single image on this one though.


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 12, 2010)

Mulewings~ said:


> What does the original look like?  Could you post it?
> I think it would help.
> 
> The mtn looks off as do the colors,...that could be from HDR.



Thanks for commenting Mulewings.  Here is one of the originals.  I think I like it much better than my faux HDR


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 12, 2010)

themedicine said:


> well, let me just say that this COULD have made a good HDR photo if you had taken more than two photos. Normally a minimum for HDR is three, and average around five. That way you can really underexpose and overexpose in the extremes, thus granting you with more dynamic range. Not just two photos of the same thing smushed together.
> 
> just saying.
> 
> go back and do it again!!



Thanks!  I'll keep trying.


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 12, 2010)

rallysman said:


> HDR could have worked here but wasn't necessary. If you don't have ND and Polarizing filters as previously mentioned it would be a decent substitute for them.
> 
> Look up how to use bracketing on the D70 and set it for continuous shooting. Rattle off 3 pix @ ISO 200 with aperture priority of f18 or something in that range (for a larger DOF depending on subject distance). Mix those three and practice until it looks real, not too contrasty or like a painting. Make sure you keep the camera as still as possible.
> 
> I bet you could get better results from a single image on this one though.



Thanks rally!  I have a circular polarizer, but not a ND filter.  I guess I was trying to kind of make the colors pop out more with this picture and I thought HDR might do it.  I should have stuck to adjusting the levels.  Lesson learned.  I will learn how to use bracketing, however, and on my next attempt at HDR, I will have more than just two pictures to work with.
One of the original non-(faux)HDR images is posted above.


----------



## HikinMike (Jan 12, 2010)

brazilnutjr said:


> Mulewings~ said:
> 
> 
> > What does the original look like?  Could you post it?
> ...



Absolutely!! There's no reason to use HDR for an image like that. Now if you had a lot of shadows and highlights, then yes, use HDR or use layer masks (blending).


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 12, 2010)

brazilnutjr said:


> Mulewings~ said:
> 
> 
> > What does the original look like?  Could you post it?
> ...


I love Mt Rainer... Was that a Sulfur stream?


If you were looking to darken the mountain and make it pop a bit more you could adjust it independently (or anything else in the photo)... 
Like this


----------



## Mulewings~ (Jan 12, 2010)

Nicely done Dominantly.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 12, 2010)

HikinMike said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > ..... ehem....clearing my throat!!!.....hackemmmm...
> ...



F/18-20 would get everything in focus and would be nice and sharp. 1/8 may be a little on the long side but without shooting it I don't actually know the exact... LOL more of a guesstimation!

That picture looks a lot better Dom!


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 12, 2010)

Thanks :thumbup:


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 13, 2010)

Thanks Dom, for adjusting the picture.  May I ask how you tweaked it, so I can learn?  I am guessing you did a slight color correction, with maybe a light gradient to darken the sky and mountain?
I appreciate the help!


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 13, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> I love Mt Rainer... Was that a Sulfur stream?





I'm not sure if it is a sulfur stream or not.  I walked through some woods to get the shot and I didn't see any signs.  (I'm from Alabama, so what I don't know about Mr. Ranier could fill a book)   What caught my attention was the strong orange color of the stream and I thought it would make a nice picture with the mountain in the background.


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 13, 2010)

So when I edit something like this, I try and break it up into different sections, and then edit them independently.

SO I would use layers, and I would create one for the mountain itself, and the rock foreground. Sometimes I do the same for the sky, but in this case the sky looked a good shade of blue.
The whole key to this stuff is the masking, or the isolation of the parts that you wish to edit. ESPECIALLY when you have trees/plants involved. Masking that tree line off to edit the sky (leaving the tree be), would be a PIA.

So I use a program by Topaz called Remask 2 (Topaz ReMask - Masking Made Easy). It makes masking as easy as possible and saves time.

I opened the photo in PS Elements, then made two copies.The top copy was opened in remask to remove the mountain from everything else. Then the middle layer was used to isolate the rocks, and the bottom stayed whole.
I then just used the levels tool to increase the contrast and white balance a bit... nothing big, just enough to lose some of the dullness. I did a little contrast tweak to the rocks, and then flattened the image.
Took less then 10mins....


----------



## Mulewings~ (Jan 13, 2010)

Topaz really rocks...it has some great time saving features.

Thanks for the explanation.  It really helps everyone else learn.


----------



## brazilnutjr (Jan 13, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> So when I edit something like this, I try and break it up into different sections, and then edit them independently.
> 
> SO I would use layers, and I would create one for the mountain itself, and the rock foreground. Sometimes I do the same for the sky, but in this case the sky looked a good shade of blue.
> The whole key to this stuff is the masking, or the isolation of the parts that you wish to edit. ESPECIALLY when you have trees/plants involved. Masking that tree line off to edit the sky (leaving the tree be), would be a PIA.
> ...



Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'll try to get ahold of remask.  I probably have some more photos that could be made to look half way decent. So, I look forward to practicing with the layers.  Thanks again!


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 13, 2010)

The Topaz bundle is very powerful and free to try for 90 days with no strings attached.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 13, 2010)

I've got to say how wonderful it is to see someone take criticism constructively and then actively seek to learn!


----------

