# Why so many shots?



## amolitor (Jul 13, 2012)

Why do HDR practitioners use some many exposures? I always see stuff like '7 exposures, one stop apart' for some scene that looks like maybe it was 12 stops wide.

Why don't people space the shots out further? Virtually any camera will give you 8 stops of range, and I guess it doesn't hurt to have a few stops of overlap, but why not space thing 6 or 7 stops apart? Spacing stuff by 1 stop just seems to produce a massive pile of redundant image data, and accompanying problems stitching these huge heap of images together.

I swear I recently saw some pretty ordinary looking scene that claims 22 exposures or something. Madness.

Am I missing some technical detail?


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 13, 2012)

Frames are cheap and easy to create............. while in the field.

I'd rather take 20 shots and only use 4 of 'em than to sit in front of my monitor with 4 frames cursing myself for not taking 20.

"It's better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them."  You can quote me on that.


----------



## ceejtank (Jul 13, 2012)

480sparky said:


> "It's better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them."




Consider that done. QUOTED.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 13, 2012)

Having 'em, sure. What I can't figure out is why you'd pile them all into a single image.


----------



## Overread (Jul 13, 2012)

I suspect it depends how they approach the HDR - I would guess that if they are letting software make most of the choices, then the software has a higher chance of giving a good result with access to more data (ie more frames). It might also make tweaking of settings within the software (for different effects) a lot easier - again because its more data to work from. 

If its a simpler scene and you can manually blend the results then fewer frames might indeed be all that you need. 

In the end the difference in approach might well not give much of an actual difference in result (depending how people work); but having access to the additional frames essentially costs the person nothing in the digital age and thus having more options can help in select situations.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 13, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Having 'em, sure. What I can't figure out is why you'd pile them all into a single image.



Probably for the lulz?


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 13, 2012)

They don't always do that. The more exposures you have the more noise you will have even though it's not always obvious.


----------



## EDL (Jul 13, 2012)

Most HDR's I see are three exposures and sometime I see 5 or 7.  Not sure where you get the idea that all HDR examples are "so many frames".  The basics are pretty simple, you only need enough frames to cover the full dynamic range of the scene.  As mentioned, with digital it's a heck of a lot easier to take too many frames and disguard what you don't need (or want) than it is to not have them and need them.

 Not sure that it's madness either.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 13, 2012)

Maybe they were shooting directly into the sun with dark shade in the scene as well?


----------



## amolitor (Jul 13, 2012)

I didn't say they "all", just that many seem to use a lot of exposures. Search for "17 shot HDR" on flickr, for instance. Or any other number you care to name. You don't get a LOT of hits, but you get some, and that's surely not the only phrase people use.  Some of the more outrageous examples seem to be panos in addition to being HDR, but I'm just not feeling more than 3 or 4 exposures as needed for pretty much anything. 4 exposures, 8 stops apart, for instance would give you enough range to image the surface of the sun together with a dimly lit room.

Someone, somewhere, gave these people the idea that a Whole Bunch Of Exposures was a good idea.

Since nobody's mentioning a technical reason for it, I am going to assume that there's not one.


----------



## EDL (Jul 13, 2012)

Well, find something to shoot and do 20 frames then process a three frame and process all the frames and see if it makes a difference.  I'm not saying that flippantly because I honestly don't know the answer.  I may try it myself just to see if it does make a difference when processed.  I can imagine that the software you use to process it with will make a difference too.


----------



## 1hdr4u (Jul 14, 2012)

I only use 3 shots because that's all my camera(canon 60d) will allow me in bracket mode. I shoot a lot if not most of my HDR handheld and then let my camera fire off my shots. I've been happy with the results from only 3 shots.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 14, 2012)

1hdr4u said:


> I only use 3 shots because that's all my camera(canon 60d) will allow me in bracket mode. I shoot a lot if not most of my HDR handheld and then let my camera fire off my shots. I've been happy with the results from only 3 shots.



You can manually bracket as many exposures as you desire.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 14, 2012)

amolitor said:


> I didn't say they "all", just that many seem to use a lot of exposures. Search for "17 shot HDR" on flickr, for instance. Or any other number you care to name. You don't get a LOT of hits, but you get some, and that's surely not the only phrase people use.  Some of the more outrageous examples seem to be panos in addition to being HDR, but I'm just not feeling more than 3 or 4 exposures as needed for pretty much anything. 4 exposures, 8 stops apart, for instance would give you enough range to image the surface of the sun together with a dimly lit room.
> 
> Someone, somewhere, gave these people the idea that a Whole Bunch Of Exposures was a good idea.
> 
> Since nobody's mentioning a technical reason for it, I am going to assume that there's not one.



I'm not really sure either but here is a guess.

Lets say a scene has a very dynamic range.  Next lets say the photographer in question is looking for specific exposures for certain areas of the scene.  The photographer may meter for each specific area so, that when brought into post and combined, these specific areas of the scene are exposed to exactly where the photographer wants.  This way there is less tweaking to get the desired effect they want in those areas.

Not sure but just a thought.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 14, 2012)

480sparky said:


> "It's better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them." You can quote me on that.



Quoted...........and for good reason.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 14, 2012)

Because so-called "hdrtists" don't know how to use a meter. You can quote me on that.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 14, 2012)

No quote, because your hypothesis has holes.  Take a decent meter reading of the important part, then go up and down the scale.

Generalisations generally bug me.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Because so-called "hdrtists" don't know how to use a meter. You can quote me on that.



Then I must not be an 'hdrtist' because I know how to use a meter.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 14, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Generalisations generally bug me.



Derp.



> No quote, because your hypothesis has holes. Take a decent meter reading of the important part, then go up and down the scale.



It makes more sense to meter the hilights and the shadows, knowing that the "important" part is within this range.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 14, 2012)

Real question should be what good are all those exposures if you do not know how to process them.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 14, 2012)

Within a scene where most of it could be done with 3 or 5 shots 1 stop apart imagine there is a really bright source that needs to jump 4 stops. So instead of shooting 9 shots 1 stop apart you could shoot the first 5 then your final shot could be closed by 4 stops. If we are talking an extremely bright light source in an otherwise dimly lit scene there could be some of the light from that bright source falling on objects close to that source and they could use a shot 1 stop open from the most closed. So why screw around? Just take the shots you need from the darkest to the brightest. This may sound confusing, but if you knew about HDR by taking pics for it then you would understand the answer to your question. Once you shoot a successful scene with a very dynamic range you will get it. Personally I cant see taking more than 9 shots, but then maybe I havent come under a condition which needs it. And because what Sparky said is so important to know I will give you the gist of it again......take as many shots or more than you need. They dont cost anything and its better to have too many than not enough.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> It makes more sense to meter the hilights and the shadows, knowing that the "important" part is within this range.



Part and parcel, yes?


----------

