# Hyper Real attempt from a newbie.. Comments?



## KongKurs (Mar 24, 2011)

Hi there!

Mostly, I've been aiming to create realistic HDR's, but with the cloudy boring weather in Denmark these days, I just couldn't resist trying for a bit hyper-real..

And the hyper-real editing is just so damn fun! 

Please, feel free to comment on this.

Metered exposure:






Edited in Photomatix, and post-processed with Viveza 2 and curves tool in CS5:





What do you think? Overdone?
I'd just grab the chance of asking a question to the experts out there: I'm always shooting at 200 ISO for HDR, but the Photomatix-processing seems to add quite a bit of noise to the tonemapped image - anyone experienced this? I shoot with 1 EV intervals always..


----------



## Provo (Mar 24, 2011)

Sometimes cloudy days give you the best contrast skies. 
I think you did ok the image edit does look better then the flat original one that's for sure
the water does have a blue color cast on there that can use a reduction since the ice is 
white not blue. But not bad a good practice is to try to create HDR is any weather environment & available lighting 
this way you can familiarize yourself and get some good reference points as to what will work and what won't.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Mar 24, 2011)

KongKurs said:


> I shoot with 1 EV intervals always..


 
We've had this "intervals" discussion a couple times, and there is a range of opinions.  My belief is that the 1EV practice started because some higher end dSLRs could only AEB in 1EV increments.  Later cameras can do up to 2EV intervals, and this spacing is what is recommended by a number of published authors.  The issue with the smaller 1EV interval is that you need more images to cover the same dynamic range.  More images = more noise.


----------



## KongKurs (Mar 24, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> KongKurs said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot with 1 EV intervals always..
> ...


 
Hmm.. I've read in David Nightingales "Practical Guide to HDR" that 1 EV spacing is optimal, and that 2 EV results in more noise.. It's even illustrated with an exaggerated example... 
Now I'm confused...?


----------



## Provo (Mar 24, 2011)

KongKurs said:


> SlickSalmon said:
> 
> 
> > KongKurs said:
> ...


 

LOL I get a kick of reading these threads how the heck is 1ev optimal when 1ev isn't capturing all of the dynamic range.
The problem is that high dynamic range imagery has taken off and when something is popular often or not people see it as a cash cow
and they have to take a stake at it, twisting information around confusing people stick with what work's for you I always say.
If 1ev works better for you then continue to do that but 3 exposures at 1ev step will get it's tail kicked with 3 shots @ ev2 simply because more dynamic range is captured from the scene.
don't believe look at the histogram.
ever take a look at Trey Ratcliff's work 
take a look around the site 
Stuck In Customs HDR Photography

also take a look at his other site where top hdr processors post there images a site I belong to & have had a few of my images featured as well

have a look at the featured images you will see higher EV and multiple shot's
HDR Spotting - Gallery of HDR Photos and Community of HDR Photographers


here's some images I have done with higher ev as example


----------



## SlickSalmon (Mar 24, 2011)

I really hate to re-start this discussion because it always gets agitated and confused.  The goal of HDR is to capture a wide dynamic range.  The central question is how finely should you parse that range.  Some guys routinely use 5 shots separated by 1EV; some guys routinely use 3 shots separated by 2EV.  It's the same dynamic range, but it's parsed differently.  The argument offered for the former is that you get greater control during editing.  The argument for the latter is that you get less noise.  I don't have David Nightengale's book, so I don't know why he would claim that 1EV spacing leads to less noise.  I'm going to have to go buy it, because everyone else I have read says the opposite.


----------



## KongKurs (Mar 25, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> Some guys routinely use 5 shots separated by 1EV; some guys routinely use 3 shots separated by 2EV. It's the same dynamic range, but it's parsed differently. The argument offered for the former is that you get greater control during editing. The argument for the latter is that you get less noise.


 
I had to test how less exposures with more EV spacing compares to more exposures and less EV spacing..

(images cropped drastically to show noise)
3 exposures, 3EV spacing:






9 exposures, 1EV spacing:


----------



## SlickSalmon (Mar 25, 2011)

I just looked back at Ferrell McCollough's book, and he cautions against too many EV steps between frames.  I think you've demonstrated that 3EV spacing is too much.  I have done direct comparisons of 1EV vs 2EV steps and never seen a difference.  But my camera has an algorithm that handles noise from over-exposures, and that must have disguised the true difference.  

Interestingly, Michael Freeman writes that "the ideal spacing of exposure settings between frames is 2 stops.  HDR software can handle this difference, so there is no advantage in shooting a smaller difference, such as 1 stop".  

At any rate, thanks again for providing some actual data!


----------



## SlickSalmon (Mar 25, 2011)

I've got some data of my own to add.  It occurred to me that we have a direct comparison in Shootout #2.  These two images are both processed identically with Photomatix Pro, details enhancer, strength = 50, noise reduction off.  I clipped out an area of deep shadow where noise should be the worst.  I looked at them real closely, and I just don't see a meaningful difference.

4 images, 2EV spacing





7 images, 1 EV spacing





Certainly, as Anders has shown, 3EV spacing is too wide.  But, my images seem to show that 2EV spacing is good enough, and there isn't much, if anything, to be gained from tighter 1EV spacing.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 25, 2011)

Just a question from a bystander...don't you get more noise from *under*exposure than overexposure?


----------



## KongKurs (Mar 26, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> Certainly, as Anders has shown, 3EV spacing is too wide. But, my images seem to show that 2EV spacing is good enough, and there isn't much, if anything, to be gained from tighter 1EV spacing.


 
Yup, that seems to be the conclusion..
I'll try that next..

Thanks for the input.


----------



## KongKurs (Apr 5, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Just a question from a bystander...don't you get more noise from *under*exposure than overexposure?


 
I believe so. The Photomatix FAQ states, that the best way to avoid noise in the darker areas of the photo, is to ensure that the lightest image of your exposure sequence has its shadows in the mid-tones on the histogram. 



SlickSalmon said:


> KongKurs said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot with 1 EV intervals always..
> ...


 
Sorry Slick, I just have to reopen this debate.. I couldn't stop wondering about this, so I read a little on the Photomatix FAQ. This is what I stumbled upon:

_Regarding the exposure spacing, an increment of 1.5 or 2 E.V. is generally recommended. The advantage compared to an exposure spacing of one-EV is that it will limit the number of shots required to span the dynamic range, and therefore reduce the risks of mis-registrations and ghosting. It will also reduce storage needs and make for faster processing in Photomatix. *On the other hand, a one-EV spacing -or lower- does have one advantage, which is to better smooth out noise when merging to an HDR image. *_

They generally recommend 2EV steps other places in the FAQ though. How do you interpret the above? I read it as the more photos, the less noise. But it could also mean, that if you can capture the dynamic range using 3 1EV photos, that's better than taking 3 2EV photos...


----------



## SlickSalmon (Apr 5, 2011)

KongKurs said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Just a question from a bystander...don't you get more noise from *under*exposure than overexposure?
> ...


 
I read it that I was completely mis-informed.  I always thought that fewer shots (eg. 2EV spacing) meant less noise, but _I was wrong_.  Apparently, more 1EV shots covering the same range leads to less noise (but increases the risk of ghosting).  Personally, as I've mentioned before, with my camera and the things I tend to shoot, I don't see any difference between 5 shots with 1EV spacing and 3 shots with 2EV spacing.  This is important for me, because I do a lot of hand-held HDR.  My camera won't shoot a 5 shot burst; it will only do 3 shots.  Hence, 3 shots at 2EV have become my standard.  If I've got a tripod and more time (and patience) I might go for more, but it's usually only when I need more dynamic range.  There are several forum participants who routinely use tight spacing (Provo, myshkin, Bynx and others), and I certainly can't argue with the quality of their work.  

As for comparing a lower dynamic range covered by 3 x 1EV shots rather than 3 x 2EV shots, I can't say.  You certainly want to take the opportunity to get the shadows 'out of the noise'.  I'm no longer sure how much of an over-exposure you need to do that.  I've always been confident that simply making sure the tail of the most over-exposed histogram doesn't touch the left edge was good enough, but maybe I need to be more aggressive than that.


----------



## mortovismo (Apr 5, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> it will only do 3 shots.  Hence, 3 shots at 2EV have become my standard.  If I've got a tripod and more time (and patience) I might go for more



I'm in exactly the same boat as you...I have zero patience


----------



## myshkin (Apr 5, 2011)

in my opinion you guys over think this stuff.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Apr 5, 2011)

myshkin said:


> in my opinion you guys over think this stuff.


 
That seems to be an unnecessarily unkind comment.  I've been an admirer and supporter of your work, and I don't appreciate the zinger in return.  It's not a question of over-thinking; it's a question of optimizing technical quality, which takes study, thought and experimentation.  I gave my reasons for why it's important for me.


----------



## myshkin (Apr 5, 2011)

Not sure why you would take offense to my comment. It wasn't meant that way. I just see a lot of discussions on her about the technicalities of HDR and for me its not that important. I don't think there is a a right or wrong way and the final result is what matters. Each person should do their own experimenting to find there own style and technique. 
I believe in training the eye and not following histograms. I also never read a book or tutorial on HDR and found my preferred settings through personal experimentation. Same goes for composition. I never read anything and just go off my gut. Maybe I could improve a lot if I read some books but I just like to find my own way. I know everyone is different and everyone learns in different ways so I do not think my way is right, just works for me


----------



## mortovismo (Apr 5, 2011)

myshkin said:


> I don't think there is a a right or wrong way and the final result is what matters. Each person should do their own experimenting to find there own style and technique.
> I believe in training the eye and not following histograms. I also never read a book or tutorial on HDR and found my preferred settings through personal experimentation. Same goes for composition. I never read anything and just go off my gut. Maybe I could improve a lot if I read some books but I just like to find my own way. I know everyone is different and everyone learns in different ways so I do not think my way is right, just works for me



I find this almost impossible to disagree with. Its basically how I have done, and still do, it.


----------



## myshkin (Apr 5, 2011)

everyone approaches it a little different. Some treat photography more as a science and its not wrong to do this. There is a lot of science behind it. My only warning with doing that is not to lose sight of composition and the overall feeling captured in a photo. A lot of the people I know who really break down the technical aspects of photography lack in creativity.(i am not saying that about anyone here so please don't take offense)

I see a lot on here and other HDR boards people speaking of covering the whole DR and if a photo doesn't they feel its a flawed HDR. I think HDR is just another method and process to achieve your desired photo. A lot of my photos have spikes in the histogram which would be considered bad but with that unbalance i achieved my desired look. Just because its HDR doesn't mean every shadow and highlight needs great detail. Sometimes this makes a photo worse and it loses it appeal. I see it a lot in HDR where people want such an even exposure that it looks fake and flat

Thats why the questions of how many exps and at what step, or how your settings were in photomatix are not that important to me. Each photo should be treated different depending on your desired goal. Every circumstance changes the settings. Sometimes I want to underexpose my bracket for a certain look or vice versa. Sometimes ghosting subjects will make me take 5 shots instead of 9. Handheld also makes me take less shots. 
Gear is also a big issue. I take 9 shots at 1ev steps because thats the most I can get out of my D300s without doing it manually. This is enough for me in most cases and I do feel with more exps you get more control. Is this fact, I have no clue. I wish my camera could do a 2ev step but it doesn't so I work with my gears limits.


----------



## KongKurs (Apr 6, 2011)

myshkin said:


> everyone approaches it a little different. Some treat photography more as a science and its not wrong to do this. There is a lot of science behind it. My only warning with doing that is not to lose sight of composition and the overall feeling captured in a photo.


 
I get your point, however this technicality-debate started because I asked in the topic-opener on people's opinion on how to reduce the noise I seem to struggle with, by finding the "theoretically" best spacing and method for shooting HDR.

Maybe, as you mention, there's not really any such thing, since it's all about what feels right and which goal you in the end try to pursue. But as a newbie, I guess I'm not really that common with everything yet, so I strive to start from the best starting point, by reading books and asking about other people's opinions, and combining this with my own starting experience.. Maybe I won't do anything like the "theoretically optimal" in 5 years, but that's how I try to start.

This debate was regarding noise-control, and I'm very much interested in what seems to be the best way to avoid this.. Since Slick and I had completely opposite ideas of how to get around this, I think we both learned something new. But in the end, nothing beats the practical experience you mention, I agree..



SlickSalmon said:


> Personally, as I've mentioned before, with my camera and the things I tend to shoot, I don't see any difference between 5 shots with 1EV spacing and 3 shots with 2EV spacing. This is important for me, because I do a lot of hand-held HDR.


That's how I shoot handheld as well, but I mainly bring my tripod when shooting for HDR.
I think I'll try experimenting some more to confirm that there's actually any difference to be found.. If I come up with something interesting, I'll post it in here..


----------



## SlickSalmon (Apr 6, 2011)

KongKurs said:


> myshkin said:
> 
> 
> > everyone approaches it a little different. Some treat photography more as a science and its not wrong to do this. There is a lot of science behind it. My only warning with doing that is not to lose sight of composition and the overall feeling captured in a photo.
> ...


 
Thank you for your post.  I think it helps clarify the direction of the discussion.


----------



## myshkin (Apr 6, 2011)

I am not taking a hit at anyone and I still don't understand why you took offense to my first comment slick. I didn't think it was mean at all

About noise its part of HDR. I think its well known downside to HDR, but some things can minimize it. I find processing in photomatix has the best impact on minimizing it. 

As someone mentioned noise comes mostly from underexposed shots. Since HDr requires underexposed shots you will always have noise. Now rather 5 shots at 1ev or 3 shots at 2ev which equals the same range makes a difference with noise seems to be up for debate.
I wouldn't let noise be the deciding factor on how many steps you use. Noise is coming either way. 

Try shooting at ISO100 and see if it helps. I normally shoot all mine at ISO200 and don't change because it works for me.

I was having issues with noise in the sky a lot before but after paying attention to it more in PP it has become a minor issue for me now


----------



## SlickSalmon (Apr 6, 2011)

Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive to the common criticism that I over-think things.  I'm a scientist.  I read, I study, I experiment...over and over and over.  I challenge assumptions and figure things out.  You'd think that people would find that useful, but the fact is most people find it annoying.


----------



## Rocan (Apr 12, 2011)

lazy? only 3 shots?

man, bracketing... i could snap off 10 shots in under 3 second no problemo. 

still though, i shoot 1.5ev in my experience adjusting to about 1 stop is the maximum in PP before you start seeing noise and detail loss.


----------



## Provo (Apr 13, 2011)

I would have to agree with Mysh & stand by his comment he did not mean any more by it
the topic is being over thought heck I participated in the discussion so I am guilty of over thinking the technicality aspect of it.  Ultimately it boils down to what can you do with the available dynamic range the scene has to over if your method is 3 shot's great if more shot's then great as well just do what you think it's best and have fun with your images.

If you read around the web this post can last for days on end because one person will tell you this way is better then you read another article that contradicts the previous one 
so just try and see what you feel is the optimal settings for you to work with be your own judge.


----------



## 1holegrouper (Apr 14, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive to the common criticism that I over-think things. I'm a scientist. I read, I study, I experiment...over and over and over. I challenge assumptions and figure things out. You'd think that people would find that useful, but the fact is most people find it annoying.



Without over thinking we may still not have lightbulbs. To me that is how we discover new ideas.


----------

