Category Archives: HDR Editorial

HDR does not = Light

By Peter | Published February 20, 2013

We get caught up sometimes thinking HDR is the cure all to everything. No matter the situation, shooting HDR will make it all better. But it simply does not. HDR allows you to capture the light our eyes can see and possibly our cameras can’t but it does not turn bad light to good. 

This was hammered back in my head once again two weeks ago as I was out in Joshua Tree NP on a shoot. A friends I was traveling with called me over to see an area he was looking over down into the valley. It was a beautiful scene in front of me, but quite honestly the light sucked. It was an hour too late to shoot that area and no good light was getting down into the rock outcroppings, just a small area of great golden hour light was hitting the peak of one of those rock formations. 

I took the shot more to appease my friend but thought well maybe something will come out of this. Measuring the light hitting that peak and then down into the crevasse below, it said there was a need for HDR so I did shoot a 7/1EV shot exposure and then went back to shooting my main subject that was loosing great light quickly the Natural Arch of Joshua Tree…and I think I was too late at that point 

Getting back to base that night, I downloaded my cards and started culling through the shots of the day and I stopped at the above shot and thought I would see if maybe magically something would come of the image. I loaded the 7 Exposures from Lightroom into Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 and went about my normal procedures…and ,,,Meh, Nothing, It’s just a nothing shot. There’s some nice light on the peak to the left and a deep blue sky but everything in between is just flat nothing light. HDR captured it all perfectly but it was still bad boring nothing light.

 Contrast that with a scene two days later when shooting the WindCaves of the Anza-Borrego desert where I had beautiful late day sun streaming into one of the caves and I used a 3/2EV Shot to capture that light inside the cave and also daylight outside the cave. All beautiful light and I used HDR as a tool to capture that. HDR did not make the light, it only made it possible to capture its range and with that…the beauty. 


3 Exposures +- 2EV processed with Nik HDR Efex Pro 2

We can never forget that regardless of the tools we use, great photography still relies on certain principles…Number one; Great Light and Shadow

Hope that helps,
PT

Also posted in HDR Example, HDR Quick Tip, Photography Lesson | Tagged | 1 Comment

Thought for the Day – First take a Great Photo

By Peter | Published December 30, 2012
Thought for the Day – First take a Great Photo…then shoot an HDR.
 
So often these days as I scan Google+ or 500px I see HDRs that I’m sorry, are just horrible photographs. The only thing of interest at all in them is that they are an HDR and sometimes I’ll admit, that alone draws the eye. But HDR should not be the feature, it should be a great photograph…and I used this technique to capture it. Anymore I don’t even say “I shot an HDR”, I simply, took a photograph
 
So I implore you to, First look for a great photograph, interesting light and shadow, texture and composition and then judge, what techniques do I need to use to capture my vision? If the scene is beyond the dynamics of your camera, THEN use HDR (or other methods) to capture it.
 
Thought for the day, short and sweet.
 
PT
Also posted in Editorial | 4 Comments

Why do you have both Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 and Photomatix Pro 4?

By Peter | Published October 3, 2012

Reader Alex asked this question: “I noticed you use both Photomatix in some articles and HDR Efex in others. Do you have an article describing when you will use one over the other?

If you don’t can you let me know why you use both and not just one?” 

Which is a great question and one I’m sure many people have asked…or maybe even asked themselves. 

Well the simple answer is; I’m a tool addict, my garage is filled with tools of all different types and uses and being such I often have many tools that do the same thing but in slightly different ways. I have Sanders, Belt Sanders, Orbital Sanders even Hand Sanding blocks. They all sand but in different ways and may have different tasks to them. 

When it comes to photography, I’m pretty much the same way. I like choices. Now some people could certainly just use Photoshop CS 6, some people only use Lightroom 4. I have both and while I use Photoshop a larger percentage of the time, I still find Lightroom is “just right” for certain tasks. 

OK, so that’s a long way to get to why I use both Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 and Photomatix, aren’t they the same tool? 

Well…kinda…but not. They both take you down similar roads but one is Asphalt and one is Concrete. They will both get you there, but they feel different. 

I’ll be honest, when Nik HDR Efex Pro, the original version came out. As ground breaking as it was with the addition of control points and adjustments galore, it just didn’t look that greatto me except for Architecture, because of the detail it had, it did a great job of that. But my Forte’ is Landscapes and I do them in a very natural or “As the eye sees” look. I didn’t feel version 1 had what it took to make a natural looking landscape, but it could get to the CGI look very quickly. So I used it occasionally but stuck with Photomatix Pro for the most part. 

All that changed with Nik HDR Efex Pro 2, I knew One didn’t have what it took to make a natural looking image and Nik knew it too and they set out with that as a clear priority in redesigning for HEP 2. And they succeeded in BUCKETS. 

In the mean time, Photomatix knew they had a good thing going with the look of their HDR process and pretty much left it alone, instead they concentrated on some other areas. They worked on some of the parts earlier in the process, like their selective deghosting which works absolutely fantastic, they added the ability in Tone Mapping to select areas and go back to a different exposure for that selection, and they worked on the preview accuracy and the resizing of windows that was a problem with earlier version. They added a little known and still kinda hidden 32 bit Histogram. They did a lot of behind the scene work but stuck with the “Look” of their HDRs 

Of course Nik didn’t want to be left behind in those areas and vastly improved the Alignment, Deghosting and Chromatic Aberration module of HEP2. 

So at this point, they’ve evened up on speed and their pre-tone-mapping workflow. Even though they go down different roads, you will end up at the same or similar point. 

“Okay okay, get to the point! Why do you have both?” 

 Quite simply, cuz they just look different, I could work to get them both to look very similar but I don’t want to, they simply look different. 

Architectural shot in Nik HDR Efex Pro 2

If I was doing an Architectural shot, indoors in particular I would probably (But not always) use Nik HDR Efex Pro2, It’s more detailed and sharper in a way that works great for Buildings and interior rooms. If the shot was for say an Interior design magazine I would probably use HEP 2, if it was a fine art piece of an abandoned building, I’d probably go with Photomatix.

Fine Art Interior done in Photomatix Pro

If I was shooting automotive, I would probably use Photomatix Pro. There is just a ‘Look” to it that I find more pleasing, Maybe because cars are so detailed already the tone-mapping in Photomatix Pro just make that “shine” (sorry for the pun) 

If I was doing work where I wanted a Grunge, Painterly or CGI look, I think I would have to do that in Photomatix now. Nik worked to make HEP2 more natural looking and I think their grunge now gets a little too hard edged

YOU CAN GET GREAT RESULTS WITH BOTH PROGRAMS

 

But what about what the majority of your work; Landscapes and Seascapes? 

This is where it’s an artistic decision on my part. What is the look I want? Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 is very natural looking and highly detailed (without getting crazy detail if you don’t go crazy with the sliders, see my article on achieving a Natural HDR) which really works, especially with Textural light and also Black & White images.

 Photomatix also has a very natural look but it looks different. It is softer edged and works better with Tonal light (light where there is diverse tonality with less contrast).

Landscape done with Photomatix Pro

 

Landscape done withn Nik HDR Efex Pro 2

If I had to state the difference in a term photographers may understand, Nik HDR Efex pro 2 is like shooting Digital, Photomatix is like shooting film. NOW, understand this, I shot film for 40 years, and Digital for the past 8, don’t make the assumption that many do, that “Film” is necessarily better. Film and Digital both have a “Look” it doesn’t mean that one is better than the other.

 

 

Same thing with Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 and Photomatix Pro 4, they both have a “Look” neither one is better. But when it comes times for me to make an “Artistic Judgment” which one to use, I will. There are some images that you can’t tell the difference what you used, others there is a distinct difference.

How I know that that difference is image dependant, is that I conducted a blind test with my photographer friends to decide once and for all which software was better. So over a few weeks I sent 5 sets of images, a pair of the same image, different software, marked only as Image A, Image B. Each time the verdict was overwhelmingly that one was better than the other. BUT, the software that won was different depending on the image. One week one software would win, the next the other would but always by a large majority.

 

And then there is a reason I use both that has nothing to do with how either of them performs. By the nature of bringing my readers The HDR Image blog, I have to know how to use both software extensively because even my readers are split on what they use. I can’t answer their question if I don’t know the software, heck I even can tell them about Oloneo HDR Engine if need be.

 

Bottom line; I like tools, I like choices

Both software have free trial versions, download both and decide what YOU like.

Hope that helps,

PT

 

 

Tagged | 10 Comments

HDR isn’t always Necessary OR Better

By Peter | Published September 27, 2012

I’ve said this before when we talk about measuring the dynamic range of our scene. ‘If you don’t need HDR don’t use it”

It can be simply just an waste of time and Hard Drive storage space or it may even be detrimental to your final image.

Sometimes we just need to be reminded of this

Last weekend down at the Harbor I was shooting some buildings, mid-day, bright sunny mostly cloudless day. Measuring the dynamic range it really wasn’t beyond -2,  + 2 of the meter. But for a couple of the buildings I shot an HDR  3 exposure +2, 0, -2 series  just to see if something interesting may come of it. Well it didn’t

Here is one building in particular. One image is the HDR, one is just the 0 exposure.

There really isn’t anything I like better about the HDR image. It’s flat, the highlights have become grayed because the tone-mapping compression tried to make everything a mid-tone. There is WAY more noise in the HDR, sensor spots are much more visible in the HDR. I don’t feel the image is as sharp as the single image either.

Now some may say, “Yes but look at the shade side of the building ,it has more detail”.  Well, It has lighter detail, I wouldn’t say more detail. In fact that side of the building looks more realistic in the single shot in it’s tonal rendition than the HDR does.

Remember we use HDR to bring back detail lost in shadows or highlights, not necessarily just to brighten/darken an area of the image. We still want a full range of tones, just with detail in almost all tones (there really shouldn’t be any  or much detail in zone 1 or 10)

Now if you wanted to use HDR just to bring out more detail with Micro Contrast. I still think you would be better off tone-mapping a single image using the Single Image Processing in Photomatix  Pro or Nik HDR Efex Pro 2. Or software like Topaz Labs Adjust 5  than doing a  multiple exposure HDR. I don’t see the benefit.

But of course that is your artistic decision

PT

Also posted in HDR Quick Tip | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Shoot Mid-Day, Yes, Yes you can!

By Peter | Published July 2, 2012

Shoot Mid-day, Yes, Yes you can!

 
Anyone that’s been into photography knows, one of the most taught rules is “Never shoot in the middle of the day”. Even Scott Kelby during a The Grid broadcast a couple months ago during the “Live Critique” show that got a lot of buzz said so. To Paraphrase him. ” If you are a landscape shooter, there are two times a day to shoot. Other than that forget it”. And to directly quote him, talking about shooting during Golden Hours. ” That is the absolute most basic thing” ,  And,  ”If you don’t do that, you can throw it in the trash”
 
Rutt rowww…Mr. Kelby, Did you just tell me I can’t do something? Not a good thing to do to this dawg.
 
But of course he is right and it also extends to portrait/wedding photographers and others. He’s right…well maybe he was right.
 
So why do we not shoot during the Mid-day? Well, the light is harsh, shadows are in the wrong place, colors are bad and I’m sure we could state a few more things and I guess we would be right.
 
But I’m going to say. We’re not.
 
Case in point. Saturday I took a drive down PCH ( Pacific Coast Highway) on a simply beautiful day. I pulled off in Cardiff by the Sea in one of the few remaining parking spaces that was left because it was such a beautiful summer day. It was about 1:30PM, certainly not a time of day we would shoot.
 
I got out, grabbed my camera and headed to the water. It was spectacular, the sky was a beautiful deep blue with white puffy clouds, the water a beautiful seafoam green. The sand a warm golden tone and the kelp washed ashore a sparkling emerald green. Wow how wonderful.
 
Snap went the shutter.
 
And I got this: 
 
OK Mr. Kelby you’re right. I can’t shoot Mid-Day. The light is harsh, the color is bad, it’s all washed out. The dynamic range is multiplied by the specular highlights off water which can drive meters batty. It’s just an ugly day with bad light…Hey wait a minute! I’m standing here looking at it…
 
Umm…no it’s NOT. It’s FRIGGEN beautiful out!
 
So is the light really bad? Or, can our camera, as we knew them, just not capture it? 

A flawed system 

No matter what we may think, now or years ago. Digital or Film. Small formats or big honking 8 x 10 Large format. Cameras are a flawed system. They just are. They don’t see as well as our eyes and when you really consider that our “Human” camera is a system of both Lens (our eyes) and our mind that make up that system. They don’t even come close.
 
In fact our mind plays a huge role in how we see. Without our mind’s interaction, everything we see would be upside down and backwards. Our mind corrects for our eyes, the lens. We even use composition to do what our mind does naturally.
 
As a photographer, what can make us great or better than another photographer is knowing these flaws and how best to correct or compensate for them. It is, in some ways, what made Ansel Adam’s so great. Besides a great eye for light, composition and quite frankly shooting places that not many people could see without his photographs at the time. Mr. Adams knew and understood the flaws of his camera and film. It was the basis for his Zone System. It what made him know to expose a certain way, then process another and develop this way. To get the most out of a system he knew very well and knew if he didn’t do this he could not recreate in art what his eyes saw.
 
Getting back to my day at the beach
 
What my eyes actually saw was this: 
 
 
Brought to you courtesy of…yes…HDR. High Dynamic Range Imagery.
 
So the “Rule” of photography of not shooting mid-day is not one brought about by our subject and “Bad Light” but it really was brought about by a flawed system that just wasn’t capable of capturing the light that was there. And while our lenses do a pretty good job of replicating our eyes, the sensor somewhat less as far as dynamic range goes. But the part that really is missing is that our camera is incapable of the manipulation our mind adds to this of putting together the range of luminance and color and in some ways boosting the midtones into the scene at an acceptable and pleasing level (The “Two Looks” theory).
 
Now don’t get me wrong, The Golden Hours are still an amazing time to shoot, as can be the Blue Hours (You forgot them Mr. Kelby) And I am not saying that HDR can make up for truly bad lighting situations. I still maintain it must be great light. In fact I will say that part of the day usually is not the best time to shoot. The 2 or 3 hour period leading up to the Golden hour when the haze and pollution in the sky increases. The angle of the sun is just in a bad sometimes in those hours. What I AM saying is. Look, Look around, does it look nice to your eyes? Then we should be able to capture that and HDR may allow us to do that or at least do that more often.
 
The truth is there are times that it is just is better to shoot mid-day.
 

What to shoot Mid-Day 

 
A few  examples of things that may be better shot Mid-day: Well we have the beach scenes that we already talked about. Think about the above scenes with a colorful umbrella in the image or children’s sand pails at the waters edge. Just be careful of specular highlights on the water. Take them into consideration when metering the scene. Remember what a specular highlight is; it is a reflection and in this case it is a refection of the sun which can be many times brighter than our ambient EV15 light of a typical sunny day.
 
Shooting in Canyon Areas or close to a mountain range. When you are close to a mountain range that the sun sets or rises over. You really can’t wait for the Golden Hour. In fact the sun may set behind them a good two hours before civil sunset.
 
Shooting in Slot Canyons can be even worse. There may only be a short window of time that a great shot is possible in slot canyons and the dynamic range can really be high from the interiors to the sky. Waiting till too late in the day can really yield some really poor results as was shown in this article I wrote last year.
 
Wildflowers: This is one that really needs consideration. One of the reasons we sometimes can’t shoot wildflowers  during Golden hours is that a lot of flowers have not yet opened or start to close during that period. (Some flowers also close when it is windy and winds can increase towards sunset) And there are times shooting huge fields of wildflowers just looks great in the middle of a beautiful blue sky day.
 
But shooting wildflowers in the middle of the day do pose a couple problems. Ome that isn’t instantly recognizable if we do our usual HDR routine of measuring the Dynamic Range or brightness of the scene. At first with measuring the scene it may appear that it isn’t even that high of dynamic range. But our meters do get fooled with this and it’s one time we may be better off taking a shot and looking at our RGB histogram. One color channel usually blows out. 

Red Channel Blowout and Flower movement are a problem in this image

Most often, especially with, red, orange, Yellow flowers, it is the red channel. So shooting HDR helps with keeping this channel under control and giving us a much sharper image than a standard one because just like when we blow out all channels (white) it causes a great loss in detail.

 
But there is something that does get in our way of shooting flower fields with HDR. Movement. Even with a subtle breeze wildflowers move, sometimes they simply vibrate but that causes more loss of detail and sharpness. It makes it difficult enough with a single image because we have to keep the Shutter speed up to stop the motion. I often end up shooting at a higher ISO because even though there may be bright sun, using f/16 for my aperture yields a 1/100 shutter speed and I need much more.
 
Now, consider that,  plus  now you want to do multiple exposures? I think not. So this is an instance where I will recommend a single exposure but then using some of the tools we have with HDR and doing a Single Image, Tone Mapped.

Single Image Tone Mapped Shot 12:24PM



No it is not a true HDR but what we are instead doing is something I alluded to earlier. How the mind puts together an image sometimes more so than the eye and we can simulate this by using tone-mapping to bring down the highlights till they fit and don’t blow out and then boosting the mid-range that our eye/brain combo gets so right but our cameras, as we knew them, get so wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
So get out there and experiment, try, look around. How do the conditions appear to your eye? If it looks nice, maybe it is nice. Maybe we just didn’t have the tools we needed before. But with HDR we do. I’m not sure that people yet understand the power that HDR enables us. Once we understand that as well as we did the limitations of our system, we may be quite limitless.
 
And images like this are possible. Okay Mr. Kelby, anything else you would like to tell me I can’t do?
 
 

Shot 3:55PM

 
Hope that helps,
 
PT
 
PS For you portrait shooters, did you know it’s possible to shoot mid-day too? Not HDR but there are ways that you too can overcome the limitations of our flawed system have. Ask me.
 
 
 
 
Also posted in HDR Lesson, Photography Lesson, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 7 Comments

The Definition of HDR

By Peter | Published June 27, 2012

The Definition of HDR 

What is the definition of HDR? Of course we know the acronym stand for High Dynamic Range but what do we mean by that? 

The Look 

To the vast majority HDR is a “Look”. That image looks like HDR. Typically that look is a little out there, a little CGI doesn’t look like a standard photograph and maybe they are not supposed to. That look is very popular amongst HDR fans and photographers or it may be  abhorred by others. 

But of course just because something has that Look, doesn’t mean it is actually an HDR but to many, as long as it has the look,  that makes it one. But that look can be made without standard HDR methods, in fact using many HDR programs on a single standard image or using Post Processing programs such as Topaz Labs Adjust 5 or Nik Color Efex Pro 3 can yield images with that “Look” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Technique

Others believe it is all in the technique that is used, if you shoot 3 or more frames at different exposures and then combine them using sophisticated software. That makers it an HDR 

But are either of these definitions true? Does either thing actually make them an HDR? Did the scene that was shot have a wide dynamic range? Did that single image we tone mapped have a wide DR? 

After all, we first must acknowledge that our final product (Print or screen image) in not truly a High Dynamic Range but merely a compressed representation of what our eye sees…Ohhh wait are they even that? Do they truly represent what our eye sees?

As the eye sees

Which brings us to my definition of HDR. Now you don’t have to agree, that fine in fact I don’t even need to debate it. You should believe what you want to believe. I will simply give my viewpoint. 

My definition of an HDR is based on the “Scene’s dynamic range” as measured and then corresponding with that, it is reproduced in the final product, “As the Eye Sees”. 

Now of course there is debate about what constitutes a High Dynamic Range Scene but for my purposes I like to use the contrast ratio of 1000:1 or higher as my threshold of HDR or close to that. That roughly works out to about 10 stops or a 10EV range or better. 

Now you may be saying, wait. A lot of us are doing HDR images with just 3 Exposures of +- 2EV or a 4 EV range, even you recommend that.  And we think those are HDRs, so how can you say 10EV or better? 

Well we must remember that each image we take does not make up just 1 or 2EV. Each image has its own dynamic range. Typical DSL’s have a dynamic Range of 7 to 11 stops. So in our typical example, you have your 0 Image that has 8EV of DR and we add 4 more stops which gives us a range of 12EV. 

We do have to consider that every exposure we take will not have the full dynamic range of the camera. The end exposures are limited by both the Noise Floor and the Highlight Ceiling. So some of your exposures especially if you are doing 5 or more may have smaller total DR in those shots. Also one other th9ought to remember is that DR decreases as ISO increases. 

The second part of it for me is processing the image, As the Eye Sees. Now our visual memory may not be all that good but that is why I take a moment and don’t constantly shoot during a session. I take a moment not only to sit there and enjoy what may be a magnificent scene. But I take a look around me. How does the ground at my feet appear, how does the sun look right now. The sky the clouds, the tree line and I try to record that into my memory for when I am processing the image later to try my best to bring back in that image, what I saw at that time. Not always easy but I try. 

So, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. It doesn’t have to be yours. That’s why we have Artistic vision and it is different for all of us. 

Hope that helps 

Peter

 

Also posted in HDR Example | 1 Comment

Why We Shoot HDR

By Peter | Published March 10, 2012

Why?

This is certainly a nice shot of a Pencil Cactus and Brittle Bush out in the desert, The cactus is sharp and well defined. The exposure on the cactus, brittle bush and rock is good. It’s what we always would have gotten in years past taken in the late afternoon in winter in the California desert.

nice…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is just better, this is how I saw it on that day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the why

It’s not to make stuff look goofy or outrageous. It’s to make things just look right.

3 Exposures, +-2EV, Processed in Photomatix Pro 4.1 with the normal PT recipe > Photoshop, levels adjustmet and sharpening

 

PT

1 Comment

The Definition of HDR

By Peter | Published December 2, 2011

The Definition of HDR 

So I was reading on a forum the other day about the definition of HDR, High Dynamic Range Photography. Some people argued there wasn’t one, most other argued to make what ever they shot- the definition of HDR and a lot of truly baseless arguments and more of rationalizations.  I put a few of my thoughts in but it really went no where and I didn’t feel like arguing anymore. 

So I thought I would give MY definition of what HDR is. This, like everything else on my blog, is my opinion. And my opinions are based on my experience or what I have done only. I’m not schooled nor have a degree in anything I have ever done in photography. I speak only from what I have done, experienced, experimented with. Am I right? I don’t know. I only know what I think I know. But I won’t tell you what “they” say. I will tell you what I know. 

Looking at the definitions people had for HDR: If it was beyond the dynamic range of a Monitor, It was HDR. If it was processed with HDR software, it was HDR. If it was tone-mapped it was HDR. If it was a RAW image, it was HDR. If it was 3 Exposures from a single RAW image, it was HDR. 

All of which I would just say…No. 

It seemed most people just wanted to justify that their single exposure or whatever they shot, however they shot was HDR because it looked HDR. Which I will again say…No 

So here is my definition of HDR. 

There are many things that have a dynamic range. A print (100:1) a Monitor (100:1 – 1000:1) A camera single image (1:1000 – 4:000:1) NONE of those are High Dynamic Range and just because you may exceed one of those examples of Dynamic range  does not make an image an HDR. Every one of those are Low Dynamic Range. 

My definition of High Dynamic Range Images is based on SCENE DYNAMICS. Scene dynamics that I believe are High Dynamic Range are those that are above what a Camera can caoture in and a single image and are 10:000: 1 or “As the eye sees” or higher such as the 100,000:1 that are very possible in nature (Remember those images with the sun in them?) 

If you use High Dynamic Range techniques but capture a low dynamic range scene is it truly High Dynamic Range Imagery? No, I don’t think it is. And yes I have done such things and posted them here and I also showed cases where that scenario goes horribly wrong. I still believe if you can capture the image in one exposure, then you don’t need nor would I advise you to use HDR techniques. 

Does that mean I am against single image processing or tone mapping? No, I have softened my stance on that. It actually can be quite fun and I did have some fun using Topaz Adjust 4 & 5. BUT I firmly do not believe they are HDRs. They are what they are – fun. 

And if you remember this post, I do believe there actually is a reason to use tone-mapping on single images. But that is NOT to make an HDR, but rather to map tones more closely to how the human eye sees. I believe that the basis for how a digital sensor “Sees” was based on a film model; and not on the human eye.( Alowing that they do account for the eyes sensitivity to colors) It was based on something linear and I don’t believe the human eye is that linear. Just as human hearing is not linear (we are more sensitive to high frequencies than we are to low, well until we get old). So I am fine with people tone-mapping single images. They just aren’t HDRs. 

So if you capture what is not capturable with a single image and that range is closer to what is visible by the human eye or higher, I believe you have captured a true High Dynamic Range Image, which of course we have to tone map down to a Standard Dynamic Range Image to be displayed on monitors or in print. 

My 2 Cents on the matter 

P

Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Bottom Line – It’s still “All About the Light”

By Peter | Published October 11, 2011

All too often I see HDR used as THE important element of an image. It’s not, it’s a process, it’s a tool. Lately when I post images I don’t even say, this is an HDR. It’s irrelevant. Just as what kind of camera did I use, or what shutter speed I shot at or what editing program did I use. They aren’t relevant to the end image. Just how you got there.

So I have been thinking about the above paragraph for a while now but what I didn’t realize was that my shoot this weekend  would prove it to me.

Great Photography

Before I begin that tale, let me first explain what I believe is great photography. Great photography is all about the light finding great light and most importantly shadow and the placement of shadow with-in an image. Great photography is about having an artistic mind to see that great light and also the eye to place that subject of light within a field or more plainly stated, Composition. Once you have the eye for the light, shadow and composition, it’s having the knowledge to capture that and  frankly, NOT F*** it up! This is , to me, the essence of great photography and what I will always and forever strive for. HDR is just one of the tools I use to get there.

 Back to the shoot

I always say I never preconceive what I will shoot when I go to a certain area because the area always tells me what to shoot. This day was no different as I headed out to the Anza-Borrego desert in California. I had thoughts that I would like to shoot the Calcite Mine in the north-east section of the park. Just finding the trail to go off-road on was tough enough and once I got half way there, the trail took a turn for the worse, too tough even for my mighty blue steed and all I could picture was myself being on one of those Video mishap shows with my truck tumbling down a drop off to the desert floor below. So at that point I choose to turn around and look for something else.

I was told there were also some Slot Canyons in the area. So I set off to find them, a short distance away I found them and started hiking the trail. Aha, my best friend the desert had once again, told me what to shoot.

One note of caution. Never hike alone, always have sufficient water and food, NEVER hike in a slot canyon without first checking weather conditions. Even storms miles away can quickly fill a slot canyon with torrents of water that you cannot escape. And finally NEVER EVER EVER EVER drive off road without a minimum of a trail map but really GPS GPS GPS. Really…not kidding. I use a GPS enabled laptop with mapping software that can show some off road trails that a standard GPS unit for cars may not.

As I hiked into this amazing find not only did I think , here was my shoot I also thought here is my story or my next The HDR Image post. I was really excited. What could be a better post then talking about shooting a slot canyon? Because they have always been almost impossible to shoot the  way  you want because of the high dynamic range of clear blue sky down into the dark recesses. So I shot away, excitedly assembling the blog post in my mind as I walked along and shot. This was a very cool slot canyon with a lot of amazing rock structures to see. But as I shot, something was wrong. Usually I can tell just from reviewing the images  and histograms when I will have a good image. Something was wrong but I just pushed it aside because I was excited about the story I wanted to tell.

When I got home, I started reviewing and processing the images and again, something was wrong. Ummm these…sucked. So I pushed the HDR process harder and harder well past where I normally would go. And they got more let’s say HDRy, but the didn’t get any better. Until I finally realized, this was a high dynamic range scene for sure, but in the majority of the scene, there was absolutely No Light or I should say, QUALITY light.

While there was a nice blue sky and some cool light on the peaks at the top of the canyon, The majority of the scene was extremely flat shadowless light. We may call this “Tonal” light. Which can be good for showing tones in an image. The problem was the canyon walls were very mono tones, not even the various tones of reds and yellow you may see at say Antelope Canyon, AZ. A lot was pink or gray mud colored rock. The rock was however full of texture. but to show that off you need “textural” light or light with high contrast. which at this  time of day just wasn’t there. And me pushing processing in HDR to the max was NOT going to give me that.  Even processing in B & W didn’t help, in fact it proved the point. On conversion almost everything in the image became the same tone.

I was so engrossed in getting the story, I forgot about the most important part, The photography, finding the light. High Dynamic Range does not equal…great light.

So you may say, “Your friend the desert lied to you, there wasn’t  a shoot there at all”  Well actually there was. As I pulled my mighty blue steed up out of the ravine and back onto S22, the sun had just set and it plunged the desert into twilight. My friend told me, pull over, now it’s time. and with the beautiful light of twilight over the desert, I got these shots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral of the story: Great photography will always be about the light. No amount of manipulation is a substitute for that. Your mission should always remain true to make a great photograph. High Dynamic Range does not = Great Light. HDR will not make great light. And sometimes a hike is just a great hike. Lesson learned.

 

Hope that helps,

PT

Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Featured in the October Nik Newsletter

By Peter | Published October 4, 2011

Myself and The HDR Image website are featured in the October Nik Software Newsletter

Thanks to our great friends at Nik Software!

Leave a comment