HDR Test

Concerning difficult exposures…
These were shot last month after Tim Karney (I believe) gave me a quick course in HDR. Used Photoshop’s app.
Exposures were 1/500, 1/2000 and 1/8000 @f/7. ISO 400 w/AP. One point Tim emphisized; USE A TRIPOD. Precise regristration of the images is paramount.

0 thoughts on “HDR Test”

  1. Ed,
    As mentiioned in the title: this was a test, and a quick one at that.
    This was straight ‘let Photoshop do it.’ With a more serious subject, more time will be taken in the details.
    Correct about the marginal need for HDR. However, the +2EV did bring out the color in the trees.
    I truly wish I know of this technique while in the Canadian Rockies. Fabulous clouds lost in trying to get detail in the mountains. A gradient filter wasn’t available at the time.
    Damnit!

  2. 1. Nice natural result. Not always the case with HDR. Kudos to the PS app. Did it take a lot of parameter tweaking or is this close to the default result?
    2. This is difficult lighting, yes, but just barely and thus allows other options. It’s a lighting scenario that presents itself regularly and exploring none HDR options is worthwhile in order to discover other ways to handle this day to day situation.
    The only real problem in the camera’s default version (0EV) is the blown out highlights in the clouds (right side of the histogram would be climbing the edge wall). There is good shadow detail (doubt that the histogram is even touching the left side except possibly the house roof which is not an issue). A good starting point for doing this with a single exposure is to simply dial in negative exposure compensation and check the histogram (about -2/3 would do it). Depending on the effect on the near houses, a grad ND filter would help – the filter is probably all that would be needed if the horizon was clear from side to side. Landscape photographers have been shooting this scene successfully for decades prior to HDR.
    3. To emphasize my point about this situation being marginal in terms of actual need for HDR, note that the +2EV (brightest) exposure contributes virtually nothing to the final image. All that the 0EV version really needs is the sky detail provided by the -2EV exposure. If one can find alternatives to solve the sky problem, the result may be better than using HDR. And – if objects are moving (like vegetation in a breeze) the HDR may not be a viable option so it’s good to have a Plan B.
    4. Tim was absolutely right. That’s the reason I wrote in the HDR lesson – “Obviously a tripod should be used ….”.
    5. Not criticizing what’s been done in this posting, just trying to spell out options for the rest of the course members when they face a similar lighting scenario. (I’m assuming that everyone is reading all comments as previously suggested.)

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.