Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 26, 2010, 1:42 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default DP-HDR and different Tone-mapping features:

This thread started out showing some examples of Ultra Contrast tone-mapping done with DP-HDR. Today, I would like to go on showing other output-methods of tone-mappings available in DP-HDR.

The methods shown here are the 4 most commonly (by me...) used in DPHDR - I have them marked within the red frame in the picture below - and they are:

- "Eye Catching"
- "Ultra-Contrast"
- "Halo-Matix" - and
- "Smooth Compressor"

The first thing you do, is choosing the right method by ticking off 1 of the 7 alternatives in this window (picture below), which eventually has great affect on the intermediate HDR and how this responds to the different tools and sliders, right below and on the other side of the small pre-view window - and in the end, how your final HDR will look.

The single picture underneath the DPHDR-software 'Print-screen' is how 1 of the single 5 pictures making up the HDR looks like, coming out of the camera with no pp applied whatsoever. In this case it is the middle-exposure 0 EV.
Attached Images
  

Last edited by Walter_S; Jan 27, 2010 at 5:50 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2010, 1:54 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default # 1 - "Eye Catching"-Method:

For this exercise I have chosen one of many "blind"-shots I have in my files.

After finnishing my photo-shoot of: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/la...et-norway.html I fooled around a bit, and did some additional AutoBrackets, to see just how much detail there could be drawn with the HDR-software.

Remember: This picture was shot late in the afternoon on a hazy day (seasmoke) and some time after the sun had gone down. There was really not much contrast to be seen anywhere, except in the lamp-post and the wires leading to it, plus those 2 big bollards (anchoring-points for the ferry) against the pink evening sky.

For each of the 4 methods I uploaded the default-results without changing any settings of the sliders or controls, to give you an idea of what you can expect from this software. Now - personally, I would not use any of these default results as they are. This was done as an exercise only, to show the different styles you can achive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first method in this small series here is the "Eye Catching"-Method:

This is the rendering I use the most because it gives me the most natural-looking results I am after, but not before I dampen "Vivid Colors" right down to zero and also (usually) put the "Color Saturation"-slider down to at least 70% sometimes as much as some 50%. This is really neccesary if the pictures contain bright colors, which are otherwise greatly exaggerated and over-saturated in the most artificial way.

The "Eye Catching"-Method:
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Walter_S; Jan 27, 2010 at 6:09 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2010, 1:57 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default # 2 - "Halo-Matix"-Method:

Next is the "Halo-Matix"-method, which produces Halo's around sharp contrast-points, like a dark tree against the sky, or mountains, etc. and in addition to that, adds some 'strange' and sometimes 'weird' colors and out of place-values to your pictures. I guess, the "Halo-Matix"-method appeals to a lot of 'newcomers' to HDR, as the picture changes so much from the original and thereby appear to look somehow "impressive" (?).

Usually 'Halo-Matix' changes the values in that it takes dark sections in the pictures and lightens these, while the light sections of the original gets darkened - sometimes with strange results:
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Walter_S; Jan 27, 2010 at 6:16 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2010, 1:59 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default # 3 - "Ultra-Contrast"-Method:

Third is the "Ultra-Contrast" method. As it's name says, it exaggerates and introduces strong contrasts by increasing the "Dramatic Light Radius", giving a lot of texture to different parts of the picture. Useful for rough surfaces like brick-work, rocks, tree-surfaces on trunks, timber-structures, tiles, etc. anything to emphasize surface-texture.

The clouds in this picture are very thin with no substance so they are not greatly affected by this methode, but "Ultra-Contrast" plays havoc with heavy cumulus-clouds, giving them this omniouse and sometimes threatening, over-ripe look. If you notice here, it enhances the snow's surface-texture pretty good (way over the top, of course) and the fotsteps in the snow stand out pretty good.

Personally, I never use this method, as it adds typical HDR-artifacts to the end-result - exactly the ones we were so impressed by when HDR was new and the first mistreated renderings were shown on the net.

Also any flaw of your lens (vignetting) is greatly multiplied by this method, as you can see in the example below. If you want to know if your lens vignettes (most do...) just make a HDR with this method, and you will find out...
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Walter_S; Jan 27, 2010 at 6:37 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2010, 2:02 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default # 4 - "Smooth Compressor"-Method:

The "Smooth Compressor"-method is a very soft and sometimes natural-looking (almost boring, some times) method, which does not add to many artifacts to the final output. The default-output is usually very flat looking. So, one has to tweek Smooth Compressor's to get some 'juicy' results - if thats' what you want.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Walter_S; Jan 27, 2010 at 2:32 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2010, 2:12 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

thanks for this walter you can really see the difference in each method i think dynamic hdr is a excellent program and to be honest i think it is better than photomatix regarding features and tools ... however photomatix as a excellent allignment i find myself using DPHDR more often .
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2010, 2:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

I think your second shot is absolutely ideal. Nice thread here Walter.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2010, 1:44 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Thanks for the interesting comparison - I see myself using "Eye-Catching" in almost 100% of my HDR's done with DPHDR, this method really produces the most natural results.

Honestly I don't change many settings - mostly just the two things Walter mentioned (Vivid Colors to zero and Color Saturation to about 70-75)
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:42 AM.