digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at abduzeedo.com

How to Create Your Own HDR Photos/Photomatix tutorial

abduzeedo.com — There are plenty of explanations of what HDR is and how it works, so we won't cover that here. In this tutorial we'll go through the steps necessary to take your very own HDR photo and process it like a pro.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alanocu, on 03/31/2008, -11/+11this is terrific! thanks for posting this one!
    • matrixbandit, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Seriously, I've always wanted to learn to create my own HDR tutorial.
    • CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Big problem. You have to take 3 photos of the same scene without the camera moving and without ANYTHING in the scene moving. Good luck. If all you want is a picture that looks better on a monitor, you can start with a single RAW image from your camera.
      • purplehaze420, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Not a big problem if you own the Panasonic DMC-TZ3 like I just bought... Has an "auto-bracket" feature which does exactly this... Takes 3 pictures in rapid succession, with exposure compensation at 0, and +/- the increment you specify. I am assuming the DMC-TZ5, it's predecessor which just launched has this feature as well.

        *edit* as for the camera moving,,, for this type of a photo wouldn't you be using a tripod anyway?
        • litkaj, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Just about all cameras have that. I've got a Canon PowerShot G2 at home that will AEB shots and that thing is about 7 years old.
    • purplehaze420, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2It really is quite cool... But I think you're getting dugg down for having just a bit too much enthusiasm on a monday morning...
  • di99y, on 03/31/2008, -9/+4I never knew is was so ***** easy. I can't wait to try this myself. I actually have the same digicam used in the tutorial, I hope I get the same results.
    • seantubridy, on 03/31/2008, -10/+2"I never knew is was so ***** easy. I can't wait to try this myself."
      Because the only things worth trying in life are easy?
      Enjoy your unexceptional existence.
  • TheFamousOne2, on 03/31/2008, -28/+6Greeeeat. Now the true HDR artists will have to compete with millions of "amateurs". Awesome. Im not saying Im a true HDR artist, but I just dont want to see a form of photography that has such great potential ruined...like going to the beach, or to a theme park or something along those lines....It's great when theres not a lot of people, but once the crowd's start pouring in, the fun is spoiled.
    ...commence the thumb's-downage.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/talkingheadphotograph ...
    • Kamael, on 03/31/2008, -1/+10If they actually have to "compete" it will be because the photos will be as good as the ones of a pro photographer (which I highly doubt).
    • khyberkitsune, on 03/31/2008, -5/+6HDR is not a form of photography, it's all software-based. When the camera hardware itself is capable of producing HDR images, THEN it will be considered a form of photography. Until then, it's just a form of photoshopping.
      • yunus, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3Even real photography involves manipulating the image in the darkroom. You make it sound as though its airbrushing or green screen which it is not. Nothing that you see in an HDR photograph is added, it just uses software to bring out the best possible range.
        • khyberkitsune, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1WRONG. Since most cameras are 16-bit and HDR is false upsampling to 24-bit in today's digital world, there's ***** of information added. Do you even understand how the HDR process works? It's been around since the 1930s. Same process applies to the film of then as it does to the digital photos of today
      • XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2There are cameras on the market now that do.
    • revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Elitist much?
      • khyberkitsune, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Quite a bit since I teach photography among other things. HDR came out WHEN? Back in the 30s. HDR is "This method was developed to produce a high dynamic range image from a set of photographs taken with a range of exposures." In other words, it's not a form of photography, it's a form of photograph EDITING. Take a class on photography if you fail to understand.
  • billlyboobs34, on 03/31/2008, -20/+3Anyone have a torrent for Photomatix 3
  • CharlesSaint, on 03/31/2008, -6/+14I'm taking a break from burying MrBabyMan's usual crap to actually digg this only because it was something my dad was interested in doing. Just thought I'd make that clear.
    • 3ugene, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Cool.
    • XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Thanks for sharing that.
    • phre3k187, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Does MrBabyMan get anyything for submitting so many stories and getting a lot of them to be popular?
  • viruz, on 03/31/2008, -4/+11Let's avoid using photomatix ... it'll save use the eye sores of future not so good HDR pictures on Digg's frontpage.

    Honestly I haven't seen a good HDR since photomatix became mainstream.
    • santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -2/+6Why avoid using Photomatix? Because most of the users suck? The tool itself is amazing.
    • fusionFactor, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Instead of bitching, why not be helpful and provide an alternative that you find adequate.

      Jesus Christ, people are annoying and selfish lately...
      • viruz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I prefer photoshop for my HDR duties.
      • revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6Why are you talking to Jesus about this? We all know that Ganesh is the offical god of HDR photos.
  • ADDanny, on 03/31/2008, -14/+3wow someone made a tutorial on how to do HDR photos...ama-za-zing...wait theres already 2000 of them, but this one is by far the top 5 best thou, they actually show the beginners how to set up there camera to do it. Photomatix Pro = t.o.r.r.3.n.t. it
  • ghaltmann, on 03/31/2008, -8/+28Great because what we need is more crappy "hdr" photos that look like Dr. Seuss threw up on a toon-town scene.
  • Falldog, on 03/31/2008, -9/+31Great, we need more people who think boring photos rung through HDR with overdone tone mapping are pieces of exceptional art.
    • Navicerts, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Seriously, people should call you and ask permission to call whatever it is they did "art" before doing so. Don't they realize there are rules to be followed!

      I was in burlington the other day and someone had gone around town and planted a small toothpick flag with G.W.Bush on it on each and every pile of dog crap, great art i thought (honestly).
      • XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1There actually are principals governing art, and random picture with no message that have simply been "enhanced" using HDRi are not art. They might be pretty pictures until you get bored of the style, but they are most certainly not art.
        • CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Thanks. I'll add you to my list of who to call before I classify something as art.
  • santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -2/+11Now everyone will use HDR without even knowing what it's for. Increasing dynamic range. HDR is not needed when your sensor can properly expose your image in one shot.

    If your scene has a higher dynamic range than your sensor can capture, you can use multiple exposures. Let's say you are shooting a house, but the sun is setting in the background. Either you properly expose the house, which would drastically overexpose the sky, or you properly expose the sun, leaving the house underexposed. You can take two images, use HDR techniques, and properly expose both of them.

    Tone mapping is where these ridiculous "photographs" come from. I'd rather save time and run my image through 5 Photoshop filters, because that's what most of these images look like.
    • TheDHC, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2isn't Santa liqueur from an old upright citizens brigade episode
      • santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Why yes it is. Funniest ***** show of all time.
    • CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2"HDR is not needed when your sensor can properly expose your image in one shot." That's a misconception. Properly exposed is not the same as optimal exposure, and that's what HDR is about. The dynamic range of an outdoor scene on a sunny day is so far beyond the dynamic range of a monitor, that it doesn't matter how good your camera is, you need to be able to intelligently manipulate the brightness and contrast of the various parts of the image independently.
      • santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Yes, I'm not only talking about the sensor, but also the monitor. Using HDR on a "standard" image with limited dynamic range is unnecessary. Sunny days and similar scenes benefit from HDR.
  • seantubridy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+11Maybe next, someone will post a tutorial on how to use Photoshop's watercolor filter.
  • PsychoDesigns, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2I'm surprised how many diggers are interested in HDR, I thought it was mainly used for HDRI based lighting in 3D programs. I've been trying to generate HDR images out of Vue renders to use in Maya with no luck, this is very helpful. Thanks!
    • YanSan, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2i don't think this is going to help with that. the file format .hdr and hdr photos that are jpeg or whatever are different. .hdr give's 3d packages light information, if you use an .jpg hdr image it won't act any different than any other jpg. i don't know how to make proper .hdr images, i know the program "hdr shop" it supposed to help make them. anyways, this tutorial probly won't help with what you are looking for.
  • Buckeye17, on 03/31/2008, -8/+12HDR photos do not look good.
    • PogMaHoin, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2As others have pointed out it's the overzealous tone-mapping that creates that look rather then HDR. Like most techniques if the effect can be seen then it has been over-cooked and while that may be the intent it often seems that these images are all sizzle and little substance. HDR and tone-mapping are useful when used judiciously for extending dynamic range but it takes a light touch.
    • gjmcnamee, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3I must agree. The photo of the Golden Gate bridge makes my eyes burn! Those clouds look awful. I have seen some beautiful images but I think it is a matter of subtlety. Anyway, I think this can produce interesting results, but I think a lot of the images that include people look particularly awful..
  • wcarolyn, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3Eventhough the example shows how to create natural-looking HDR photos, that was very basic and nothing new compared to previous digg submissions. Here are some other HDR tutorials:
    HDR Overview: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dy ...
    HDR in Photomatix: http://hdr101.com/?page_id=4
    Layered HDR in Photoshop (like photomatix effect): http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/p ...
    Long HDR Landscape Tutorial: http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm
    HDR from One Picture: http://flickr.com/photos/cleever/255026221/

    If you want to google more information, try searching "tone mapping".
    This technique is called Tone Mapping. The end result isn't a HDR photo.
    • endus, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I say the more of these tutorials that get dugg the less horrid HDR posts we have to be subjected to. Keep hammering on people that there are options to play with that might actually make the result look good.
    • CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1It cannot be HDR when your target is a computer monitor, because monitors don't have high dynamic range. But parts of the photo can be manipulated to better simulate the original scene than what you get straight off the camera. And that's where tone mapping comes in.
  • heavystone, on 03/31/2008, -5/+8"Like a pro"`?
    Sorry but professional photographers don't take HDR. They actually despise the whole HDR "movement".
    • viruz, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6That's not entirely accurate... however most pros hate bad HDR that everyone is doing with photomatix.
      • revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4"Pros" hate it when the technology that enables what they do becomes cheap and affordable for the great unwashed. When this happens, talent is the great separator, not how much expensive gear you own and that makes it hard to sell yourself as a "pro".
    • Tippis, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Then they are not professional photographers, since they, unlike many others, should know the difference between two connected, but very different concepts: HDR and tone mapping.

      A photographer likes HDR, since that simply means that more information is available in the photo that can be displayed or printed. More information = solution to the limitationss of the digital sensor = more artistic control.

      A photographer *might not* like tone mapping, however, since that's entirely subjective choice when it comes to the artistic rendering of an image. It relies on selectively compressing HDR data into something that current display and print technologies can reproduce, and the effect of that compression can vary wildly depending on what impression the arist is looking for.

      If you want realism, tone mapping might not be what you're looking for, but HDR is still an invaluable resource to get the realism you want.
    • endus, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You don't know what you are talking about.

      I hate ***** HDR too, but not all HDR is *****. I prefer bracket and blends myself because they give you more control, but there are certainly good HDR images out there. Don't let the fact that most people can't even take 5 minutes to evaluate the image and play with the sliders in photomatrix make you write off HDR altogether.
    • XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I think too many professional photographers are pretentious bastards, and too few of them are real artists.
      • CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2I think too many Diggers are pretentious and too few of them have something intelligent to say.
  • SpookyDIGG, on 03/31/2008, -10/+2ARG you used JPEG Files!!! LAME, this should only be done with RAW files, JPEGs make a crap load of noise in the picture, and as for all the HDR slamming, go get a talent then talk you tools
    • santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2"Get a talent"? Get an education. Most people suck at HDR, because of everyone overusing tone mapping. By youe defensiveness, you sound like one of the offenders.
      • thanakar, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3He's right though. When editing images you should be using a RAW format and only save the final format in JPEG if you're going to be posting it to the web or sending it in an email.
        • santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3It doesn't make much difference. There's no real benefit with RAW, unless you're printing at poster size. At email/web size, nobody could tell the difference.
    • XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Any decent photo editor can save a lossless JPEG, which means you can't really tell the difference. RAW has its uses, but this isn't one of them.
  • 3ugene, on 03/31/2008, -1/+22Why would I want to know how to make a tutorial?
  • Langford, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1I did something like this before as an experiment. I didn't realize I was doing something others were doing intentionally, or that it had a name.
  • manfromfuture, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2If you shoot without a tripod, you can align your shots using this:

    http://www.luxal.eu/resources/hdr/hdrprep/index.sh ...

    Works very well.

    Also, this guy, stuckincustoms.com/ has a great tutorial in HDR
  • vvaduva, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6This is a decent introduction for absolute beginners. The pros in this forum should be less arrogant and more encouraging of beginners who may not be able to afford 2K cameras and software worth thousands of dollars. Your sarcasm will not help someone listen to what you actually have to say...
  • Navicerts, on 03/31/2008, -4/+10Oh sweet baby jesus. Get ready for the onslaught of HDR haters (aka photography snobs).
    • XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2...or maybe just people who like art instead of eye candy.
  • EvilMoose, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4This is like running outside to use the waterhose as a bidet. Either get a bidet, get a toilet with one built in or use toilet paper, quit spreading horrible ideas to others.
    • revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2That was an...interesting...analogy.
  • endus, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Thank god someone is digging a tutorial on how to use the software for a change rather than just linking to some ***** photographer who doesn't know two important things...

    1.) How to take a good photograph
    2.) What the sliders in Photomatrix do

    Most of the HDR you see linked on here is done by people who don't have the slightest idea what they are doing and can't be bothered to take 5 minutes to play with the sliders and try to make the image look good. This introduction is pretty basic, but at least it's introducing people to the idea that there are actually adjustment you can make to actually make the image look good.

    Good stuff.
  • alski707, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Wow the photography snobs really are out in force today eh?
    Plenty of us know that these are not real HDR images, and that yes most of the stuff we make with photomatrix is overstyleised and quite generic, but why should you care? You're never going to see any of my photos published, your not even going to find them on flickr, why? because i don't pretend to be a decent or even talented photographer, i just do this stuff because its FUN, remember that word?
    Besides, to my understanding to do truly decent HDR photography you need a camera that can shoot in RAW, show me a ~£250 prosumer camera that can shoot in RAW, and maybe i'll start wasting hours in photoshop doing it the proper / hard way.
  • eroticpie, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2buried because I'm tired of the HDR fad
    I can't even be bothered to come up with a witty remark about it, I'm just flat out sick of HDR
  • Rwned, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2HDR = Fail.
  • p51d007, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You can get almost the same results by using the shadow/highlight tools in photoshop.
  • maxfightmaster, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0I'm not a big fan of HDR. However when used in a more subtle way, the results can be quite good since it does allow for greater detail in the picture than any one exposure can produce. Unfortunately the vast majority of HDR images on the web seem to be people just pushing the sliders to one side and ending up with an image with extreme saturation.
  • cyb3rdemon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3I made a guide on making HDR photos about a week ago, using only free software:
    http://digg.com/design/How_to_Make_HDR_Photos
  • digjam, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1MRBabyMan sux! Looks like he has no other work than submitting articles to DIgg...look at how many days he s been on digg and how many articles he submitted.....almost 10 per day! Hes literally spamming DIGG!
  • markus941, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1People seem to be really divided over HDR. They either really love or hate them. But you can't hate the technique itself, that's like hating crayons just because a lot of 5 year olds draw ugly pictures with them.

    There is some free tone mapping software out there like a few people mention above, but I still like Photomatix better. And at $92 it's a little easier on your wallet than $100:
    http://www.visualphotoguide.com/photomatix-coupon- ...

    There's another one that's around $50, plus a weird sounding one that's open source, you can Google for them. There's also Photoshop which is pretty good at tone mapping now but it still loses more detail (in shadows, etc.):
    http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/cs2/comparison.html
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.