digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Use Photoshop CS2 to Create High Dynamic Range (HDR) Images

backingwinds.blogspot.com — All you need is a digital camera that lets you set the exposure manually, a tripod, and Photoshop CS2 to make some sweet looking pictures.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cell00, on 10/12/2007, -43/+13"Save it as a Jpeg and you're done." who saves their work in a lossy format these days? :|
    • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -28/+13It's a series of tubes.
    • DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Um, it doesn't have to be really lossy. You can set the compression ratio on the image and you can actually get a good image. It's like MP3s. They can be lossless, like FLAC, depending on the bitrate.

      I agree though, that hardly any designers are saving in jpg (unless for web work).
    • ElFredo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@cell00

      RTFA: the JPEG was only for monitor output, the image was saved in HDR in a previous step.
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4C'mon, guys, all he was trying to say is PNG FTW!
    • Gardenhead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Downsampling from a 32-bit TIFF to an 8-bit jpeg hurts me a little.
    • cell00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Elfredo:

      "Save it as a 16bit TIFF file, if you like. However, when you're done, you need to downconvert it to 8-bit in order to save it as a JPEG." With emphasis on the "if you like" part.
    • Simplex42, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I need to do this with gimp. Anyone got a tutorial in using HDR with it?
  • rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Pretty damn clever. Only works with inanimate subjects though. But this is great for architectural photography.
    • foolfromhell, on 11/04/2007, -22/+1This would work with animate objects too. Instead of modifying the lighting physically, you modify the photo. All you need is one picture of, say, a hummingbird, modify the lighting through photoshop, then HDR it.....
    • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4you did understand how hdr composing works and whats the difference to just altering the original picture?
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6foolfromhell, that's like shining a flashlight on a solar cell to charge the flashlight batteries.
    • foolfromhell, on 11/04/2007, -21/+2you do realize that what I said is exactly what he did right? He didnt take 3 pictures as fr as I know.... He took one then modified it to show 3 different lightings
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Foolfromhell, using HDR with one RAW image basically has no advantages over just using the shadow/highlight tool because you will end up with the same amount of shadow noise. You need 3 or more images for a noise-free HDR image.
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10ffh, the purpose of HDR is to ameliorate the problem of blown highlights and invisibly murky shadows in photos whose range of light intensity is too wide for a camera sensor to pick up. You take at least three photos at three different exposure settings--like the guy in the article does--and then basically use the best parts of all three photos together.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Lost my chance to edit my last post...

      "He took one then modified it to show 3 different lightings"

      No. Read the article.

      "2. A sturdy tripod."

      "I personally usually like to take quite a few photos over the range"

      Foolfromhell, try the shadow/highlight tool. It's doing what the HDR tool does but when you boost the shadows with shadow/highlight, you get noise. HDR avoids the noise by taking the photo properly exposed for the shadow areas and blending it with the overall image.
    • Skyhook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Foolfromhell, Ah I see. You didn't actually RTFA. The part where he talks about taking at different shutter speeds, same depth of field, links to wikipedia's article on bracketing, talks about taking photos at +/- certain EV. You know, all the stuff that indicates that he didn't "just change the lighting in Photoshop."

      Why don't you go sit over there in the corner and play with something shiny before you hurt someone.
    • yttrx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4foolfromhell: yes, and I shall lay the smack down upon you as well, while I pretend I didn' t read the last six smackdowns before mine, so that I can be also smert.

      Oh nose! I fux0r3d teh fl4m3!
  • landmonster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Use this - http://www.hdrsoft.com/
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6TFA mentions that program as one of the main problems with most HDR photography in the second paragraph.
    • landmonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.flickr.com/photos/bcnbits/249312236/

      Looks pretty good to me and that's made with Photomatix. I use it myself and it's more than capable of turning out great images. I use Photoshop afterwards to enhance but Photomatix is brilliant for putting them together in the first place.
    • fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that looks fine to you?
      the castle looks like it's got a half-worn-away layer of bronze. Too shiny. Too fake-looking.
  • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Would CS work? I have Photoshop CS and I dont wanna shell out $500 for CS2, and I dont wanna pirate.....
    • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3No it won't.

      And go back and re-read the article a couple of times, it is obvious from you comments above you don't get it.
    • OsiVert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A cheaper alternative as well is to get a program called photomatix pro, which is $99. I find it is usually easier to use than photoshop anyways, since it can calculate the tone mapping automatically.
  • Scrabble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Additional info on creating High Dynamic Range (HDR) photos.

    Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs
    http://debevec.org/Research/HDR/
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm genuinely confused here--why is the parent modded down? It's useful, on-topic, concise... Is someone on a spree of downmodding valuable contributions?
  • mtgvault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Anybody know what sort of camera is capable of the settings required to take these pictures, or indeed what camera was used in the tutorial itself?

    Cheers! :)
    • chrisdelta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Any camera with full manual control should work just fine.
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Should work on a camera where you can lock the aperture (to keep the same depth of field throughout), keep ISO the same throughout too and alter the shutter speed in equal increments. Most any new camera giving manual control should do it.

      just like Chris said :)
    • mtgvault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Excellent, thanks!
    • neebick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3According to one of the screenshot, a Canon EOS 20D was used. It seems any camera that can capture in the RAW format would be optimal. As it states in the article RAW gives you more information to play with in the settings. But I bet with a little trickery and playing with the manual function of a standard digital you could get reasonable results but not print worthy.
    • mtgvault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would a Canon PowerShot S80 do this? as i'm also looking to do some time-lapse work which i believe this camera can do, unless you know of anything better that can do time-lapse within this price range?
    • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a friend with an S80 and you can do some of these things but I find merely standing next to him while he struggles with the camera supremely annoying. Most notably getting the camera to vary the exposure settings properly requires you to navigate a substantial portion of the menu structure during which you will likely move the camera.

      I have a 350D (Rebel XT in the US) and while it is not automatic (and it should be) it is a lot easier and I don't find that I move the camera. I will say I use a gitzo tripod and that may have something to do with it.

      I had thought of making a USB controller to do it but Canon's Software Development program is targeted exclusively to Microsoft.
    • mtgvault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the reply, is the 350D capable of time-lapse? as this is what i really want to do.
    • griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@neebick

      You can use JPG files to do this. You don't need RAW.
      If you are shooting with lets say, a Canon 350D in high quality JPG and produces 3 or more exposures in a bracket, they would work fine to produce an HRD image. Raw of course will be better, but if you just want to get your feet wet, then JPG is fine to start with. The nice part of combining images like this is that not only are you extending the dynamic range, but you are also averaging out any noise that is inherent in the exposure due to the JPG compression. I do a similar type of thing when combining long exposure astrophotography. Taking many 5 minute exposures of a nebula and combining then improves signal to noise. Since the signal is constant and the noise is random, many shots are combined to produce a much smoother image. Where the HDR part comes in is when a bright area gets washed out you can add in a bracket of shorter exposures to help reveal detail in those areas.
      While JPG compression is based on a constant algorithm rather than randon, there will be enough variance in the JPG compression artifact due to the change in the exposures to make it work similar to averaging frames with randon noise.
    • griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Bhima

      The 350D can produce automatic exposure bracketing.
      Look in the menus. If you turn on the self timer and press the release,
      the camera will delay for 10 seconds and then shoot all 3 shots of your bracket.
      It works VERY nice. I only wish you could tell it you wanted 5 or 7 exposures.

      You can even auto bracket around an already exposure compensated adjustment.
      Say you wanted to under expose your "normal".
      Set your EV compensation to -1 and your bracket to +-2
      You will get a -3ev and a -1ev and a +1ev.
  • vickio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm a big fan of this technique and have been experimenting with it for a few weeks. I've been using Photomatix, which this article suggests against, but I don't have CS2 so it was my only option. I've been really happy with the results anyway. It will also do auto-aligning, so you can shoot without a tripod if you want.

    If you have a Canon 300D (or most other DSLRs, I assume), it will do auto exposure bracketing where you hold down the shutter button and it captures three photos at different exposure levels - perfect for HDR.

    My last 2 photos on my DA accout were HDR : http://limpid.deviantart.com
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not a big fan of HDR. Personally, I like contrast in my photos. However, I think capturing an interesting cloud formation is a good use of HDR. I'd prefer to use a more natural solution like graduated filters to get a properly exposed sky though.
  • ryukava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@foolfromhell:

    Photoshop CS does not have "Merge to HDR". It's only in CS2.. there might be other alternatives to it, though a little more tedious.
  • hunteeer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Although not the same technique as described, similar and other striking effects can be accomplished by good ol fashion use of layers, masks, lighting adjustments, blending modes etc.. To be honest though it never dawned on me to take multiple pictures at different settings solely for the purpose of combining them.

    Looks like I have a new reason to do some bracketing.
  • zzzzbest, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Use a polarizing filter. Problem solved.
    • vickio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Polarizing filter can be appropriate in some cases, but there's a lot times where the light levels in a photo are too extreme for that. Check out the second photo on the Photomatix sample page for example: http://www.hdrsoft.com/examples.html
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Haha. No, a polarizing filter will not help to acheive this effect. Polarizing filters are used to cut haze and increase color vibrancy and deepen blue skies. It's effect on dynamic range is minimal.
  • Necrontyr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Photomatix is the *vastly* superior tool for tone mapping your HDR's. I still suggest using photoshop afterward to clean up noise in the shot and do final editing to fix any minor issues in your photos.

    This is one of the better tutorials I have read on HDR with Photomatix and even takes the time to explain how to get the best results with a single image: http://stuckincustoms.com/?p=548

    The reason he suggests using JPG is either because the size vs quality ratio is excellent, or because he wants to easily post to places like flickr. Further, many photo printing labs will screw up your photos if you present them with anything aside from a JPG.
    • emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What the hell photo labs are you using?
    • AdamWeeden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Necrontyr:

      And the reason he suggest NOT to use Photomatix is because it produces those ugly, overly shiny, unrealistic images you just linked in that article.
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting tutorial but the photo output looks ridiculously unrealistic.
  • Weakling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All you need is a camera that can do a burst shot with different EV values, a steady hand and Photoshop. There are some cams where you do not need to set the exposure manually but can set it to -2EV, 0, +2EV steps beforehand and then make a 3 picture burstshot. My previous Sony Cybershot had this special burstmode and it worked great for making HDR images. Althought for low light situations you still will need a tripod ...
  • numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh good god, the last thing flickr needs is more lame ass HDR photos.

    When used correctly, as here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/leecullivan/183502286/, then it works well. But most people just can't restrain themselves that much, for instance: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kros/126311245/
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The banana photo is not a HDR image. In fact, it is a LDR photo of a high dynamic range scene. The other one is improperly labelled as HDR. It's an oddly doctored image. Looks to me like dodge and burn techniques were used to lighten some areas and darken others. The HDR was added as an attempt to grab attention since it seems to be in vogue at the moment.
    • numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157594324577207/ ?
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wanted to add my own photo as a (hopefully) better use of dodge and burn to focus attention in a photo. http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/32364710

      Contrary to HDR which takes focus away from any particular subject by getting nearly everything in the image exposed, this compresses the photo.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, numpty I saw it but that photo is technically not HDR. An HDR technique may have been used but the highlights are blown and the shadow has no detail. The photo has not increased the dynamic range of the scene therefore I don't think it can be considered an HDR photo.
    • numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh i see what you mean now Daffy, apologies. I probably like it because it *doesn't* look like an HDR image. Having now read the article the author actually ends up with an image that doesn't look as horrifically processed as some.

      BTW, nice image Daffy - i like that one a lot.
  • emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Used that a few times, but only for certain things. It's way overdone by people that don't know how to use it, and it just doesn't look right.
  • griz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1CS2 has been out for over a year. This is cool but not news. It has been covered many times on digg. Also, this capability has been available in high end digital capture systems for many years.
  • wedges, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1if you needed an online tutorial to walk you through one of the flagship features of CS2, you have no business running it.
  • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i was just messing with this yesterday. i recently got a canon powershot s3 (i highly recommend it) and even with the 3 shot exposure bracketing this works quite well!
  • aprice2704, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use Cinepaint on Ubuntu, which is also easy to use. I have only tried a couple of HDR photos so far. My Olympus C-8080 has an auto bracketing mode, and I also use manual. I haven't tried 3 shot brackets, only 5 and like the results.

    Recommended, especially if you are a keen photographer.

    :)
  • Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is THE web site for HDR explanation and samples!
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm
  • petemc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://petemc.net/hdr-guide/

    A guide about how to use Photomatix to generate images similar to CS2 or if you want you can make stunning pieces of art. The guide also explains how to do HDR from moving objects such as cars and people.
  •  

    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.