Yuba HDR photos

[DonCooksey]

Fishing was slow today, but I manged to catch a few phots and a couple of fish. Here are three pics from the trip. I had the camera capture a RAW and JPG image for each. I then generated five different exposures from the single RAW images (+2, +1, 0, -1, -2) and processed them to produce an HDR image in Photomatix. I'll show the camera-generated JPG first and then the HDR was generated from the RAW image.

JPG the camera generated:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000101w.jpg

HDR generated from single RAW image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000101e_a_d_b_w.jpg

JPG of Yuba junk:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000105cw.jpg

HDR of Yuba junk:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000105e_d_c_b_aw.jpg

JPG of best fish of the day:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000097cw.jpg

HDR of best fish of the day:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000097e_d_c_b_aw.jpg

Well, I can't say I'm too ecstatic over the results. The HDRs were generated quickly just now using default settings in Photomatix, so I guess it probably takes a little more work to get better results. I do like the better look of the sky in the HDR images, especially in the Yuba junk photo (probably a priceless piece of antique mining equipment). Some things formerly in shadows in the JPG images also come out better. But my fish looks poopy in the HDR image. I probably could have done some work to brighten up the fish during the tone mapping after the HDR processing; I just used the default Details Enhancer in Photomatix. Any suggestions from Ansel?

[Adam Grace]

Yea, the fish HDR looks good. The other show some HDR but not as much as there could have been, I think.

Nice fish!

[Amador]

I think in most cases, the originals look better. You can some good results processing multiple images from a single RAW file, but that technique is better suited for subtle details rather than pulling out details in shadow. This is also not really HDR:-)

In HDR, you will take multiple exposures for each tonal range and merge them together. The results, if done right are much more natural and a lot less washed out because the shadows were exposed for properly in the first place.

The fish definitely has more detail than the original, but to me, it has that "washed out" look that I mentioned.

[jhaquett]

IMHO, these pictures would have turned out best by skipping Photomatix and just using some basics:
1) Polarizer
2) Using the sun as a reference for where you should be shooting (such as, if you are going to be shooting midday only shoot while backlit to the sun).
3) Possibly using a graduated neutral density filter

I normally only use Photomatix to create a dramatic cloudy sky, otherwise I think it looks a bit fake.

That's my two cents but can definitely be taken with a grain of salt.

[DonCooksey]

I agree that the pseudo-HDR images that were generated from these single RAW images look washed out. Polarizing filters and better preparation relative to sun orientation would probably work for a serious photographer, but I'm doing this with a point-and-shoot camera basically trying to correct for exposure problems that occur during quick photo situations (such as a fish you want to release soon). I did some more experimenting and found results I like better using the Exposure Blending feature in Photomatix, rather than the HDR button. I'm not sure what it was doing differently, but I like the result better. The color seems better to me, and they don't look washed out now. Here is a comparison with two of the previous photos done the three ways:

Camera-generated JPG:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000097cw.jpg

Pseudo-HDR:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000097e_d_c_b_aw.jpg

Exposure-blended image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000097b_c_d_e_a2w.jpg

JPG:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000105cw.jpg

Pseudo-HDR:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000105e_d_c_b_aw.jpg

Exposure-blended image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/DonCooksey/P1000105a_b_c_d_e2w.jpg

[Amador]

Much better!! I will have to expolore that method myself.

[Steve Cali]

Don,

I can't seem to upload this file so;

This photo: http://jjd.pbase.com/image/108421738 was made from one single jpg. EV's of -2.0 / 0.00 / +2.0. were made with Photoshop. In my limited experience higher ISO photos do not do well with HDR they generate a lot of noise. 400 ISO capture roughly translates to 800 ISO HDR image and so on...The lower the ISO setting the better the HDR as well as good technique such as the use of a tripod (ther sharper image the better) etc and bracketing the right amount of highlights and dark areas to gererate the dynamic range of the photo...

Anyway, HDR is really fun to play with, and I just wanted to show that a single jpg can gererate a decent HDR. However, nothing beats a RAW capture of a scene correctly bracketed.

Thanks for sharing your photos with us!

The original is located here: http://www.pbase.com/astevecali/image/104339904

[DonCooksey]

Wow, nice photo of half dome. I also experimented a little with single jpg images and was able to improve them using a similar procedure (see Hotcreek thread below this in the Photography forum).

[DonCooksey]

Actually, I posted the Hot Creek pseudo-HDR from a single jpg under Adam's "Some HDR Photos" thread.