HDR with D3200?

[aroy]

Before HDR was offered as a feature in digital cameras, people were doing it with bracketed shots and generating HDR using software. I have done a lot of HDR using images shot with cell phone (dark interiors with bright light from windows). Both Hugin and Microsoft ICE do a fairly good job of it. In camera HDR is normally as good as the out of camera job, and very few cameras allow you to save the bracketed shots in RAW. It is usually the final shot in jpeg.

The safest method is to set the camera on a tripod. Let the camera decide the exposure for the first shot. Then use the Exposure compensation to shoot a series starting from say -5EV to +5EV (D3300 has this range) or less if your camera has lower range. A good software will not need more than 5 shots for the +-5EV range. With 13EV DR you now have 13+10=23DR scene. If the lighting requires more, then just note down the settings the meter recommends, go to manual exposure mode and increase the upper and lower exposures.

One thing to note is to save the RAW files as 16bit tiff, else you will be loosing a lot of DR. In case your program cannot handle 16bit data, then calculate the range by assuming the DR is 8EV (quite safe), so for 24EV DR you need 24-8=16/2 or +-8 EV.

There are a lot of software available for HDR, and each has its strengths and weakness. You have to try them out to find which one suits you.

 

[aroy]

After replying to the post, I thought that I should put my money where my mouth is, that is try out what I had preached. So I took a series of shots and stitched them in Microsoft ICE. As that software is a panorama stitch program, you have to have a miniscule of overlap. So I took the shots hand held (that gave enough variability to the frame), saved the files to 16bit TIFF and loaded them into the software.

Got camera to set the exposure, took a shot, and then set camera in manual mode, and changed the exposure speed. These are of my back lane taken from the bedroom balcony. The sun was harsh and shadows quite deep.







Nominal Exposure





HDR using Microsoft ICE


And now comes the best thing. The image below is what I got after manipulating the shot taken at recommended exposure. Just levels and the tone curve, nothing else. This proves that the there is rarely any need for HDR with these sensors - the data is there in the 12 bits of NEF file. The HDR looks better and definitely worth it, but that took a lot of time and effort to shoot, convert and process. The image shown here is from just one shot from exposure that the camera determined. So a lot can be recovered from the sensor, before HDR is needed. With older sensors where the DR was low, HDR made sense, today the sensor takes care of most situations.

 

[dr_eyehead]

This is what I am finding. I had a shot at doing some HDR out my window last night to see what effect the night time with street lights would produce. It was quite dark actually and the final quality of the photo was pretty impressive, but as you say not that much better than what I'm getting with a single shot. I also tried playing around with some post HDR processing settings, exposure compensation and other things I don't understand yet to make the photo look more fantasy world. Ultimately that's what I would like to achieve, stuff like this for example. I'm not sure how this is achieved, probably requires a lot of expertise.

 

[dr_eyehead]

Before HDR was offered as a feature in digital cameras, people were doing it with bracketed shots and generating HDR using software. I have done a lot of HDR using images shot with cell phone (dark interiors with bright light from windows). Both Hugin and Microsoft ICE do a fairly good job of it. In camera HDR is normally as good as the out of camera job, and very few cameras allow you to save the bracketed shots in RAW. It is usually the final shot in jpeg.

The safest method is to set the camera on a tripod. Let the camera decide the exposure for the first shot. Then use the Exposure compensation to shoot a series starting from say -5EV to +5EV (D3300 has this range) or less if your camera has lower range. A good software will not need more than 5 shots for the +-5EV range. With 13EV DR you now have 13+10=23DR scene. If the lighting requires more, then just note down the settings the meter recommends, go to manual exposure mode and increase the upper and lower exposures.

One thing to note is to save the RAW files as 16bit tiff, else you will be loosing a lot of DR. In case your program cannot handle 16bit data, then calculate the range by assuming the DR is 8EV (quite safe), so for 24EV DR you need 24-8=16/2 or +-8 EV.

There are a lot of software available for HDR, and each has its strengths and weakness. You have to try them out to find which one suits you.

So do you recommend using exposure compensation as opposed to just varying the exposure? Can this not be achieved with one photo and processed is photoshop?

 

[aroy]

So do you recommend using exposure compensation as opposed to just varying the exposure? Can this not be achieved with one photo and processed is photoshop?

I use Capture NX-D beta, a free PP software by Nikon. Some of its controls are
. Use Active Lighting presets to highlight shadows
. Shift exposure compensation up or down (D3300 has a 1EV highlight protection, that is it exposes at around 1EV less)
. Use the normal contrast-brightness control
. Use a user defined curve to transfer input level range (12EV) to output level range (8EV?)
You have similar controls in other software also.

So if your scene has 12-13 EV DR, it is captured by the sensor. Most of the time that is sufficient, most of the noise is not visible as it is the darker regions of the image.

HDR can give you cleaner images with less visible noise provided the software does its job properly. HDR is also the only way to go if the DR is extremely wide - as in bright desert sunlight with deep shadows in trees and under rocks.

 

[marce]

I use HDR Effex pro
This is from a single RAW file:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/england78/8120140090/in/set-72157631845748950

 

[dr_eyehead]

So we got nice blue skies yesterday so I took myself out to Arthur's Seat to take a few panos. While I was there with my tripod and the sky was blue I decided to take a few different exposures for HDR processing as well. I processed one shot of one pano and to be honest it doesn't really look any more 'dynamic' than the best exposure.

Is there a best scenario for HDR photography (ie. low light)? how do I achieve these really weird, surreal HDR photos with all the dynamic colours? Do I need there to be dynamic colours there in the first place, ie. neon city lights? If i ramp up the colour saturation on one of the exposures will this translate into a nice HDR processing effect?

Also, is it better to process each shot and then stitch, or stitch and process (I'm guessing it's better to process each still first)?

 

[PaulPosition]

If you don't bracket and just create "HalfDR" from a single exposure you won't get much of a surrealistic effect, maybe a bit more dynamic range than a camera-processed jpeg with ADR on but nothing mind bending...

 

[dr_eyehead]

Like I said, I took a few different exposures, probably more than I needed to.

I'm trying to work out if there is something I need to do post-processing or if HDR only works in certain situations.

 

[aroy]

So we got nice blue skies yesterday so I took myself out to Arthur's Seat to take a few panos. While I was there with my tripod and the sky was blue I decided to take a few different exposures for HDR processing as well. I processed one shot of one pano and to be honest it doesn't really look any more 'dynamic' than the best exposure.

Is there a best scenario for HDR photography (ie. low light)? how do I achieve these really weird, surreal HDR photos with all the dynamic colours? Do I need there to be dynamic colours there in the first place, ie. neon city lights? If i ramp up the colour saturation on one of the exposures will this translate into a nice HDR processing effect?

Also, is it better to process each shot and then stitch, or stitch and process (I'm guessing it's better to process each still first)?

Most of the time, with the current Nikon sensors, there is no justification for HDR. The DR of the sensor at ISO 100 is enough to capture the scene. Unless you want extremely clean shadows, just recovering shadows in PP does the job, which required HDR a few years ago.

If the Pano and HDR shots were taken on a tripod, then HDR followed by Pano would require less time. I do not think that Pano followed by HDR or HDR followed by Pano would result in different final images. You can try both and see if there is any difference.

For getting that "Vivid" effect, you can play around with contrast and selectively boosting colours. I have got vivid magenta clouds by manipulating contrast and colours. Though it looks fantastic, I prefer natural rendering.

 

[PaulPosition]

Well, obviously the pictures where hdr well show up the most are those where traditional photography couldn't grab as much of the dynamic range ; that's when your brain - used to a different rendering of such scene because of years watching regular photos - goes "wait, something's not quite right".

Try shooting interior and exterior in a single frame, etc.

The settings you use in photomatix/HDReffects/whatever, particularly compression, well obviously play an important part in how strong the effect.

 

[dr_eyehead]

For getting that "Vivid" effect, you can play around with contrast and selectively boosting colours. I have got vivid magenta clouds by manipulating contrast and colours. Though it looks fantastic, I prefer natural rendering.

I'm a bit of a fan of low colour sat photography, or at least I was when I was using a simple point & shoot camera. I'd like to try a few vivid colour effects now, partly because I want to, partly because people like to buy them. Do you recommend manipulating the contrast and colours before HDR rendering, or after, or it is also a case of experimenting to see what yields the best results?

 

[dr_eyehead]

I had another play around with some scenes and produced this. Now sure if it's better, but certainly the colours are more vivid and it looks different. From 3 different shots stitched together, each rendered from three different exposures 1/50, 1/100 and 1/1000, f/7/1, iso=100. I took the brightest one in each and turned the colour saturation up whilst adjusting the hue to exaggerate the greens, also turn down the lightness a touch. Then rendered them in photoshop and then turned the radius and threshhold up to make in one of the settings. had to slightly adjust the exposure for each before stitching. I also like to adjust the ratio sometimes to make the mountains look bigger, but not too much.

 

[aroy]

I personally like the first image. Slightly brightened up, it would look more natural. The exaggerated greens in the last image are more in tune with rain forest than here.

 

[dr_eyehead]

It's hard to take panos of Arthur's Seat, difficult to get the right position. Will try another full 360 next time from the basin and see how that turns out. trouble is the far end is higher than the near which makes it look weird. Anyway...

I like both, I like to play around with colour settings and stuff.

I know what you are saying though. Do I need HDR? nothing I have produced with HDR so far has been any better than the original photos it was taken from (the one at the right exposure) and these ones are basically HDR with a bit of effect added, I think. I'm not sure what HDR is really. All these nice HDR photos I see on the internet with the really bright vivid colours and the soft, cotton wool effect, are they all basically HDR + effects? In other words can similar be achieved by just taking one photos and adding these effects?

Are there any scenarios where HDR is most suited, ie. sunset scenes?

 

[PaulPosition]

Stormy weather when you want the rolling clouds AND the little cabin/big cathedral in the foreground to be well detailed. Shooting from the deep woods into a bright clearing. A church interior if you want both the altar, paintings, etc. and the colorful decorated Windows.

That sort of things...

 

[dr_eyehead]

Scenes with lots of detailed contrasts then? Plenty of stormy clouds areound here these days, maybe I am missing an opportunity. Trouble is with clouds though is that they move, so need to be quick.

 

[PaulPosition]

Aperture or Manual mode, set focus and switch to manual so it doesn't re-focus, meter for the scene and then press EV+/- and roll the dial left 4 or 5 clics (-1.3 or -1.7). Snap. EV+/- and 4-5 clics right, snap. EV+/- and 4-5 clics right. Snap. You've got yourself a properly bracketed scene and it didn't take too long.

For big panorama out might be much more difficult, that is true...

 

[dr_eyehead]

So I should use exposure compensation rather than simply adjusting the exposure? Can I not then just take one shot and adjust the exposure compensation afterwards?

 

[PaulPosition]

Well, that's what I refer to as HalfDR... There's quite some dynamic range in a good camera's RAW image, but nowhere near what's in the sum of three (or five, or more) bracketed shots. - For a panorama, and without auto-bracketing, it might be your only solution and isn't "bad"in any way, but since you asked about those surrealistic HDR you see around...

BTW, I'm only suggesting using the EV compensation button instead of shutter-speed because it's faster to flip through and not need to calculate.