High-Dynamic-Range Photography: A Guide

Hdrblog_all5

To get started, you'll need to shoot the same scene with a range of different exposures [above, my subject is the Williamsburg Bridge in New York City]. Scenes with uneven lighting really bring out the best of HDR (in my case, the bright lights of the bridges in the distance and the dark shadows of the cargo crane at left and the sky above). You can use the bracketing function of your digital camera (better point-and-shoots and almost all digital SLRs have it) to fire off three frames every time you squeeze the button—one with the correct exposure, one overexposed, and one underexposed. You want the difference to be as dramatic as possible, so if the three images look too similar, you can use the manual-exposure setting of your camera to take a series of exposures with a tripod (like I did here). The more exposures the better. And if your camera can shoot RAW images (an unprocessed format like a “digital negative” with greater flexibility), use that, as your images will have more detail.

Now, the magic. To combine them, you'll need software capable of doing the job. If you're using Photoshop CS2, you're in luck—HDR capabilities are built in. If not, there are alternatives. A cross-platform application called Photomatix Pro is a specialized HDR processor that costs $100 ($83 if you use the coupon code found here; there's a free bare-bones version just for Windows that I haven’t tested) and does an amazing job; since it only does one thing, it does it very well, offering specialized controls and batch-processing options that Photoshop lacks. There is also a rapidly improving, free, open-source alternative called qtpfsgui (great name, right?)—it doesn't have as many options yet for tweaking your HDR output, but you can't beat the price, and it's great to get started with. Venerable open-source Photoshop-alternative the GIMP has yet to incorporate HDR support.

Using whatever software you settle on, you'll need to combine your batch of variable exposures into a master HDR image. If you used a wobbly tripod (or worse, handheld your shots), you can have the software attempt to align them automatically—if they're not too far off, this usually works fairly well. The resulting image might take a while to generate and look a little weird when it does; this is because your screen isn't capable of displaying HDR images. To get the eye-popping HDR color effect, you'll need to downsample the image back to 8 or 16 bits per pixel, but in a way that blends the high dynamic range of your HDR composite image into one that still retains the increased detail and color range of HDR but fits comfortably in the viewable range of your monitor or paper. This process is called tone mapping.

Hdrblog_tonemap
Tone mapping is where the serious bit-crunching comes in, and each of the software tools detailed here has a different way of doing it. Photomatix provides a fairly straightforward dialogue of sliders that regulate the brightness, white and black points, and numerous other aspects of the resulting image—you can get some wild effects just by tweaking them and seeing what happens in the live preview. Photoshop gives you four tone-mapping choices. But the hands-down best is "Local Adaptation," which gives you control of the image via the "curves" control. I recently learned how to use curves, which are the basis of almost all digital-image processing, and I'm still not good enough to really explain them. I learned from here, though, and if you use Photoshop, your life will be better for learning as well. Anyway, this gives you great control of the image's color and exposure, and again, simply playing around and observing the live preview can yield some fun results. Qtpfsgui has all kinds of crazy-sounding tone-mapping functions to choose from (Drago logarithmic mapping! Durand fast bilateral filtering!); since no one but the mathematicians who invented them have any idea what they mean, trial-and-error is again your friend.

After you've found some settings that work (it's amazing the range of output you can get), voila, you've got your first HDR image. As you can see below, the difference between the correctly exposed normal image and the tone-mapped HDR output is marked: richer darks in the water, less blown-out whites in the lights, and more vibrant colors.
Hdrblog_difference

So now what? As you might expect, there are countless groups on Flickr dedicated to HDR where you can show off your work, seek feedback, and learn more in the discussion forums. My favorite is the largest (simply called HDR), but there are many others dedicated to users of specific software, people who go for a more realistic look with their HDR imagery, and so on. As you'll soon see, some people really love HDR and some people really hate it, but as with most things dealing with the visual arts, a lot of it comes down to personal aesthetic. No matter what your feelings on the HDR look, though, it's still pretty amazing to see how the process works, and more amazing still that anyone with a camera and a computer can try it out for themselves. Viva la digital revolution! —John Mahoney

27 Comments

Comments

Odi (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Why can't a camera do this automatically? (assuming it is on a tripod).

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
Nill (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Odi: It's an interesting idea, the only thing which have to be changed is firmware of camera - one-off costs for producers. At the overfull market it could be the victory, for producer, to sell the camera with HDR capabilities. Even the tripod won't be neccesary, look at my tutorial http://www.nill.cz/index.php?set=tu1 - one JPEG file is often enough to achive HDR look.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
Daniel Heimsta...
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

I bet that different prototypes of "HDR-cameras" (32-bit or more) are on the desks of all camera producers all over the world. 2-3 years from now we probably can buy these cameras in the store, and maybe we even can afford 32-bit monitors/computer screens :-)

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
celebrity pran...
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Great article! Can't camera-raw formats modify exposure in the same data-file?

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
ES (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Nill: It's a big difference between images using HDR tecnique and "HRD looking images". You like the latter, which is ok, but it's not HDR and you cannont use one JPEG file for real HDR.

I like to use HDR tecnique to get the right exposure, but I dislike the typical HDR look that so many others like.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
Paul J (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

A lot of the better photo processing programs such as Adobe's Lightroom allow you to customize your tone curves.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
BillT (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

A digital camera cannot take them directly because the sensor cannot deal with very bright or dark light.
Looking at the example with 5 shots, in the picture where you can see the detail in the sky, you can see nothing under the bridge, and at the other end where you have detail in the dark bridge you have none in the sky.
It's not only because of the number of bits to store the data it's that there isn't enough (or there is too much) light shining on parts of the LCD sensor so part of the sensor is saturated, and/or part doesn't have enough light to 'see' anything.
By taking the pic twice with different exposure you are capturing the data in all areas.
Are HDR cameras possible? Probably the range can be improved at a price, but even then it will still be possible to find (or set up) scenes with too much dynamic range (eg looking down a long candle lit tunnel with a bright sky outside), which could be taken using the software techniques used here.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
Nill (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

ES: I know the difference, and call it "fake HDR" in my tutorial. I don't express exactly here. I have looked at the problematic from marketing point of view, HDR feature in camera could have big success and it doesn't matter whether real or fake HDR will be implemeted. Ordinary consumer doesn't know the difference, only the simplicity of use and final look is important.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
-C- (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

@BillT: I don't think HDR cameras will be about getting a wider range out of the sensor: more a move towards automating the HDR process within the camera- that's until a sensor that can handle a much wider range becomes available.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
leern (imported)
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

hdr goes mainstream. thanks for the open source app link, i've not been able to dump $100 dollars on "experimentation"

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
Page 1 of 3 123next ›last »

PPX: The PopSci Predictions Exchange

RSS Link

New IPO

Hot Stocks

Ready to bet on the future? Start here!

Subscribe for 2 free issues!

may2008_cover.jpg