Waterfall on the McCloud River

[Brianjbean]

the highlights do get blown out with long exposures of water used in an HDR. i took a similar shot where everything looked fine except a spot of blown out water. i wonder if you froze the water in all but one of the exposures - if it would solve it.

 

[Rascal]

the highlights do get blown out with long exposures of water used in an HDR. i took a similar shot where everything looked fine except a spot of blown out water. i wonder if you froze the water in all but one of the exposures - if it would solve it.

That's an idea worth exploring, I have the same frustration with bracketing waterfall photos in HDR, (blown highlishts).

 

[Brianjbean]

i think it would be a fun challenge, to shoot an HDR waterfall without any blown highlights - and impossible to tell that it's HDR.

 

[BobH]

the highlights do get blown out with long exposures
of water used in an HDR.

Or even sometimes just a long exposure without adding in the HDR processing. The silky water look can also lead to blowing out highlights.

On the other hand, I sort of like that look at times, it gives the photo an old fashioned effect.

i took a similar shot where everything looked fine except a spot of blown out water. i wonder if you froze the water in all but one of the exposures - if it would solve it.

I suspect it would, and then you could create the HDR images and then paint in the water that you like afterwards, while you're also fixing the sky which often goes weird in HDR. Not something you'd want to do on a lot of images, but maybe for just a few shots...

 

[BrianH]

Or even sometimes just a long exposure without adding in the HDR processing. The silky water look can also lead to blowing out highlights.

On the other hand, I sort of like that look at times, it gives the photo an old fashioned effect.



I suspect it would, and then you could create the HDR images and then paint in the water that you like afterwards, while you're also fixing the sky which often goes weird in HDR. Not something you'd want to do on a lot of images, but maybe for just a few shots...

Like I said The water is the least of the bad effects. The highlights on the logs and rocks look like someone has sprayed a clear varnish on everything.

 

[CNelson]

Thanks for the comments all....and the interesting discussion. I've been to busy to get back to the site but I do have a comment about HDR. I really like it for some images or to bail me out of a tough shot. It can be overdone and that's usually a matter of taste. I tend to like dramatic images...I don't usually try to duplicate exactly what I see as I like to create something more in many cases. That said, I find myself backing off a little on super dramatic HDR now that I'm more used to the effect. When I first got into HDR I was a little like a little girl using her mom's lipstick. If a little looks good, then a lot will look really good....NOT. I like the 3-D or depth effect that HDR tends to give.

I am shooting a project that has green pastures, dark red barns and a huge white tent and puffywhite clouds in a blue sky. It's very difficult to find a single exposure that will capture the detail and color in a pure white tent in the sunlight and a dark red barn. I've resorted to HDR or sometimes what I call pseudo HDR or PHDR where I process a single RAW image for light details then again for dark details and then merge the two into an image that does justice to the full dynamic range.

Now, back to work.

Chuck

 

[BobH]

Like I said The water is the least of the bad effects. The highlights on the logs and rocks look like someone has sprayed a clear varnish on everything.

LOL! It's called water and that's what happens when you're at a waterfall deep in the forest on a rainy day... Everything looks wet because it was wet. I had to keep wiping my lense between shots due to all the mist.

I've had lots of folks say they liked the shot, but obviously you can't please everyone.

 

[JaniceL]

actually the difference is not in the shadows but in the highlights (overexposed) and it is noticeable and not accurate to me. It was immediately apparent to me looking at the logs on the side of the frame that HDR silver hue

I agree that the highlights are a bit blown. Actually I see a difference in the shadows between the two. It is subtle but there. Under the rock in the pool there is more details in the rocks under the water and on the right side you can see more leaves in a darker spot on the left. That difference is quite visible on my monitor.

 

[BrianH]

So when does one stop begin a photographer and becomes a Graphics artist? I guess Im more of a PJ kinda guy.

 

[BrianH]

LOL! It's called water and that's what happens when you're at a waterfall deep in the forest on a rainy day... Everything looks wet because it was wet. I had to keep wiping my lense between shots due to all the mist.

I've had lots of folks say they liked the shot, but obviously you can't please everyone.

There is a big difference between the top HDR and the bottom one its not just the water on items because that is consistant on both images.

The picture is a great shot but the manipulation does not do it justice.

 

[BobH]

I agree that the highlights are a bit blown. Actually I see a difference in the shadows between the two. It is subtle but there. Under the rock in the pool there is more details in the rocks under the water and on the right side you can see more leaves in a darker spot on the left. That difference is quite visible on my monitor.

That subtle difference and additonal detail was precisely why I used HDR. What you see in the shadows etc was plainly visible to the human eye, but due to limitations of the sensor, it requires combining several exposures to put in print or on the screen. I wanted to bring out those details, so I attempted to do that by using multiple exposures.

 

[BobH]

So when does one stop begin a photographer and becomes a Graphics artist?

When do you become a graphic artist? The moment you pick up the camera...

Everything you do in composing the image, whether it's in camera or in post production, affects the image. What lens you use, what camera, how you have the saturation and colors set. How you frame and crop the image matters. Everything you do has an effect on the final image.

Take this image for example. A beautiful waterfall in a pristine forest, right? I probably had to hike for miles to get there, correct? Well, not really, you could take this shot out of your car window if you want to, I'm standing on a bridge. But that's not visible in the shot, so does that mean I'm not reflecting reality?

The water looks different depending on the shutter speed, the light looks different based on the exposure, etc, etc, etc. Photos are always influenced choices made by the photographer.

 

[BrianH]

When do you become a graphic artist? The moment you pick up the camera...

Everything you do in composing the image, whether it's in camera or in post production, affects the image. What lens you use, what camera, how you have the saturation and colors set. How you frame and crop the image matters. Everything you do has an effect on the final image.

Take this image for example. A beautiful waterfall in a pristine forest, right? I probably had to hike for miles to get there, correct? Well, not really, you could take this shot out of your car window if you want to, I'm standing on a bridge. But that's not visible in the shot, so does that mean I'm not reflecting reality?

The water looks different depending on the shutter speed, the light looks different based on the exposure, etc, etc, etc. Photos are always influenced choices made by the photographer.

I cant argue with what you have posted but there is a point in post processing that everything becomes more surreal than real.........Like I said I guess I lean more towards photo journalism

 

[BobH]

By the way, once camera sensors get to the point that they can capture the entire range of light that the human eye can see, HDR won't need to be done in post processing. It will simply be something that the camera does, just like shooting at ISO 6400 etc.

 

[BrianH]

By the way, once camera sensors get to the point that they can capture the entire range of light that the human eye can see, HDR won't need to be done in post processing. It will simply be something that the camera does, just like shooting at ISO 6400 etc.

True. All the new Sony's have HDR settings, it will become a software thing...........somedays I miss film LOL

 

[ddietiker]

"HDR" has acquired two different meanings.

Technically, it's any image with an enhanced dynamic range. Done in a subtle manner, you can't even tell it's an HDR image. Usually the trickiest part is the dark and ominous sky that often results.

The other extreme, and more common meaning of "HDR" is the whole "radioactive" look, or hand painted look, that HDR is known for. It's a fun technique and lots of folks like it. As with any fad, the novelty wore off for the most part, and now it's more of a niche thing.

HDR existed long before the software. I do HDR images when a filter wont work as in your first explanation Bob. Originally, getting a photo to have the same dynamic range as using a GND filter was the goal of HDR.

Many newer folks don't get this and think HDR can only be done with the software to get the Topaz "look". I think from an artistic and compositional standpoint, all 3 of the above are very good images.

I've never been a fan of the Topaz style HDR, far to often people use it on an image that doesn't stand up well on it's own, either because the composition isn't that good or it isn't very original.

Most automatic software combined images are too soft for me, they lack the critical detail I work hard at capturing. When I do HDR, it is done by hand, just painting in the areas needed.

 

[ddietiker]

That's my point exactly... Not much difference is there? HDR doesn't always have to be obvious!

You and Janice are right, it's the first one, it adds some subtle details in the shadows and changed the look of the water slightly. I liked the water look, it was a bit more of a vintage look. However, the difference is very slight.

I picked the first one too, the second image doesnt appear to be as sharp.

 

[JaniceL]

If I see texture in a photo and not in another, who can tell me that that difference does not exist because they don't see it? And maybe if the photo shows the texture or detail because of the manipulation, is it possibly truer than the untouched photo?

 

[BobH]

I picked the first one too, the second image doesnt appear to be as sharp.

That's due to the amount of sharpening I applied (or didn't apply) after re-sizing the image. Typically the HDR image would be the softer one, since the water and trees etc often move during the exposures, and combining them gives you a bit of a blur. Also, if you don't shoot on a tripod, you get even more of that.

 

[BobH]

Mt Rainier is a perfect example of this issue. It is nearly impoessible to take a photo of the mountain from a distance and have both the snow on the mountain exposed, and the foreground exposed. If the mountain isn't blown out, then the trees are way too dark.

As Doug mentions, for years the solution was (and still is) to take multiple exposures, then combine them. You put them in Photoshop as layers, and then use the eraser tool to erase the blown out areas, bringing up the other print which has detail in it. That is essentially "Old School HDR", using the manual method rather than software. Same idea though. Today you can accomplish it faster and easier in a variety of programs, but you're still combining exposures.

Is it a "photojournalistic" approach? Good question. Personally, I think it is. When you look at Mt Rainier from Tacoma you don't squint because the snow is so bright. You can easily make out details in the snow, and also the foreground. But you camera can't, you usually get one or the other. So you could argue that the HDR image is more accurate, not less. There are no cut and dried "right" answers.