Field (First HDR)

[samhail]

Exif data

Camera Pentax K100D
Exposure 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture f/27.0
Focal Length 45 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias +1 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

This is my first attempt at HDR so I wasn't sure about what to put for the EXIF data. I used one of the original photo's EXIF instead.
I'm not even sure I did the HDR right. I'm still learning the process. If I could get feed back on how it came out, especially the clouds. The clouds look a little off to me. They seem to show some odd colors but I'm not sure if that is the way HDR is supposed to look.
Thanks

[samhail]

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

[Sterling]

You are right about the sky. It appears to have "posterized" into flat sections of color.

I'm not quite sure what's up with your camera settings. Why f/27? At that tiny aperture you are sure to get blurring/softening due to diffraction. This has lead to the slow 1/10 shutter speed which has possibly added some camera shake to the equation. Aslo, why ISO 400? I don't really see a reason to increase the ISO. Sticking to ISO 200 will improve picture quality. Lastly, why +1 exposure bias? Since your HDR software is combining different exposure levels anyway, it doesn't really make sense to throw a bias adjustment in there.

How did you set your different exposures for the HDR? How many different shots did you combine?

[samhail]

Originally Posted by Sterling

You are right about the sky. It appears to have "posterized" into flat sections of color.

I'm not quite sure what's up with your camera settings. Why f/27? At that tiny aperture you are sure to get blurring/softening due to diffraction. This has lead to the slow 1/10 shutter speed which has possibly added some camera shake to the equation. Aslo, why ISO 400? I don't really see a reason to increase the ISO. Sticking to ISO 200 will improve picture quality. Lastly, why +1 exposure bias? Since your HDR software is combining different exposure levels anyway, it doesn't really make sense to throw a bias adjustment in there.

How did you set your different exposures for the HDR? How many different shots did you combine?

Thanks for your reply. I chose the tiny aperture because I read on the DPS site that a way to take good landscape photos was to maximize your depth of field. So I used a low aperture. I then upped the ISo to allow more light. As for the exposure bias I was told by someone once that to take HDR you take three pictures. One that is taken at optimal setting, one underexposed and one overexposed. If I did it wrong please let me know. The EXIF I used for the picture was the one for the overexposure. I reedited the photo and I think I found a more pleasing outcome. On the original I upped the saturation way too high during the hdr process. This new one is not upped as much. I still see some of the "posterized" effect in the white clouds but it is not nearly as evident. (At least I think so. Maybe I've been staring at it too long)

Please let me know what you think of the new edit and if there can be any more improvements to be made next time.

[pjflan7]

The whole shot is still too dark....not enough details in the trees.....the 2nd is better than the 1st in this respect. I second sterling on the camera settings.......in most landscape photo books, you rarely see any shots above the f13. Most are somewhere between f8 and f10 and at iso 100...sometimes 200

[Sterling]

Maximizing dof is great but f/27 is overkill to achieve that. F/11 would likely have provided dof from approx. 5m to infinity. You were using a tripod right? If so, then there was no need to raise the ISO. Let the shutter speed drop and rely on the tripod to keep the shot steady. As for the exposure bias, I think most HDRs are produced with exposures of -2, 0, and +2 and I believe most are set using differing shutter speeds. But that's not set in stone. What you don't want to do is change apertures between shots due to the change in dof. While the sky does look better in your 2nd version, the grass has become somewhat "radioactive." It could be that this scene is just not well suited for HDR.

[samhail]

Thanks for the advice. I'll try those steps next time.