HDR - how many is enough exposures?

[elephunk]

Canon EOS 450D
focal length 18mm
1/60@f5.0, 1/100@f7.1, 1/200@f8.0
ISO 200

I'm not a huge fan of the 'spooky' effects heavy HDR processing gives. For this shot (one of my first HDR attempts) I used just 3 exposures with Photomatix. Was that enough? I tried adding two more overexposures created from the raw file, but they didn't seem to add anything good. I kind of like how the boat isn't popping out with brightness, but did I get it right?

And then there's the cropping. I didn't want to go square, but is there perhaps too much clutter still on the right hand side?

Your feedback is most welcome.

[windrider86]

I have seen as many as 13 images used. Just depends on what look you are shooting for. I like the way this looks.Perhaps a crop to get rid of the other boat in the background.
The blue tint gives it a very mellow kind of feelling.
I would say you did a pretty darn good job!

[stitchbug]

i really like this! cant wait to try HDR!

[kirbinster]

I really like your "art", but I generally don't consider HDR to be photography. If you just use a little of it to give you slightly more dynamic range that is fine - but when so over done it looks fake and no longer looks like a photo. That is not to mean you should no do it, but I just consider it art not photography.

[Murtasma]

If you really want to get precise read up on the zone system. Meter the deepest shadows you want to maintain detail in with a spot meter. Then meter the brightest highlight in the scene with a spot meter. Count the number of zones between the two meter readings this will let you know how many zones you need to compress into a single image. Each model of digital camera will be able to capture a different amount of zones but if you assume for the sake of keeping things simple that your camera can accurately capture 8 - 10 stops of light you can then calculate out how many pictures you need to take to ensure you have all important zones covered.

Ex:
You meter your shadows and highlights and come up with a picture that spans 14 zones. Place your underexposed image so the highlights in zone 14 fall into zone 8. Then place the shadows in your over exposed image in zone 2 or 3. In this particular case you can obtain enough data in just two images if done properly. I have rarely ran into a case where I needed more then 3 exposers to capture all the light I cared about. As a general rule if you just bracket with 3 shots -2 , 0 and +2 you will more then likely have enough data to cover all zones. I've never run into a situation outside requiring more then 3 images. If you are shooting outside you will probably be fine just using -2, 0, +2. You may have to under exposer even more if shooting directly into the sun an hour or two before sunset.

It really comes down to how your tone map your image and post process that tone mapped image in photoshop.

[elephunk]

Thanks Murtasma, very clear explanation and advice.

[wattsbw2004]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I really like your "art", but I generally don't consider HDR to be photography. If you just use a little of it to give you slightly more dynamic range that is fine - but when so over done it looks fake and no longer looks like a photo. That is not to mean you should no do it, but I just consider it art not photography.

Thats kind of mean, especially when it appears that you know little of what HDR really is compared to what people label their images as HDR. HDR is capturing close to if not entirely the dynamic range in that particular scene but some people label their work as HDR when really it's just a tonemapped image. Besides saying HDR isn't photography is like saying Ansel Adams and the thousands of other photographers who use neutral density/ gradated filters aren't photographers as well since they are achieving the same result but within the camera process rather then in the digital darkroom.

Now for the image at hand it's nice image but typically I try and shoot 9-10 exposures although I know some-most cameras don't have that ability to do it automatcially you can certainly do it manually. By doing this it creates a smoother transition between colors and minimizes the amount of noise in a image to nearly 0%. I wouldn't judge my posted work by this tip because I've only begun doing this a few weeks ago and haven't posted any images ye,t but I can account for these facts as well as this photographer who also uses the same amount of exposures as I do as he states in this thread. Now I will admit pushes the limits of what tonempapping can do but it shows very little noise and smooth gradients in the sky.

I'm not a huge fan of the 'spooky' effects heavy HDR processing gives.

And remember, HDR doesn't give this "spooky effect" but rather the photographer who takes the image into the digital darkroom and pushes the image to the limits is who gives it the effect.