Digital imaging changed everything. The darkroom turned into a Mac, rolls of film capable of holding no more than 36 pictures became plastic rectangles capable of holding hundreds of shots, image selection began to take place immediately after the shoot, photographs could be delivered to clients at the click of a button, and deadlines became tighter than ever.
And of course, new sales channels opened up, allowing anyone with a camera and talent to put their work in front of buyers, revolutionizing the world of commercial photography.
So what happens now?
It would be nice to believe that after the upheavals of recent years, we can all take a breather, get used to the new ways of working and spend our time figuring out how to make the most of them. But life doesn?t work that way. The photography world is still changing. Smaller microstock sites like DigitalRailroad and LuckyOliver have found that selling images at a buck a piece isn?t as easy as it looks. Larger firms like PhotoShelter have discovered that buyers don?t always know what they want ? or don?t buy what they say they like. And there?s still plenty of room for improvement in image searching, display and purchasing.
Consolidating Three Million Images
One new trend then might be seen in BrightQube. Launched in 2007 and headed by Lee Corkran, a former professional photographer who has also worked for Digital Railroad, the service has few images of its own. Instead, it consolidates more than three million stock photos from more than 40 different companies, including Corbis, Jupiter Image?s Comstock and Getty?s Stockbyte as well as many independent niched firms such as GoGo Images and Photo India.
For buyers who don?t want to flip from site to site while looking for images, that already makes BrightQube a useful portal. But the service also stands out in the way that it displays search results. Instead of offering page after page of images, ordered usually according to a secret recipe of keyword relevance, views and downloads, BrightQube presents what it calls a ?Dynamic Mosaic? interface ? a giant, automatic-loading, animated wall of thumbnails which buyers can navigate with their arrow keys or a navigational grid, zooming in on the images that look the most promising. According to Lee, the system, which looks like a two-dimensional version of PicLens, allows customers to search ?hundreds of times faster than on other sites.?
Images are initially ordered by keywords, with the most relevant photographs placed in the middle of the mosaic, but buyers can then choose to order the images by price or size.
[P]hotographers working with collections large and small can be assured their images will appear on a single, equitable page of search results, in front of buyers? eyes, giving every picture a fighting chance to be found, seen and sold,? Lee told us.
But first, photographers have to get their images onto the wall, and that?s where things can get a little tricky. In a May interview with SocalTech, Lee indicated that the company was experimenting with adding user-generated content and that a private beta would be available in early fall. When we asked him in mid-November whether independent photographers could submit their images to the site though, Lee merely said:
?Not at the moment, but we are looking into this feature in the future.?
The Back Door to the Mosaic Wall
In the meantime, photographers will have to use some indirect routes. While some of the companies from which BrightQube sources its images have the kind of acceptance standards that could block non-professionals, BrightQube does divide its inventory into two collections. ?Everyday? images are microstock photos sourced from Dreamstime; ?professional? images come from everyone else. The lack of exclusivity in microstock means that the service offers photos from just one low-cost royalty-free site: buyers looking for ?everyday? photos would likely end up looking at a wall made up of identical photos.
The easiest way for a photographer to get their photos onto BrightQube?s wall then will be to submit them to Dreamstime, giving the company an important advantage if the service takes off. It would also help to make sure that the photos show the right subjects. According to Lee, the most popular keywords currently being sought by buyers are ?woman,? ?couple,? ?young,? ?business? and ?wildlife? ? broad enough categories to suit most photographers.
The remaining question then is whether the service will take off. One of the reasons put forward by Allen Murabayashi, CEO of PhotoShelter, to explain the collapse of his company?s stock division was the subscription model that locked buyers into companies that they?ve used in the past; changing sources in the middle of a month risked a financial penalty. That?s still a challenge that BrightQube will have to overcome. At the moment, they?re not sharing their sales figures though so it?s impossible to gauge how well they?re doing that.
Even if BrightQube itself doesn?t turn out to be the future of stock photography though, it?s likely that future will include faster searching, a neater display? and the consolidation of stock libraries.
We?d like to think that at Photopreneur we have influence in the photography world. We?d like to believe that we?re among the movers and shakers, the people who set the agenda, the picture-taking elite who are changing the face of photography forever.
But we?re far too modest for that.
And besides, the people who are really changing the photography business are you: the enthusiasts, semi-professionals and professionals who are grabbing the opportunities that the digital age has thrown up and seeing where it can take you.
You have had some help though. Over the last few years, a number of websites have launched that have had a huge effect on the photography business. In no particular order, here are the most influential.
The idea was simple, horrible, successful and completely revolutionary. To inject some competition into a stock photography market now dominated by one big company was no bad thing. But to do it by making the images royalty-free and to charge a price that many photographers saw as insultingly low was, in their eyes, outrageous. It wouldn?t last they said. No one would want to contribute.
They were wrong. Bruce Livingstone, the site?s founder, had spotted that the relatively low cost of digital photography meant that good quality cameras were now in the hands of talented amateurs who would be happy to shoot for small payments, especially if they were getting those payments multiple times.
iStockPhoto Started as a Free Stock Site
In fact, initially, Livingstone assumed that those amateurs would be willing to supply their images for nothing more than the thrill of publication. At its launch in May 2000, iStockPhoto was a free stock site supported by Livingstone?s Web development company Evolvs Media. By 2001, the site was charging for images and generating a profit. It has remained profitable ever since, boosted by a community of more than 3 million registered members and a portfolio of nearly 4 million photos.
The threat to traditional stock photography, long an elite club in which top photographers contributed their best images to large companies which then sold usage rights to other large firms on their behalf, quickly became clear. In February 2006, Getty Images, the industry leader, realized that it couldn?t beat them and would be better off if the company joined them. It bought iStockPhoto for $50 million.
The price may have been a bargain. In 2007, the site generated almost $72 million in revenue, sharing almost $21 million with its contributors.
iStockPhoto is no longer the only microstock site on the Web. Plenty of others have followed in its wake ? some successfully, others less so. But iStockPhoto was the first and it changed the way photographers sell their images, the way users buy them ? and the amount they expect to pay for them too.
Not everyone who owns a digital camera wants to sell with it though. Most people just want to show what they photographed. When Flickr gave camera-owners a place to store their images, show them to friends and family, and even join groups where they could chat about picture-taking, photographers had a home on the Web.
They could improve their skills, make friends, pick up new ideas and, we?ve found, even generate sales and build careers.
Like iStockPhoto, Flickr began with modest intentions. Developed by Canadian firm Ludicorp, Flickr was initially part of the company?s attempt to create a massive multiplayer online game called Game Neverending. Its first incarnation was based around a chat room called FlickrLive which allowed users to exchange photographs. Gradually, the site began to emphasize uploading and filing, and the chat aspect disappeared to be replaced eventually by forums and groups as influential as David Hobby?s Strobist and Darren Rowse?s Digital Photography School. Game Neverending ended as a photo site where photography enthusiasts could endlessly play and learn.
You Can?t Ignore Flickr?s 3 Billion Images
If all Flickr had done was to become the main center on the Web for image-sharing, that alone would already have made a huge difference to the way photographers used the Web and improved their skills. Certainly the 3 billion images it now hosts could hardly be ignored.
But it did much more than that.
Tagging images in the same way that stock companies keyword their photos gave contributors a sense that their images were waiting to be discovered and introduced them to the world of professional display. Enabling the addition of geo-tagging, including the ability to drag-and-drop photos onto a map, gave location scouts a whole new way of preparing for shoots and checking out sites, while the challenges set in groups and the attraction of winning a spot on the Explore page ? an award made according to a Google-like algorithm based on views, faves and comments ? motivated already-motivated photographers to shoot better pictures and to network like unemployed bankers at a job fair.
And then there was Creative Commons. By allowing photographers to apply a range of different Creative Commons licenses to their images, Flickr has managed to build a giant bank of almost 90 million free photographs. These have granted countless photographers enormous exposure and provided a fantastic no-cost resource for image users. Flickr photographs now turn up on outlets from small websites to The Economist?s blogs and even, controversially, on advertising billboards.
As if that wasn?t enough, The Commons also makes some of the world?s most iconic ? and copyright-free ? images available on the site too.
Unlike iStockPhoto though, the company has yet to come up with a solid business model. Annual membership plans which allow for limitless uploads, better organization and stats are unlikely to make a large dent in the firm?s running expenses. Nor are the sponsored groups, run by firms looking for free advertising images and we-get-social-media branding. None of that though stopped Yahoo! from buying the site in 2005, replacing its own Yahoo! Photos with the then smaller but faster-growing service.
If microstock offers cents as the reward for getting images seen, Flickr, soon likely to become part of Microsoft?s stable, has built a site in which views alone is the most important currency.
Google
What would a list of influential websites be without Google? Sure, it?s not a photography site, but Google?s versatility and efficiency have made it a valuable tool for both photographers and the people who use their images.
Some of the influence has come from its hosted service. Like Flickr, Google also allows users to browse historic images. Life magazine?s photo archive is now searchable by keyword and includes millions of images that have never been published. As a way of viewing inspiring pictures and understanding the development of photography it certainly beats an hour browsing the art books at Barnes and Noble.
Learning about Copyright
Most of Google?s influence on photography though has come through Google Images. While Yahoo! Photos fizzled and died, giving up its life in favor of Flickr, Google Images has stuck around, returning millions of pictures based on size, file type, color and even content. And unlike stock sites and Flickr, those pictures appear in context, showing how and where they were used. The recent addition of Google Image Labeler may make the searching quicker and images easier to find while removing a time-consuming headache from overworked photographers hoping to turn up in search results.
The biggest impact though has probably fallen on copyright. Too many users feel that if an image turns up in a Google search result then it?s free for anyone to copy. Using Google Alerts to receive notification of a credit ? even when the user hasn?t asked permission ? hardly helps.
As a result, artists who might never have worried about their works being used without authorization are creating watermarks, concerning themselves with image sizes and keeping track of how their photos are being used and where. Thanks to Google, we?re all copyright experts now.
Back in the old days, there were only a handful of ways that photographers could sell their images. They could talk to gallery owners and develop a taste for rejection. They could contact stock companies and get used to hearing ?no, thank you.? And they could cold visit retail stores and usually hear the owner tell them that they didn?t want to sell their postcards, posters or photos on a t-shirt. If they were very lucky though, they might win an agreement based on sale or return which meant dishing out a fortune on prints in the hope that one day they?d see a profit.
Cafepress changed the dynamics of at least the last option. Founded way back in 1999 by Fred Durham and Maheesh Jain, the site allowed artists to offer user-customized products on demand. Photographers then could sell mugs, bags, t-shirts, clocks and calendars decorated with their images and do so without any risk of losing their production costs. They didn?t even need to worry about the hassle of packing, shipping and storing inventory. Cafepress handled all the logistics for them, allowing contributors to focus on production.
Cafepress Sets a New Trend
The quality of items on the site has always varied ? a problem faced by any commercial outlet with no entry restrictions ? but the service has nonetheless done well. It now offers over 150 million products created by more than 6.5 million contributors. In July 2008, Cafepress bought the photo printing business Imagekind giving it a chunk of the photography art-on-demand business too.
Perhaps the only area it hasn?t dominated is print-on-demand photography books, a niche dominated by Lulu and especially Blurb.
Cafepress?s biggest effect though may be that it set a new trend. The service might have been revolutionary when it appeared but these days it has to share a space with competitors such as Zazzle, Etsy and Red Bubble. Each of those sites allows photographers to use their images to decorate household objects and to sell them with little or no risk (Etsy charges a subscription fee which keeps out the truly amateur but benefits from the appearance of more professional items.)
But Cafepress ratcheted up one more result that?s also reflected in the me-too sites that followed after it. None of the services does a great deal to market itself to buyers; contributors are forced to do that for themselves. They might not have had to worry about filling boxes but if they were to make sales, photographers had to learn about sales points, market sources and joint ventures. Cafepress showed photographers that in the digital age, creating isn?t enough. If they want to make money, photographers have to be creative marketers now too.
eBay and Craigslist
eBay is another site that isn?t geared towards photography but which has had a huge, if largely unseen, effect on the photography industry. Launched in 1995 by computer programmer Pierre Omidyar as AuctionWeb, the site removed commercial mediators, allowing the market to set the true price for an item based on exactly what buyers were willing to pay. Right from the beginning, that?s thrown up some surprises. The very first item sold on eBay was a laser pointer (although laser pointers are now banned) which went for $14.83 even though it was listed as ?broken.?
More importantly from the point of view of photographers is that eBay also allows artists to put their works in front of potential customers without the challenge of dealing with gallery owners ? or paying them half the sales price. Currently more than 3,200 printed photographs are on offer on the site with asking prices as high as $7,500.
Galleries might have a cachet and eBay is a long way from Sotheby?s but the ability to reach the art-buying public directly has created a whole new opportunity for photographic artists.
The No-Cost Way to Market Photography Prints and Services
And Craigslist has done something similar for photography services. Founded by software engineer Craig Newmark in the same year as eBay, the site was intended to do little more than function as a kind of noticeboard, helping the local community become aware of social events in San Francisco. Soon the service grew, with companies in particular using it to recruit staff. Today, the offers placed on the site range from erotic encounters to second-hand refrigerators, it covers 550 cities in over 50 countries worldwide and serves 12 billion page views a month. It?s also part-owned by eBay.
Little of that translates into cash though. Craigslist refuses to accept banner advertising, preferring only to demand small payments for some job and real estate listings.
It?s the company?s broad reach and low cost which, although they?ve been devastating to the classified sections of print newspapers, have given photographers a valuable gift.
Small photography businesses with tiny marketing budgets are now putting ads on the site, updating them regularly and winning orders with little effort and no cost. One photographer told us that she picks up a wedding job for every ten to fifteen free ads she runs on the site.
It?s just another way in which entry requirements for photographers have been lowered, allowing novices and part-timers to start earning.
Our second Christmas guest writer, world famous photo-blogger David J. Nightingale from Chromasia, shares his top tips for creating great high dynamic range (HDR) photos.
Before we begin our discussion of High Dynamic Range photography, take a look at the following photograph, bearing the following questions in mind:
1) Is it a good photograph?
2) Is it a well-exposed photograph?
3) Can it be ?saved? in Photoshop?
The answer to all three questions is a definite no ? it just doesn?t work as a photograph: the exposure is terrible, and there?s very little we could do in Photoshop to improve it.
Now, take a moment to think through how you would advise the person who took this photograph: i.e. what would you tell them they need to do, or avoid doing in future? The first thing you would probably tell them is that they need to rethink the shot; i.e. there?s no way they can get a photograph that includes a bright sky and the shadow detail beneath this pier ? it?s just not possible.
If you wanted to demonstrate this point you could take two further shots of this scene ? one to capture the highlight detail in the sky, and another to capture the shadow detail beneath the pier. These would look something like the following two images:
As you can see, the overexposed image, shot at 1/30th, contains detail in the shadow area of the scene, while the underexposed one, shot at 1/1000th of a second, correctly exposes the sky. By way of comparison, the original exposure we looked at above was shot at 1/250th; i.e. three stops below the overexposed image and two stops above the underexposed one.
What the above images demonstrate is that our cameras are limited; i.e. once the range in brightness within a scene becomes too large our cameras are unable to record it. Instead, we are forced to produce a poor photograph, with blocked shadow detail and clipped highlights, or we need to favour one extreme or the other ? exposing for the highlights or the shadows.
Take a look at the following two images:
In the example on the left (above) the dynamic range of the original scene, as you can see from the ?Exposure evaluation? histogram (screen-grabbed from Capture One Pro), is around 4 EV (from -2 to +2 EV); i.e. there is no loss of either shadow or highlight detail. In the example on the right though, the dynamic range is much larger ? around 9 EV. As you can see from the ?Exposure evaluation? histogram for this shot, there is some very minor clipping of the shadow detail but massive loss of data in the highlight areas of the image.
EV, short for Exposure Value, can be defined as the various combinations of camera shutter speed and relative aperture that give the same exposure. For example, 1/30th at f/8.0 is the same EV as 1/60th at f/5.6, and so on. So, if we have a scene with a dynamic range of between 5 and 6 EV our cameras can record detail in both the highlights and shadows areas of the scene. Beyond 6 EV and we must sacrifice details in one extreme or the other.
If we think back to our first example ? the shot of the tower and the pier ? we can calculate that we would need a camera with a dynamic range of 11 stops to capture the entire dynamic range of the scene (assuming that the native range of our camera is around 6 EV). This is because our overexposed image was +2 EV from the original exposure and the underexposed frame was shot at -3 EV.
So, what can we do when the dynamic range of a scene exceeds our camera?s ability to record it? We have three options. First, we can avoid taking the shot and either wait for better light, or use artificial lighting or (graduated) filters to decrease the dynamic range of the scene to fit within the dynamic range of our camera?s sensor.
Second, we can choose an optimum exposure to maximise detail in the area of the image we are interested in, thereby allowing either the shadows to block out, the highlights to blow, or both. With a scene that only marginally exceeds the dynamic range of our camera?s sensor, this isn?t a major problem ? some black areas rather than shadow detail won?t ruin an image, nor will a few clipped highlights ? but when the tonal of a scene far exceeds our camera?s ability to record it it?s unlikely, as we saw above, that we will be able to produce a decent photograph.
Third, and this is where we finally get to the point, we can employ a variety of techniques to convert the full tonal range of the original scene into a narrower one ? one that conforms to the limitations of Photoshop, our printer, our monitors, and so on ? i.e. techniques that will allow us to sidestep the limitations of our equipment and capture detail in both the shadow and highlight areas of an original scene with a dynamic range far in excess of the five, six or seven stops we can record with a single image.
So, where do we start?
Shooting for HDR
The first thing we need to do is to shoot a bracketed series of shots. The following sequence is a fairly typical example:
If you take a look at the histogram for the first image (superimposed over the top-left image) you will see that although almost the entire sky is blown, a full range of tones has been captured in the shadow areas of the image. Likewise, if you examine the histogram for the final image in the sequence, you will see that a considerable amount of the shadow detail has been lost but there are no blown highlights. The remainder of the images fill the gaps between these extremes which, in this instance, were spaced one and one-third stops apart. As you can see from the combined histogram below, the dynamic range of the original scene was 14 stops (or 14 EV) ? well beyond the capabilities of anything other than dedicated high dynamic range imaging equipment.
If you?re not familiar with shooting bracketed sequences of images, here?s some guidelines:
Use a tripod – While a variety of the methods we will be discussing include an automatic method of aligning multiple exposures with one another, they aren?t always 100% reliable. If you shoot your original sequence using a tripod, taking care not to move the camera should you need to make any manual adjustments, your chances of creating a successful image will be much greater. If you have one, you should also use a remote release to further minimise the risk of moving the camera.
Number of exposures – For the best results, from either Photoshop or Photomatix Pro, you should shoot a minimum of three exposures. What you should also ensure is that you shoot enough images to cover the entire dynamic range of the scene; i.e. your darkest image should contain no blown highlights and your lightest should contain no blocked shadows. You should also see the note below regarding exposing for the shadow detail.
Often, three exposures will be enough, but if the original scene contains a wider dynamic range you will need to shoot more. The easiest way to evaluate the dynamic range of a scene is to use a spot meter to measure the EV of the brightest and darkest areas, and calculate your exposure sequence accordingly. If you don?t have a spot meter you can use your histogram to evaluate your exposures.
Exposure spacing – There is no hard and fast rule about how far apart you should space the individual exposures in a bracketed sequence, but the general consensus seems to be that you should use an increment of somewhere between one and two stops. Differences of less than one stop needlessly replicate data, while an increment of higher than two stops risks a loss of data.
Auto-bracketing - Most cameras allow you to shoot an automatic sequence of three bracketed exposures, though some high-end DSLRs allow you to extend this to seven or higher. If the dynamic range of the scene can be captured within three shots, providing the individual exposures aren?t spaced more than two stops apart, you should use this function rather than manually altering your camera?s settings. This will minimise the chance of misaligned images.
Manual bracketing – If you do need to change your camera?s setting manually make sure that you vary the exposure by altering the shutter speed or use your exposure compensation dial, but don?t vary the aperture. If you alter the latter you run the risk of the different exposures having a varying depth of field.
Shoot quickly – If the scene you are recording doesn?t contain any moving components then the speed at which you take your bracketed exposures doesn?t matter ? assuming, of course, that the lighting doesn?t change during the sequence. If the scene contains rapidly moving components ? people, birds, and so on ? these cannot be recorded, at least not reliably. If, on the other hand, the scene contains slow moving components ? clouds, for example ? then the faster you shoot the more likely they are to be in much the same place throughout the sequence.
Exposing for the shadow detail
The two most important shots within a bracketed sequence, shot specifically for HDR, are the lightest and the darkest. The darkest shot is relatively straightforward ? you just need to make sure that you haven?t blown the highlights ? but the lightest shot is a bit trickier. This is the one that you use to capture the full range of shadow detail within your image, but you need to ensure that that the histogram for this image looks more like the one on the right rather than the left (below):
On the face of it, both histograms look fairly similar, and both demonstrate that there are no blocked shadows, but the one on the right indicates that the shot in question was about one stop brighter than the one on the left. Why is this important?
The reason for this is a technical one, relating to the nature of your camera?s sensor. A 12 bit RAW file is capable of recording 4,096 levels of brightness across a dynamic range of around five or six stops, but the amount of data allocated to each of the five stops isn?t equal: half are allocated to the first stop (which measures the brightest tones in an image), half of the remaining 2048 are allocated to the next stop, half of the remainder to the next, and so on.
This is illustrated by the table below:
The reason that this is significant is because the last stop can only record 128 levels of brightness while the one above it can record twice as much data; i.e. 256 levels of brightness. With a normal photograph this difference isn?t especially significant; i.e. all the data falls within the shadows, and we don?t perceive that there is less data in these areas of the image. With an HDR image, especially one that is produced using Photomatix Pro, the shadow details become much more significant. Here, if we haven?t recorded sufficient levels of detail in these areas of our original bracketed sequence, the conversion process will struggle to produce a ?clean? image; i.e. there will be noise, banding, or other digital artefacts in the darker areas of our converted image. In short, make sure that you check the histogram of your lightest shot in the sequence to make sure that the leftmost edge of your histogram isn?t close to or touching the leftmost edge of the display.
So, having shot our initial series of bracketed exposures, bearing in mind the above guidelines, how do we get from a bracketed sequence of originals to the final HDR image?
A detailed explanation of how to convert your bracketed sequence of images into an HDR image is beyond the scope of this scope of this short article, but basically it involves two further steps.
The first of these involves generating a 32 bit image from your 8 bit or 16 bit originals. This can be done using Photoshop (or any of a variety of software tools designed for this purpose, e.g. FDRTools and Photomatix Pro). The creates a single, blended image, with a much larger dynamic range than any of the original sequence. In other words, it creates a single image that encompasses both the brightest highlights and the deepest shadows.
The problem with 32 bit images though is that they can?t be displayed on conventional monitors, nor can they be printed, so they need to be converted back into Low Dynamic Range (LDR) images. There are a variety of ways of doing this but the most useful technique is Tone Mapping.
Tone Mapping is a process whereby the different areas of an original scene are evaluated then combined to produce a full range of tones in each area; i.e. there will be a broad range of tones in both the shadow and highlight areas of the original scene. If you take a look at the tone mapped version of the image I used to open this article (created using Photomatix Pro) you will see that the final image has a full range of tones in the shadow areas of the image (underneath the pier) and in the sky (the brightest area of the original scene).
As I mentioned earlier, there are a variety of tools you can use to create HDR images, each of which produces slightly different results. Photoshop, for example, is great for producing natural looking images from scenes with a very large dynamic range. FDRTools, on the other hand, produces more striking images than Photoshop but can be used to produce photo-realistic results, while Photomatix Pro can be used to produce a more surreal final image, as illustrated by my shot of pier.
Creating HDR images is a time-consuming process, and it?s often difficult to get really good results, but it is an interesting technique that can be used to produce images that are simply not possible by any other means.
The technique is certainly worth learning from but the resultant shot to me looks unreal. The sky looks overcast and yet there’s so much light under the pier. The look is possible perhaps if the sun is very low on the horizon and coming from the right. Still to me it looks a little odd.
Thanks for the kind words about the tutorial, they’re much appreciated.
AtCheruti: HDR techniques can be used to produce surreal images, such as the shot of the pier I used to illustrate the article, but they can also be employed more subtly:
The major strength of the technique, irrespective of how real or surreal the final image looks, is that it allows you to shoot scenes where the dynamic range is much higher than your camera can record in a single shot. For me, that makes it a useful technique.
Really enjoyed reading this, as a relative newcomer to Photomatix Pro I,ve made a real hash of the first couple of attempts, it all down to perserverance and practice knowing what to tweak and what not to.. Great article, Thanks
I’ve taken a few HDR photos – some have turned out pretty good IMHO. But I learned a lot from this short but complete article. Great explanation of the histograms!
Some nice tips, still not sure if I like the overdone HDR look that many people seem to be producing. Nevertheless like you say the techniques can be used subtly if desired.
Our second Christmas guest writer, world famous photo-blogger David J. Nightingale from 
#1
Eveline
Perfect! I’ve never read such a good tutorial on how to create HDR photos!
#2
Brian
Fantastic article! In depth and right to the point. Learned a lot from this!
#3
Edward Janes
That is an awesome article – truly enlightening.
#4
tobto
thank you for useful article! high dynamic range in foto is my dream, especially at low level details.
#5
AtCheruti
The technique is certainly worth learning from but the resultant shot to me looks unreal. The sky looks overcast and yet there’s so much light under the pier. The look is possible perhaps if the sun is very low on the horizon and coming from the right. Still to me it looks a little odd.
#6
Eveline
I think the whole point of HDR is to capture some sort of surreality.
#7
tobto
The question still remains the same – HQ low level details without any artifacts
#8
David Nightingale
Thanks for the kind words about the tutorial, they’re much appreciated.
AtCheruti: HDR techniques can be used to produce surreal images, such as the shot of the pier I used to illustrate the article, but they can also be employed more subtly:
http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/0805102015.php
The major strength of the technique, irrespective of how real or surreal the final image looks, is that it allows you to shoot scenes where the dynamic range is much higher than your camera can record in a single shot. For me, that makes it a useful technique.
#9
Graphic
Nice tutorial and information, thanks !
#10
TonyBev
Really enjoyed reading this, as a relative newcomer to Photomatix Pro I,ve made a real hash of the first couple of attempts, it all down to perserverance and practice knowing what to tweak and what not to.. Great article, Thanks
#11
Jim
I’ve taken a few HDR photos – some have turned out pretty good IMHO. But I learned a lot from this short but complete article. Great explanation of the histograms!
#12
David Nightingale
Graphic/TonyBev/Jim: I’m glad you enjoyed the article
#13
a
The photos don’t show. Maybe you linked the photos to cookies. Many people deny cookies. Duh.
#14
Landscape Photography
Some nice tips, still not sure if I like the overdone HDR look that many people seem to be producing. Nevertheless like you say the techniques can be used subtly if desired.
thanks
for posting.
Next »
Categories
Recent Posts
Tags
Return home
By topic
RSS feed
Grid Focus by Derek Punsalan 5thirtyone.com.
Whitespace