High Dynamic Range (HDR)

So you've probably heard me mention HDR and seen some rather strange looking photos where the light just doesn't look natural and wondered how it's done?

Well before I explain how, I'll explain why...

When we look at a scene our eyes and brain work together to process all the light, colours, tints, shadows etc. Our brains are like super computers able to adapt to and identify variations in different areas of a scene.

Imagine a room with a window (you're most likely in one now), now look towards the window (if it's day time) you should be able to see what's outside as well as what's inside the room. Now get your camera (phone, compact, SLR) and take a photo looking out towards the window. Unless it's a really dull, dark and gloomy day you're most likely going to either have one of two photos:

1. The room is exposed properly, but you can't really see what's outside as it's all blown highlights (i.e. all white)
2. You can see the view from the window, but everything inside the room looks really dark or black.

Your camera can't adapt to differences in one scene, it can only expose correctly for one part of the scene for any one photo. Our eyes are constantly adapting for every part of the scene, faster than it takes to think about.

This not a new technique by any means. In the 1850's Gustave Le Gray, a Frenchman famous for technical innovations in photography, produced some of the first exposure blended photos. He wanted to find a way of correctly exposing for both sky and sea in his seascapes and did so by taking the correctly exposed halves from each negative and combining them to produce one positive photo. The photo below was taken in 1857 and titled 'The Great Wave"

Gustave Le Gray (French, 1820–1884)
The Great Wave, Sète, 1857
Albumen silver print from glass negative; 33.7 x 41.4 cm (13 1/4 x 16 5/16 in.)

A more recent example of HDR can be found in the photo below. Without HDR I would've only be able to expose correctly for either the stain glass window or the details in the hall, not both at the same time.



This HDR effect can be applied to all sorts of similar situations, both indoors and outdoors, such as sunset/sunrise, landscapes where the difference between shadows and light areas is too great for cameras to capture correctly.

Clouds are another good application for HDR; often in photos they can appear slightly flat, and by this I mean that you can always make out the full texture and depth of the cloud from a normal photo. Have a look at my cloud photo one of my earlier posts, you can clearly make out the shadows, highlights which gives a real sense of texture and depth as well as drama. In that particular photo they seem slight more dramatic than usual, and that's because I had one very extreme highlight, the sun, which I had to expose for the best I could.

Now enough of the boring bit, here how you do it....

Essentially you need a camera that you can alter shutter speeds with, so that's either an SLR (digital or film) or a bridge camera. Some compacts may have this feature, but only a few.

1. for digital SLR only: set the camera in aperture priority mode and from the main menu set auto exposure bracketing to the widest settings available. Compose your photo and press the shutter button. You camera will take automatically 3 exposures, one with blown highlights (revealing detail in the shadows), a second that is underexposed (revealing detail in the highlights) and a third photo that does it's best to correctly expose for light and dark areas (essentially this is used for mid tones).
   
2. for digital/film SLR and bridge: as above, put the camera into aperture priority mode and compose your photo. At this point you need to figure out what exposure settings you'll need and if you're using a film SLR then you'll need to work this out from experience. On the other hand with a digital SLR or a bridge you can take some test shots at different shutter speeds to figure out which speeds to use for your three photos. Once you've figured this out take the photos and hey presto, put them onto your computer. For film SLR cameras this obviously means getting the films processed and scanned in to you computer.

A quick note before I finish up....
Sensitivity: You should try not to change the aperture between shots, as doing this will result in the focus being different in all three images (making it a mess). Keep it the same throughout. Another handy tip to bear in mind is to keep the ISO/ASA as low as possible. When exposing for shadows, you're increasing the noise in photo, the lower the ISO/ASA the lower noise levels.

OK so by now you should know a little bit more about what HDR is, but you only know half of the story when it comes to making a HDR photo...

I've talked about how to prepare for a HDR photo by taking multiple exposures, and now comes the slightly more difficult bit. Once you've uploaded your photos to your computer you need to merge them to create you actual HDR image, and for that you need some software. There are a number of tools currently available that help you achieve this:

• Photoshop - this is probably the most popular image editing tool on the market, although it is quite overkill for most people and has a steep learning curve. If you're simply editing a few photos then it's not very cost effective (Elements or Lightroom is much better choice).
  
  
• Photomatrix Pro - like photoshop this is probably the most common tool for HDR processing. Unlike Photoshop however, this tool is specifically built to process HDR photography, and you can't do much else with it.

There are a few other tools out there, but I've mentioned these as you're most likely to be able to find more support and tutorials for these titles online. There's one problem with HDR photography, initially it was designed to help balance and bring out the details in all areas of the image. However, if you Google the word "HDR" and browse the images you'll see some quite extreme examples of HDR. It's quite easy to get carried away with the settings and produce quite garish images. If you have the right photograph though, then a more extreme HDR setting may be quite fitting. It is a personal thing though and there are a lot of purists out there who simply don't like any kind of HDR treatment.

You can download a free trial version of Photoshop from the Adobe website and Photomatrix from this website:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/examples.html - link also shows what you can achieve with the software as well as user examples.

This page provides a list of resources for guides and tutorials:
http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/index.html

Lakeside Round 2

Went over to the lake agian last night, gave H the camera, she did pretty well considering she's never really taken photos before. We got a bit delayed so got there about an hour before sunset and managed to catch it just as it was setting.


I'm sure she was getting bored of it, but I was explaining crop sensors, lenses (wide/telephoto) and a little about composition.

Anyway, take a look at my Flickr gallery for the days shots.

Compact Flash cards and Camera Buffer Canon 40D

"Which compact flash card should I buy?"

"Is a faster compact flash card any better?"

These are some of the questions regularly asked on photography forums regarding compact flash (CF) cards and Digital SLR cameras. Although answers are varied, most generally come back with a definitive yes, followed with links to tables and charts.

The lost card
I've been looking at this for a while now, well since I lost one of my CF cards. I bought two 4GB Sandisk Extreme III cards last year at a stupidly low price of about £16 each (RRP ~£30-£40). I can't remember where from now though :o(

The question
My question is basically whether I need to spend more money on a fast CF card or can I make do with slower cheaper ones (still branded though).

Why do you need a fast card?
Thing is that I tend to do some action photography every now and then, wildlife (birds etc) and some sports. I tend to find that my buffer fills up and I have a wait a little while before I can take photos again. Confused?

What am I on about?
Ok let me explain a little. DSLR cameras use memory cards to save photos. However, between the time you press the shutter button and the photo being saved onto the memory card, it is stored (temporarily) on the camera's internal memory (buffer). The only problem is that the buffer on the camera is limited in size. So when this fills up the camera more less stops taking photos and waits for the photos to move from the buffer to the CF card. If you're shooting something that can't wait for this (can be upto a minute) then it can be a problem.

In my case I have a camera that can shoot at upto 6.5fps. If you're trying to take a photo of a bird in flight, a racing car whizzing past, or maybe taking photos at a footy match, you'll find that you might miss the action shot sometimes. Well the more photos you're able to take consecutively within a second the more likely you are to get that brilliant shot.

I've put together a quick diagram to explain it, probably not the best in the world, but hey if it works.


NB Before I go into the specifics of the test, I need to point out something, which most of you are probably aware of anyway but just in case.... Sandisk have among their range of CF cards two models named Extreme III and Extreme IV. At some point in their life cycle Sandisk upgraded the transfer speeds on the cards, so in essence there are two cards currently available in shops. The newer faster cards have 30MB/s and 45MB/s on the label, respectively.


Anyway.... The tests (and in no way was this controlled under lab conditions) which I conducted a couple of days ago.

The equipment:

• Canon 40D + battery grip (flashed with the latest firmware as of April 2009).
  
• Sigma 150mm macro lens

Settings

• Shutter 1/8000,
  
• Aperture f2.8,
  
• ISO100,
  
• drive in high burst mode.
  
• I shot at a dark wall, the image was fairly black without an detail.
  
• Focus was set to manual.

I timed it from when the 6.5fps burst mode had stopped to when the red light went out. I repeated this 3 times for each card and took an average.


Results:

• Dane-Elec 2GB (??MB/s) = 52sec
  
• Sandisk Extreme III 4GB (30MB/s) = 15sec
  
• Lexar Premium 80X 2GB (12MB/s) = 17sec
• Sandisk Extreme IV (45MB/s) = 30sec

What this basically shows is that the slower Lexar card transfers data at more less the same speed as my Sandisk. Of course this only applies to my camera, the Canon 40D.

I've just ordered two 4GB Kingston Elite Pro cards 133X (12MB/s) which I purchased for £8 each on clearance price, which I'll be testing when I get my hands on them.

So it seems like I don't really need to spend more on a card that doesn't make a difference.

EDIT
Ok so I've been thinking about why there's a difference in speed between faster cards, even though only slight. The only thing I can think of is the bus on the CF card. [Here's where I try and remember to my system architechture lectures from about 10years ago]. If the card can handle a throughput higher than the camera, then the camera will carry on sending the data while the cards bus keeps taking in and processing it.

For example if you have a thin pipe which then widens for a section before it connects to a tank. Water will carry on streaming into the wider section leaving while at the same time pouring into the tank. I'll investigate this further, but if there's anyone out there that can correct me or add more information then please do.

As you can see in the table above the Sandisk Extreme IV seems to be half the speed as th Extreme III, not really sure what's going on with that.

Flickr Gallery update

Ok, so I've found a Flickr widget that lets me RSS my gallery for latest photos. Although I want it to randomly show my photos from my photo stream with a black background. Am I asking for too much? There doesn't seem to be any CSS for me to alter and I the html doesn't give me much to do either.

My Flickr Gallery

Ok so I've been trying to figure out how to show my Flickr gallery on my blog. I tried a couple gadgets from the Blogger list, most of them didn't seem to work or were general links to Flickr, not my gallery.

So I've found this one, as you can see at the bottom of the page. It's not quite what I'm after, as all I want to do is stream my photo's along the bottom of the blog, and not show my whole account. If anyone out there know's how to do it, please let me know.

Here goes...

Well it's Wednesday night and I've decided to create a blog for all things photography. I'm not exactly sure what I'll be posting here, but most likely photo's I've taken and general rants about my photography experiences.

Here goes....