HDR photos

  • Thread starter doogle510
  • 1,297 comments
  • 185,052 views
@ wonderpill : Yes, please, show us some examples. I hear what you're saying but your comments could be construed as condescending and arrogant in a 60 page thread filled with GTPers HDR experiments. I don't know how many pro graphic artists are posting in here, nor did I think that was the point of the OP.
If you've got some insight, please share.
 
I gotta take some first... I just picked the game back up... along with a new PS3... so I only have a handful of cars, and I don't have my favorite locations unlocked yet.

I will attempt to make some in the next few hours.

EDIT: Ok I just did an 11 shot HDR... which for some reason GT5 doesn't allow over EV 1.0 to register... so I had redundant photos.

Here is an HDR ART style:<BR>
artsy by -MARS- Photography, on Flickr

and here is a TRUE HDR style:<BR>
traditional by -MARS- Photography, on Flickr

Obviously this is not the best example of HDR, but now I realize the issues that you guys are running into, but I still can see the detail in the shadows... Like the grill pieces, and small things that are hidden at a good normal exposure when it is a solitary image.

I will make a few more to see if this is because of my redundant images.
 
Last edited:
@ wonderpill - Ok, so now that you've attempted some you may have realized the graphical limitations present. I definitely think your second Charger shot fits the bill as the usual HDR "look". The problem is graphical glitches. Feel free to have a look at my gallery - it's actually a good example of my own learning curve with HDR in GT5. I started out trying to do more dynamic shots but hit a plateau with glitches and loss of detail so now I go more for subtlety. It's all subjective, of course, and depends as well which software you have at your disposal. For example, though I like the second Charger shot and Ferrari, I personally don't like the look of the SSR. Too... fake? Too... overdone? Kind of like something you'd see painted on black velvet.
 
@ wonderpill - Ok, so now that you've attempted some you may have realized the graphical limitations present.
(...)
I personally don't like the look of the SSR. Too... fake? Too... overdone? Kind of like something you'd see painted on black velvet.

You're my man, man :D
 
its actually VERY mild... the colors are like that on the truck, because that is the color of the truck...

What I was really trying to show is the DETAIL that HDR pronounces... The Bowtie and the Chevrolet chrome badge, are visible... which is the point of the photo... I could have easily toned down the color, but I wanted to see how it would turn out.

Personally, I think both the SSR and the photo are ugly as sin... I was basically trying to gauge my audience... and you guys have some class at least from what I can tell from your reaction.

I am never gonna jump on anyones back over a photo comment... Negative feedback keeps us right in the head... if I were just starting out, and you guys were like "THUMBS UP" I would probably not try to make adjustments...

Just my stance on the whole thing.

As far as limits go, its very sad to find out, after 12 minutes of waiting on the LE MANS track, that the EV won't adjust more than 1.0 stop, is devastating. I wish someone would make a game where photography had some attention to detail.

For the most part, GT and Forza both have DECENT photo modes, but they really need something groundbreaking.

[EDIT} I am sure with a better choice of location, a better vehicle and the right choice of tires, the same setting I used on the SSR would have been closer to TRUE than ART.

[EDIT #2} I have quite a great deal of photo editing software at my disposal as well, Photoshop CS6, Lightroom 4, Photomatix 4.1, and a slew of other stuff that I DON'T use. What I am curious about, is how many exposures are most peoples shots, I seem to just do as many 1 stop exposures as are noticeable, to prevent the tacky colorshifting, but for the most part I find that 3 shots at 2,0,-2 are sufficient enough to make a GREAT HDR.
 
Last edited:
Lightroom is great for post hdr processing, I've seen amazing results when done right 👍 If anyone doesn't have it and want's a freeware I'd suggest trying photoscape, it has some decent tools, backlight, bloom etc etc.
 
My 1st tries

7091377359_3d04cd2977_z.jpg


6945332698_2e72742486_z.jpg
 
First attempt

7363258898_75b11ddc95_z.jpg


Round 2

7363507184_d3594c9629_z.jpg


Original Exposure

7363507266_81b85312f8_z.jpg


I feel like the light is overtaking the darks in both of these photos though. Do I need to add more shots at lower exposures to combat this? Or just use environments that are "darker"?
 
Last edited:
I feel like the light is overtaking the darks in both of these photos though. Do I need to add more shots at lower exposures to combat this? Or just use environments that are "darker"?

The main use of HDR is for HIGH CONTRAST situations. HDR does NOT work in all situations... human portraits for example, are considered UGLY, or gritty, because it shows EVERY detail... generally speaking, the average woman spends over half her life hiding blemishes... a simple HDR photo could ruin her self image.

Back to the case in point, High Contrast, is the difference in values, of luminance something you view has. The human eye is only capable of viewing a certain range of contrast at once... Simply think of the night sky... If you look directly at the full moon, you will see no stars, because the Moon is in the HIGH END of the white spectrum, causing your eyes to see black surrounding it.

In the same manner, your eyes adjust to a sky with no moon, allowing you to see details that you just couldn't see before, by removing the higher end of the light range.

If you were to take a snap shot of the moon that you were staring at, and then remove it, and take another snapshot, this would be the exact same way you create an HDR image.

Typically, when prepping for an HDR image, you want to know that there is an area that is too bright to see detail AND an are that is to dark to see detail... but for the best images, you also want an area that is naturally lit in good detail, in the middle.

These are your 3 images... Named (-2, 0, +2) in EV terms, this is enough Evaluative Light difference to create a STARK HDR.

From this point, its all about the tonemapping... and there is nothing anyone can tell you that applies to every image, aside from the fact that you should always create a custom preset if an image turns out GREAT, after you spend 40 minutes dialing it in.

So, to shorten the story, if you have the time, adjust your exposure to the MAX and the minimum, to see what details will magically appear in the photo, and don't worry too much about your Darkest shot, just make sure it has some detail... concentrate on Flares in your brightest shot, and try to eliminate them as much as possible, while still keeping it bright enough to capture the details in the shadows.
 
I also made an HDR tutorial quite a while back... but its on the website for that OTHER Racing Game... on the OTHER system... if you want the link, just Holla.
 
The main use of HDR is for HIGH CONTRAST situations. HDR does NOT work in all situations... human portraits for example, are considered UGLY, or gritty, because it shows EVERY detail... generally speaking, the average woman spends over half her life hiding blemishes... a simple HDR photo could ruin her self image.

Back to the case in point, High Contrast, is the difference in values, of luminance something you view has. The human eye is only capable of viewing a certain range of contrast at once... Simply think of the night sky... If you look directly at the full moon, you will see no stars, because the Moon is in the HIGH END of the white spectrum, causing your eyes to see black surrounding it.

In the same manner, your eyes adjust to a sky with no moon, allowing you to see details that you just couldn't see before, by removing the higher end of the light range.

If you were to take a snap shot of the moon that you were staring at, and then remove it, and take another snapshot, this would be the exact same way you create an HDR image.

Typically, when prepping for an HDR image, you want to know that there is an area that is too bright to see detail AND an are that is to dark to see detail... but for the best images, you also want an area that is naturally lit in good detail, in the middle.

These are your 3 images... Named (-2, 0, +2) in EV terms, this is enough Evaluative Light difference to create a STARK HDR.

From this point, its all about the tonemapping... and there is nothing anyone can tell you that applies to every image, aside from the fact that you should always create a custom preset if an image turns out GREAT, after you spend 40 minutes dialing it in.

So, to shorten the story, if you have the time, adjust your exposure to the MAX and the minimum, to see what details will magically appear in the photo, and don't worry too much about your Darkest shot, just make sure it has some detail... concentrate on Flares in your brightest shot, and try to eliminate them as much as possible, while still keeping it bright enough to capture the details in the shadows.


Thanks, I have know what HDR is from trying them from real life photography but your explanation helps none the less. Your example of the moon is probably one of the better ones I have herd to explain though.
 
^ those are difficult because the people move and cause ghosting, but if you took 1 pic and made 3 exposures with photoshop or any program it would look fine
 
here and there I see people use 5 exposures how much exposure are these and what are the advantages to using 5 exposures

might be 6 I'm not 100% sure
 
here and there I see people use 5 exposures how much exposure are these and what are the advantages to using 5 exposures

might be 6 I'm not 100% sure

Using extra Exposures, definitely adds depth to the photo. though 3 photos space correctly will give you a decent HDR... having extra shots, allows for more control when tonemapping, because there is extra data that the program has to pull from.

Sometimes, with a 3 photo hdr, you get some wicked noise in the shadows, as well as some color shifting in the same spots.

When you add an extra 2 frames, you are technically doubling the quality of the photo, if you add 4 more, it will improve it slightly more, from there you would have to add 8 more exposures to see any improvement, and then again at 16. the difference once you hit a 9 exposure HDR vs a 17 exposure are so minimal, you rarely see it done, mainly due to the level of detail that can be captured by a standard digital camera.

The minimum acceptable range for HDR, in my opinion, is 12megapixels, while you can still create some neat stuff with 6-10mpx, the level of noise that tonemapping the images creates, is unacceptable in my opinion.

This should let you know what to expect from HDR-ing a photo set in a video game, especially ones that only export Jpegs, which are so ridiculously compressed, you might as well take a picture of your tv with a camera.
 
What do you use? Do you use photomatix? Just play around with settings until you get what you like, that's what I normally do
 
Back