HDR Done Naturally
March 21st, 2013
(article first published in Outdoor Photographer Magazine, December 2009)
Dream Lake, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. This was a once-in-a-lifetime shot, and I knew I had only one chance to get it right. I was set up to record the reflection and play of light when this bull elk wandered into the scene. I quickly recomposed and set my exposure for the shadowed area along the shore of the lake. I used a three-stop (hard) grad ND filter to hold back the exposure on the sky and brightly illuminated mountain. I was able to pull off three shots before the elk wandered off. Nikon D300, Nikkor 12-24mm, RAW capture at ISO 200
If you want to spark up a heated debate amongst a group of nature photographers these days, all you need to do is mention HDR. I guarantee you’ll hear every opinion under the sun, from those who feel it’s the only way to truly capture all the detail in a scene to those who place it right up there with getting a root canal. The truth of the matter is that HDR photography has been around a lot longer than most of us even realize.
Think about it! The use of grad ND filters has been a popular means of reducing the contrast in a scene for a very long time, and they’ve been widely used by almost all professional and amateur nature and landscape photographers. Even before that, the use of masking in the darkroom was an essential technique of the great masters like Adams, Weston and Cole for achieving a greater dynamic range in their exhibition and gallery prints. Things have changed quite a bit in the past 10 years with the advent of digital capture, but all we’re really dealing with here is a new set of tools and techniques that allows us as photographers and artists to achieve our final vision in the form of a well-crafted photograph.
As a professional nature and landscape photographer, I look at all of the techniques and methods as tools in my arsenal that allow me to fully realize and express my photographic vision. Whether it’s using a grad ND filter, fill-flash or bracketing exposures to combine later in the digital darkroom, I try to match each tool or technique to the scene in front of me to achieve the very best result.
HDR has come to be associated with a particular look in the past few years, a strange hyperrealistic look that’s the result of a process called tone mapping. Many nature photographers find that hyperrealistic look to be objectionable and “comic-bookish,” and because of that, you might have been turned off from the whole notion of creating an HDR image in the computer. In this article, however, we’ll explore much more subtle HDR processing, and the resulting images show detail that’s more along the lines of the range of tones our eyes can take in without looking freakish. Here are a few of my go-to techniques for taming the light.
Shays Run, Blackwater Falls State Park, West Virginia. In order to record a very long exposure for the swirling leaves without losing all the detail in the flowing water, I needed to shoot two images. The first was made with a Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo to drag out a 15-second exposure for the swirls, and a second exposure, without the filter at one second to retain detail and texture in the waterfall. The two images were combined in Photoshop CS4 using layers and masks. Nikon D300, Nikkor 12-24mm, RAW capture at ISO 100
This probably will seem obvious to many photographers, but over the course of five years running location workshops, I’ve encountered many photographers who don’t shoot or understand the benefit of capturing images in the RAW format. The tremendous amount of information contained in a RAW file still blows my mind to this day! I’ve photographed many scenes in the past four years since switching to digital capture for which it would have been impossible to retain highlight and shadow detail in a single exposure on transparency film.
The key to shooting in RAW is to check your histogram often and expose to the right (toward highlights). It’s not reliable to look at the image on the LCD for confirmation as to whether you nailed the exposure, and often shooting to the right will produce an image that seems to be too bright and washed out. That’s okay! We can use the Adobe Camera Raw converter in Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or any other program that allows for RAW conversions to bring back the contrast, saturation and drama of the image. By exposing to the right, without clipping highlights, you can retain a tremendous amount of midtone and shadow detail in the image without the risk of introducing unwanted noise or grain when processing your shots.
Mountain ridges and fog illuminated at twilight, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. A single RAW exposure was all I needed to hold detail in the highlights while exposing for the shadows in this image. TheRAW file was processed with Adobe Camera Raw to hold detail in the highlights and shadows.
Using The RAW Converter
Once I get my images into the computer, I usually choose two shots, one for shadow detail and another for highlight detail. I open up both images in the Adobe Camera Raw converter and apply specific adjustments for each one, including white balance, recovery, fill, curves, tonal adjustments and saturation.
Once I’ve finished tweaking each image in the RAW converter, I open them up together in Photoshop. The first step in my workflow is to grab the darker shot and Select All, then Copy and Paste that image onto the lighter version. This creates a duplicate layer, and you have the option of blending the two images together. I usually use a Channels selection (blue works great for sunrises and sunsets) and apply a mask to the layer. This requires you to grab the paintbrush and tweak the opacity of certain regions of the mask until the blend is seamless. Another way to do this is to add a mask to the layer and simply use the paintbrush at different opacities to reveal the background (lighter) image below. If you’re working with Adobe Photoshop CS4, you should use the Mask Tool Box to properly feather the blend. For photographers without CS4, you can select the mask and go to Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur to feather the mask for a more seamless blend.
I know this sounds complicated, and at first it can be a challenge to learn, but once you’ve mastered the art of blending images, you won’t look back. It will allow you to create more realistic HDR images of the natural world.
More information on exposure blending here on the blog - http://www.josephrossbach.com/taming-light-art-technique-exposure-blending/










Great post! The photoshop method is the best way to produce realistic HDR photos. However, I have found that it is very possible to produce realistic results similar to photoshop while using a tone mapping program like photomatix. I started trying my hand at HDR this winter and I will admit I was never a fan of the look but after seeing some realistic looking shots (including yours), i decided to give it a try. I learned two things. 1. It is very easy for someone, even people who dont like the HDR look, to get sucked into that hyper realistic look. Its that initial “wow” factor when you start clicking through presets or tweaking sliders. And I think that is why MOST HDR gets a bad rap. Its similar to mistakes most non photographers or very new amateurs make while processing their images, namely over saturation or just plain over cooking a photo. And 2. If you use the tone mapping program with a “soft touch” and keep realism in mind, you can produce an outstanding, realistic starting point for you photo. I dont tweak much in photomatix and I never touch my saturation sliders in the program. I also take the time to adjust the “lighting” slider to something realistic to how the light actually fell on the scene (leaving shadows as shadows, and brighter areas bright). I was looking at some of my photos recently and was beginning to worry that I might have been going too far so I did an experiment. I started processing my hdrs the way you mentioned and through photomatix (ihave alot of time on my hands lol) and what I found is that not only were my photomatix versions the same, alot of the time they were slightly better looking and took a fraction of the time to ptoduce. That said, sometimes its close to impossible to make an hdr look good. as you said, some scenes just dont warrant it. Beach scenes in particular dont take HDR well IMO. I will always grab my grad ND in that situation. that said, if i have time to shoot a landscape I will always follow the same process. first is a straight shot to determine my proper exposure (which I 99% of the time will end up -2/3 EV or alittle more). Then I use a grad ND single shot. If i feel I need to bring the sky down more I will stack grad ND filters. finally, i bracket my exposures. If time is an issue, I bracket everything. At home, while my HDR is “cooking” i’ll process my single click shots in light room and determine which I like better. If i like the HDR better I stick with that or if its single click, then I continue to fine tune those. And one other techique I rarely hear people say they use is layering and blending multiple HDR shots or using their raw files in conjuction with their tonemapped photo. I’ve had scenes where no matter what I do in photomatix, I cant get the whole photo to look right. For example on a photo of mine, the sky and waterfall and rocks looked great, however the treeline just didnt look right. It looked too over cooked. So, what I do is process a second HDR image just for the tree line (in this scenario) and will layer and blend them together to get the result I am after. Or sometimes I will take my HDR and my raw exposures and blend in the raws to areas i feel need to be brought back to reality. Anyway, sorry for the long post. I love having discussions about photography. Keep up the good work!
Steve,
I agree completely. All of my exposure blends are done in Photoshop. Although I must say that nowadays with the increase in dynamic range that modern DSLR’s record, I often times don’t have to blend exposures at all. At any rate, thanks for stopping by and leaving such a thoughtful comment on the post.
Cheers,
Joe