HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography - post your HDR

[valdore]

HDR on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging)

High dynamic range imaging is the process of merging three or more differently exposed but otherwise identical photos into one, which increases the Dynamic Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range) of the photo, bringing to light an often dramatic tonal range in the photo.

The two primary types of HDR are:

1) Bracketing usually three or more differently exposed but otherwise identical photos from the camera, either by setting the auto bracketing function on your SLR camera or manually adjusting the shutter speed. A tripod and a shutter trigger are often required for this.

Advantages: The more exposures captured straight from the camera give you and your HDR editing software more data to work with, helping to make a superior photo.

Disadvantages: Doesn't work well when there are moving objects in the composition. Moving people, animals, cars, traffic lights changing color, et cetera.

2) HDR from one RAW file - make sure your SLR camera is in RAW mode, capture the best mid-range exposure you can, and then use software such as Photoshop, Aperture, or Lightroom to assign different exposure compensations to the photo, such as 0 (original mid-range shot), +2 (overexposed), and -2 (underexposed). After exporting these three versions of the same photo, you are ready to take them into your HDR editing software.

Advantages: Works just fine with moving objects, and when you do not have a tripod on hand.

Disadvantages: Sometimes there is not enough data in a single photo capture to make a good HDR image. If there are any very darkly lit areas of the photo, there will be an unacceptable amount of noise.


And now for the HDR editing software that will be required:

The two primary HDR editors out there are Adobe Photoshop (CS2, CS3) or Photomatix Pro (www.hdrsoft.com).

Photoshop> File> Automate> Merge to HDR

or

Photomatix Pro > HDR >Generate>Browse>Select>OK, then HDR>Tone mapping.

In my opinion, Photomatix Pro (demo available, $99 to purchase) is superior to the HDR function in Photoshop, allowing for far more creative control.
_______________

Other thoughts - for HDR, make sure your ISO setting is as low as possible. 100 is a good place to start. HDR tends to bring out noise you didn't even know was there even at low ISOs, therefore a good noise filter program/plugin is helpful too, along with shooting at the lowest ISO you can get away with. ISO 800 or 1600? Forget about it.

A great, in depth HDR tutorial on the web: Pete Carr's HDR Guide (http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/)

And now: Examples:

HDR from six source images, tripod mounted, adjusting shutter speed for each...
http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/15997-2/IMG_0339_40_41_42_43_44_A+copy.jpg

Seven source images..
http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/15792-1/IMG_0466_67_68_69_70_71_72+copy.jpg


From one RAW:

http://www.valdorephoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/plazastreetscape.jpg

http://www.valdorephoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/plazalightssunset.jpg

It is arguable that cityscape photography is perhaps the greatest use for HDR, and since so much of what I shoot are cityscapes, I've spent lots of time working with HDR. But it definitely has uses for interior photography and even portraiture, for both artistic and practical uses.

Have fun and post your creations for us.

[Grimace]

thanks Valdore! great idea! :p

What time of day do you shoot your cityscapes?

[Phatpat]

Very timely, as today I tried out HDR for the first time. I used photomatix pro, and haven't bought it yet, so excuse the watermarks. Super easy, but I don't know if it's worth the money yet

I didn't realize Photoshop could do it. The fact that photomatix had a photoshop plugin made me think it couldn't, but now it makes more sense why the plug in is just tone mapping. I might give that a shot too.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2263/2113039899_fb0b67f0a6.jpg
(http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/2113039899/)

[Doylem]

HDR is very useful for shooting interiors. I don't have any lighting set-up, and the dynamic range of a pic like this extends from gloomy corners to the light through the windows. Without HDR I'd be able to get the highlights right, or the shadowed areas... but not both.

For any Quakers out there, this is Swarthmoor Hall, near ulverston, home of George Fox...

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8639/swarthmoorhall2dv6.jpg

[Daringescape]

I just posted this pic in the photo of the day thread, but I will post it here as well. I shot it last night and really like how it turned out.

my living room - 5 exposures, canon rebel xti, 18-55 kit lens

[JNB]

Wow! Amazing shots, the cityscapes look like paintings! Something else to take up my time trying...

Waiting on my 1250x90mm scope, gonna try my hand at beginning astrophotography and take advantage of the reach for terrestrial stuff, too.

Thankfully, all I need the wife to say is, "oh, what pretty pictures of the kitties," and I'm god for another hardware/software expenditure.

[Phatpat]

Anyone know any good Photoshop HDR guides? This one (http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html) is pretty good, but leaves out all the details on toning.

[dllavaneras]

And now: Examples:

<super awesome pics>


Come on, you're scaring us newbies away with those super cool pics! :p

Anyways, I just got a RAW capable camera, so I practiced with HDR for a few minutes. Nothing spectacular, but it's still an improvement over the original!

http://www.graphicshost.net/files/epitope/eiggyq0x114w53u.jpg

I know, blown out highlights, and probably not the best subject for HDR. But hey, it's my first! :)

[SolracSelbor]

Here are some of mine:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2225/2111821412_47a0a6a50e_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2007/2111039203_5ac47dfd91_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2187/2111035399_b78bc16195_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2319/2111810552_78c2fe166c_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/2111028715_088db036ac_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2276/2110719747_13d480e237_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2050/2113305583_44a32f9a03_o.jpg

[QuarterSwede]

Wow! Amazing shots, the cityscapes look like paintings!
I was thinking they look CG. Pretty incredible shots.

[desenso]

I just posted this pic in the photo of the day thread, but I will post it here as well. I shot it last night and really like how it turned out.

my living room - 5 exposures, canon rebel xti, 18-55 kit lens

Hope you're making a christmas card out of it!

[jsfpa]

Here are a couple of mine.

[dabirdwell]

One of my partners at work does HDR. We are both into photography, but I do more macro and nature work, plus the product photography for our company and a little freelance wedding etc. He's a real processing genius (our CTO and lead programmer) and works almost exclusively in HDR nowadays.

He just got a D300 and has some stuff here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhythmandcode/

Seems like the photo circles at Flickr like his stuff...


P.S. make sure to check out the HDR panos from Amsterdam. Awesome!

[Chris14]

This is aimed at anyone who can help...
Okay, so I have been fiddling with HDR and Photomatix Pro, but can't seem to get any thing near the results of Valdore :confused:

Here are my three source images:

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/35063/2000699212882380452_rs.jpg
http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/38125/2000642042411763501_rs.jpg
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/36865/2000612014592124117_rs.jpg

But every time I try to make turn them into HDR with Photomatix they look awful. I try to fiddle around with the Tone Mapping but it results in ugly images, Eg. Over saturated and the clouds are ruined. Anyone want to give it a go and see if they can get good results? Are my source images the problem or am I not using Photomatix correctly?

[Cooknn]

Have fun and post your creations for us.Dude, your stuff is freaking amazing.

Here's a pano I shot recently. I usually shoot 4 sets of exposures and use layer masks in Ps to bring them together.

[valdore]

This is turning out to be a very interesting topic...


thanks Valdore! great idea! :p

What time of day do you shoot your cityscapes?

For HDR I often prefer sunrise and sunset. Though I've found uses for the technique at all hours of the day and night. :)

This is aimed at anyone who can help...
Okay, so I have been fiddling with HDR and Photomatix Pro, but can't seem to get any thing near the results of Valdore :confused:

Here are my three source images:
snip...

But every time I try to make turn them into HDR with Photomatix they look awful. I try to fiddle around with the Tone Mapping but it results in ugly images, Eg. Over saturated and the clouds are ruined. Anyone want to give it a go and see if they can get good results? Are my source images the problem or am I not using Photomatix correctly?

I borrowed your source images...

http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/17009-2/_0And2more.jpg

Here are the settings in Photomatix...

http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/17011-2/hdr.jpg


Dude, your stuff is freaking amazing.


Thanks! I'm flattered. I'm also enjoying seeing all these HDRs from everyone.

[marclapierre13]

I just posted this pic in the photo of the day thread, but I will post it here as well. I shot it last night and really like how it turned out.

my living room - 5 exposures, canon rebel xti, 18-55 kit lens

ooOoOo, looks so inviting!
Egg nog at your place ???;)

[marclapierre13]

You can also make a single image HDR from a JPEG right? I guess it wouldnt have as much detail as a RAW though, but it would still work.

1 JPEG image HDR.

[Chris14]

Thanks for the help Valdore, I guess it is really just about trial and error in the Tone Mapping department anyway. That still looks better than anything I could make. I will keep on at it... Thanks again!

[onomatopoeia]

Here are a few of mine (all are from at least 3 RAWs):

B&W HDR:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/1031113801_394689462f.jpg

The prototypical "clouds look cool in HDR" shot:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/498859527_26e82a0987.jpg

One of my over-the-top liberal uses of the HDR effect:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/218/495805203_f0dde48249.jpg

This one didn't need much HDR processing but it did help give the image a little added punch. IMO, HDR is best done when its effect is subtle. It's harder to do but true tone HDR looks much better.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1047/1030060056_82906913f2.jpg

[pdpfilms]

eh. does anyone else think these images look like videogames? Not that there's anything wrong with videogames, but they just seem so unnatural to me. And muddy.

I don't mean to bash the style, but I thought I'd share my opinion.

[valdore]

Those are fantastic.

BTW, you say that was over the top HDR on that interior photo, but I think it looks just right.

[Martin C]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2330/1598745570_fb849b7d52_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2014/1680738015_b1cf549af9_b.jpg

[Airforce]

eh. does anyone else think these images look like videogames?

I thought the same thing on some of the images posted....

[marclapierre13]

eh. does anyone else think these images look like videogames? Not that there's anything wrong with videogames, but they just seem so unnatural to me. And muddy.

I don't mean to bash the style, but I thought I'd share my opinion.

I disagree. I, like others, like the subtle HDR shots most. Although I do love seeing a really good over the top HDR photo like Valdores. Its neat. Some photos after HDR look not all that different than the originals... my HDR that I posted is almost identical, with just a little more brightness and colour, and it evened the light a bit, like Doylem said about his indoor HDR shot.

[Dagless]

Maybe it's just me but HDR shots (especially in this thread) look like shots from a computer game. What with everything in a picture being visible and the contrast.

I gave HDR a go once using Photoshop and my EOS 350D but with no luck. I'll have to give it another go in the morning. Thanks OP!

[ab2650]

I thought I'd add one of my HDR shots too. Nikon D200, 9 shots handheld at 18mm. Shot overlooking Moonlight beach, Encinitas, CA.

[irishgrizzly]

Maybe it's just me but HDR shots (especially in this thread) look like shots from a computer game. What with everything in a picture being visible and the contrast.

I gave HDR a go once using Photoshop and my EOS 350D but with no luck. I'll have to give it another go in the morning. Thanks OP!

Yeah, IMHO I find 99% of HDR shots are ugly – like someone has been pissing about in PS for too long. I find it distracts from any beauty in the original shot. Don't kill me :eek:

[Daringescape]

Hope you're making a christmas card out of it!

our Chistmas card pic is this one (also HDR) - Just our boys. But thanks for the compliment!

[Martin C]

Is this thread for posting HDR images, or repeating the opinion that HDRs are ugly over and over?

[SolracSelbor]

Yeah, IMHO I find 99% of HDR shots are ugly – like someone has been pissing about in PS for too long. I find it distracts from any beauty in the original shot. Don't kill me :eek:

lol, I personally love HDR it makes pictures look so much better.

[Kamera RAWr]

lol, I personally love HDR it makes pictures look so much better.

Depends on what your going for, I suppose :o

[marclapierre13]

Depends on what your going for, I suppose :o

and on the picture.

I think people should **** about debating whether or no HDRs are nice. If you dont like them, move your butt to the daily photo thread. Dont bring your hate here.
Expand you horizons. Thats why i like HDR...its different.

[Kamera RAWr]

and on the picture.

I think people should **** about debating whether or no HDRs are nice. If you dont like them, move your butt to the daily photo thread. Dont bring your hate here.
Expand you horizons. Thats why i like HDR...its different.

You need to relax, I never said anything about HDR being bad, wrong, ugly or any other negative words. Just sorta stating in my way that in my opinion HDR doesn't always make a photo better. That said, I love HDR. Its very creative and cool, just doesn't work for every photo. Relax :D

Edit: Since the post below me clears things up, I guess I didn't have to say all that :p. Just thought since I was quoted I was being targeted as well ;)

[marclapierre13]

You need to relax, I never said anything about HDR being bad, wrong, ugly or any other negative words. Just sorta stating in my way that in my opinion HDR doesn't always make a photo better. That said, I love HDR. Its very creative and cool, just doesn't work for every photo. Relax :D

You need to read the rest of the thread. I wasnt targeting that comment at you at all...you werent bashing anything, your comment was completely legit... it does depend on what the person is going for, like apocolyptic, or tropical, warmth, etc. And like I said, it also depends on the original picture (without a decent picture its hard to make it look good no matter what you do)

[Doylem]

“Like” HDR? “Don’t like” HDR?? Erm, I don’t like or dislike this particular photographic technique... any more than I like or dislike grey grad filters, or polarisers, or any other tool in the photographic box. For some subjects (cityscapes, interiors, sunsets, etc...) HDR is very useful, no doubt about it.

My probem isn’t with HDR... it’s HDR used badly or inappropriately. By ‘badly’, I mean the effect is too strong, too strident, too apocalyptic: as folk have noted, too much like a still from a computer game. By ‘inappropriately’, I mean used on pictures in a way that makes them look worse, not better!

The basic techniques of HDR don’t seem too hard to grasp. The hard bit is creating satisfying pictures that don’t just rely on ‘shock value’. One of the worst uses of HDR is to ‘spice up’ a dull picture, ‘cos it will still just be a dull picture. It would be like bolting fins and spoilers on a Trabant...

I like to see good photographs, with subtlety... not photographs that ‘scream’ HDR. Viewing a few dozen ‘over-cooked’ HDR pictures is like eating a whole box of chocolates; you can end up feeling rather queasy...

In this shot I was trying to keep colour in the sky AND detail in the wooden hull of this boat. I’ll keep experimenting with HDR – when it seems appropriate – but I feel I’ve got a lot to learn. I want pictures to look good... but also as natural as possible. I expect, too, that the software will improve (I use Photomatix), to address some of the drawbacks.


http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/69/waterheadsunsetlt4.jpg

[valdore]

Doylem... excellent post and photo. I agree 100%. HDR adds to the photographer's repertoire. And I really like that photo too; I'd say you're picking up HDR pretty fast...

I kind of feel like throwing these two into the fray for comparison/contrasting reasons --

Both are HDR from a single RAW

Exhibit A - a rather mild and conservative HDR; didn't go wild in the tone mapping process:

http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/13273-1/IMG_4409+copy.jpg

Exhibit B - I went wild and mad with this one; HDR'd and tone mapped the holy hell out of it as much as I possibly could:

http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/16678-1/IMG_3141+copy.jpg

I'm just sayin'...

[Martin C]

I like the effect that the sky gained when you went crazy on the tone mapping sliders.

[Lau]

One of my over-the-top liberal uses of the HDR effect:

I absolutely love this. What were the original shots like?

[termina3]

Hopefully this won't get me burned at the stake…

Does anyone feel like HDR is a little bit of cheating? I think it's a great effect, and produces some really great results, but IMO if you can't capture the scene in one exposure, using a program to correct for this incapability (usually of the equipment, not the photographer) is just wrong.

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom–so if there was some way to do HDR in a darkroom, it's photography straight up; otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.

[valdore]

...otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.

Actually, that's one of the reasons I'm such a proponent. Photography should be art.

[Blue Velvet]

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom–so if there was some way to do HDR in a darkroom, it's photography straight up; otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.


There's no reason why you couldn't bracket your negs and trannies and carefully work with your prints in a darkroom in a similar manner using mask, dodging and burning. Time-consuming, fiddly... sure. But possible.

Seems to me that this technique is attempting to compensate for possibly-lower latitudes in digital photography than some of the best film stocks.

But forgive me if I'm wrong, most of my photographic experience is darkroom-based and I haven't bought myself a DSLR yet. Maybe next year.

[termina3]

There's no reason why you couldn't bracket your negs and trannies and carefully work with your prints in a darkroom in a similar manner using mask, dodging and burning. Time-consuming, fiddly... sure. But possible.

I don't think that would produce the same effect as HDR without hours upon hours of darkroom work and multiple attempts, which is just unreasonable–and doesn't fit my designation of "darkroomable". Oh well, maybe I'm just too much of a stickler.

[Grimace]

HDR is just like any other post-processing. It takes very specific editing components and goes to town. It is art and an expression of the shooter's creativity.

That said, as the person who floated the idea for this thread, this is NOT the place for debating the merits or HDR. Create your own thread for that. This is for those who have experience shooting and creating this fantastic images -- and for those who are looking to better craft the technique.

The submissions, comments, FAQ links, etc. have all been extraordinarily helpful. Keep up the good work!

[Doylem]

I've been a film photographer for many years, and a digital photographer for just one. I like shooting what's 'out there', and take pains to shoot it in the 'right' light... whatever 'right' may be for any particular image. Since I'm a landscape photographer, it's God that supplies the lighting. I can only wait around to catch a play of light; I have no other control over it.

But I can't pretend to be any kind of purist. From the first time I picked up a camera, I shot this... rather than that. I walked a few paces to left or right, to create a more harmonious composition. I cropped something out of a picture if it didn't 'fit'.

I cropped further in the darkroom, and waved my hands about under the enlarger lens in an effort to improve my prints. So while I like to think of myself as a'straight' landscape photographer, that's not strictly true. I don't have any objections to HDR on what you might call 'philosophical' grounds. I just wonder if every picture should look like a nuclear bomb has gone off...

For me, it's about being selective: more thought, less 'whizz bang!'... :)

[jpfisher]

Debate aside, these are what I consider to be my better attempts at HDR --

http://www.downeffect.com/jim/gallery/albums/jim/HDR/IMGP4731_2_3_4.jpg

http://www.downeffect.com/jim/gallery/albums/jim/2007-07-29/No_Parking.jpg

http://www.downeffect.com/jim/gallery/albums/jim/2007-12-02%20-%20Snow/IMGP3443-HDR.jpg

[JNB]

Some of the debate and positions on the value or "purity" of HDR are interesting, if a bit silly. If the photographer's intended vision resulted in an "art print" or "CGI" look, then so be it. It's photographically-based art. Personally, done well, I think they're gorgeous.

Photography isn't about just attempting to capture a perfectly true representation of what the eye sees, and never has been--it's never been able to to this point, and likely won't ever match the capability of the eye and brain. Getting back to its roots, photography is "light drawing," the means or intermediate steps not being subject to rigid definition. The best modern definition I've seen is, "Visual art created using a camera to initially capture one or more still images that serve as the foundation for the final piece." HDR is that, as much as any other method, in-camera or in post, that doesn't necessarily capture or reproduce the "true" image.

For those who promote an extreme purity of image, who among them has never retouched, adjusted, enhanced, cropped, or otherwise altered, in any manner, the camera's original image? Each of those simple, innocent techniques or tools, destroys the perfection is a little way, doesn't it? The only camera that was completely "pure," in that sense, was the Polaroid.

One's tastes should never be confused with authority, and opinion should never be mistaken for fact.

[carlgo]

Hopefully this won't get me burned at the stake…

Does anyone feel like HDR is a little bit of cheating? I think it's a great effect, and produces some really great results, but IMO if you can't capture the scene in one exposure, using a program to correct for this incapability (usually of the equipment, not the photographer) is just wrong.

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom–so if there was some way to do HDR in a darkroom, it's photography straight up; otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.

Back in the day, people did some pretty innovative stuff with papers and chemicals. Over the years different films, papers, chemicals and all were introduced and photographers experimented with them. Some were successful and some weren't. Critics criticized every innovation. And when color became available, well that was considered to be a huge heresy by many traditionalists.

Today, Photoshop and the computerized function of the camera itself is the darkroom. People do all sorts of things with this power, some good and some not. It was always that way and always will be. It doesn't matter that the image came about because of the adherence to 1950's technology or to the latest, it is either good, or it sucks, depending on what you like.

What is art, or not art, is a question that will never be answered. Personally, I have been trying to take an 8X10 HDR contact print of dogs playing poker, but they would rather sniff and run around...

[klymr]

Here are a few of mine. These first three were learning how to do HDR. This is the very first attempt. I've included the original shot, well, a properly exposed shot as I bracketed these and shot 5 different exposures. The other two are playing around with saturation and strength.

[koobcamuk]

Just a couple... still learning (who isn't? ;))

[Doylem]

What is art, or not art, is a question that will never be answered. Personally, I have been trying to take an 8X10 HDR contact print of dogs playing poker, but they would rather sniff and run around...

Yeah, me too. This was the best I could do. Tough job getting these mutts to stay still even for ONE shot, never mind five.

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/7299/dogpokerbackground1024xdb0.jpg

[klymr]

Here is my second attempt at HDR. Again, an original and a few with different settings. My brother pretty much stole the third toned image and had it printed for his wife. He is giving it to her for Christmas.

[klymr]

And here is a few more down the road. In my computers and art class we had to redesign a magazine article, so I decided to do an article from Climbing. I wanted it to have a more erroded or natural feel to it. Granted the HDR shot isn't "natural" I couldn't help but love how much the chalk stands out on just about everything, and the texture of the walls I thought was amazing. This is one of the shots I used in the article. Again, an original and an HDRI.

[Doylem]

A couple of experiments from yesterday: Lake Windermere. 'Standard' HDR: 5 auto-bracketed shots, Photomatix...

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/345/snab2og8.jpg

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/9888/snab1or2.jpg

[klymr]

This is aimed at anyone who can help...
Okay, so I have been fiddling with HDR and Photomatix Pro, but can't seem to get any thing near the results of Valdore :confused:

Here are my three source images:

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/35063/2000699212882380452_rs.jpg
http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/38125/2000642042411763501_rs.jpg
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/36865/2000612014592124117_rs.jpg

But every time I try to make turn them into HDR with Photomatix they look awful. I try to fiddle around with the Tone Mapping but it results in ugly images, Eg. Over saturated and the clouds are ruined. Anyone want to give it a go and see if they can get good results? Are my source images the problem or am I not using Photomatix correctly?


Here is my attempt using your images. I think you need to get something a little more underexposed. Those shots were all fairly bright in the sky area. Very lovely shots and location though. Keep playing with it and you'll get it eventually.

[schreck]

Just a couple... still learning (who isn't? ;))


You don't live in Hiroshima, do you?

[Martin C]

Here's one of my crazier ones...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6981/picture1ez9.png

Empire State Building, New York City
HDR | D40 | 1/500 at ƒ/7.1 | 18 mm | ISO 200

[ntrigue]

This is my first exposure :wink: to HDR! It is brilliant!

I would love to use some of these as my desktop. OP, the cityscapes are unbelievable. Could you please PM me one of your choice at 1920x1020? Thank you!

[miranda.danny]

My first attempt at HDR...Suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated!

I'm Using photomatrix and some help with adjusting the settings would be greatly appreciated...maybe someone could outline the basics of each slider and radio button if they have the time and the know how!

Anyways, klymr all I have to say it wow, what a great shot...your brothers wife is gonna get a sweet piece or artwork! It would probably look awesome in B&W too.

http://dannymiranda.smugmug.com/photos/232509835-L.jpg (http://dannymiranda.smugmug.com/gallery/3857190/3/232509835)

[live4ever]

Anyone have any nice shots with snow?

[valdore]

My first attempt at HDR...Suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated!

I'm Using photomatrix and some help with adjusting the settings would be greatly appreciated...maybe someone could outline the basics of each slider and radio button if they have the time and the know how!

Anyways, klymr all I have to say it wow, what a great shot...your brothers wife is gonna get a sweet piece or artwork! It would probably look awesome in B&W too.

My advice on this would be to drop the Strength slider to maybe 70 or 80, and maybe drop the Luminosity slider to somewhere between 0 and 5; possibly move the Light Smoothing slider up one notch. I say this because of the "halo effect" around the skyscraper, and because the top of the building appears darker than the lower portion. :)

I try to get away with as much as I can in the tone mapper, but quite often, the photo and the software don't always cooperate - and you have to adjust.

[Chris14]

Thanks to you all for your help and examples... esp Valdore and klymr! :)

Without further adieu, I hereby present my first real HDR attempt:
From a single RAW, (so not a TRUE HDR but hey, what can you do)

Before:
http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/35294/2002363327545636644_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002363327545636644)

After:
http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/35202/2002338151970128486_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002338151970128486)

Let me know what you all think.
WooT! I think it turned out quite nicely actually!

Cheers,
Chris

[baby duck monge]

Took a few shots this morning on the way out of the house. Downloaded Photomatrix just to see what all the fuss is about. I'll definitely have to practice to decide if I want to drop the C-note for the full version. Very first attempt, and without any real playing with the settings. What should I do differently (other than not shoot with the sun right above my subject, and not get so many clouds when the wind is blowing hard)?

[onomatopoeia]

Does anyone feel like HDR is a little bit of cheating? I think it's a great effect, and produces some really great results, but IMO if you can't capture the scene in one exposure, using a program to correct for this incapability (usually of the equipment, not the photographer) is just wrong.

A single exposure cannot capture the range of tones found in a proper HDR image. Good HDR's are just like any other photograph: if the composition and technical shot are bad then HDR will not necessarily save things.

You need to combine good shooting technique with good post processing. That's true of any style of photography today.

[marclapierre13]

A single exposure cannot capture the range of tones found in a proper HDR image. Good HDR's are just like any other photograph: if the composition and technical shot are bad then HDR will not necessarily save things.

You need to combine good shooting technique with good post processing. That's true of any style of photography today.

Well said. There is nothing wrong with post processing. Its perfect to really make the colours stand out and also get your desired look.

Dont get started with the "1 image HDR isnt a true HDR" debate. Its just as silly and futile as the HDR isnt real photography debate. They are all perfectly equal IMO, as no matter what you do, you start with a real photo.

[SolracSelbor]

I think the entire argument that HDR is not real photography is a result of photographers sticking to traditional methodology. Lots of people dont like it simply because they dont know how to do it, I'm not saying everyone is like this but I bet a few are.

Photography is an art. Many painters add linseed oil to their painting resulting in a more vibrant outcome with better saturation of color; it's still a painting. Many people take photos and adjust the contrast in post processing; it's still a photo. A flower can be pink, red, orange, black, big, small, nice, or ugly but no matter what, it's still a flower.

It takes skill to take a good photo to serve as a foundation for an HDR image, you need to see it in HDR before you take the shot.

[JNB]

"A rose, by any other name, would still be a weed."
JohnNotBeatle, ca. 1972

[KidneyPi]

I suspect most people who think that HDR is not real photography still think that photography is more of a science than an art. If Ansel Adams were alive today, I think he would be using HDR. Photography is about creating the image that the photographer had in mind when taking the shot. I made creating bold because that is the central point of artistic photography.

[panoz7]

Not exactly HDR but the same idea:

[zakee00]

Amazing photos, everyone. One day I'll invest in a good SLR :o

[jo1970]

This is probably my best attempt at HDR so far

[termina3]

If Ansel Adams were alive today, I think he would be using HDR.

I think we don't have any right to speculate as to a dead man's opinions.

[klymr]

Hopefully this won't get me burned at the stake…

Does anyone feel like HDR is a little bit of cheating? I think it's a great effect, and produces some really great results, but IMO if you can't capture the scene in one exposure, using a program to correct for this incapability (usually of the equipment, not the photographer) is just wrong.

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom–so if there was some way to do HDR in a darkroom, it's photography straight up; otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.

[stake burning]

How is doing HDR work any different than taking a negative into an enlarger and dodging and burning it, using contrast filters, toning them, etc? There is no way to take a digital picture into a darkroom and use traditional darkroom techniques on it. That's what the "digital darkroom" is for. I consider any photo editing program to be a "digital darkroom" personally, whether it be Photoshop, Photomatix, or whatever. That's my personal take on this.

And like has been said before, you cannot capture the amount of detail you can with HDR, even if it's with film. In fact, I remember my photo teacher showing us an image he printed where he had to use many different bracketed negatives perfectly aligned in numerous enlargers in order to get more even lighting in his final print. There were a lot of shadows and washed out areas otherwise.

[/stake burning] :p

[Jeremy!]

I think we don't have any right to speculate as to a dead man's opinions.

Of course we do. To say we don't is just plane silly. Let the dead live on.

Ansel Adams even commented on it already, not HDR per say, but that digital photography would have its own set of issues and techniques (to paraphrase). He discussed and wrote about the zone system as well, a system that had a theoretical dynamic range that exceeded the technology of his day. You really think he would not have at least explored HDR?

Explain why he had zone XI when pure white was X? That alone should tell you HDR would have interested him.

[AndrewMorrell]

here are some of my HDR photos... the exterior photos are a 3-shot composite taken with bracketing at 3 stops, the interior shot taken at 1 stop intervals combining 7 shots:

http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/1.jpg
http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/3.jpg
http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/2.jpg
http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/4.jpg
http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/5.jpg

[Martin C]

http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/3.jpg
I really like this particular image. Nice work.

[Piarco]

I really like this particular image. Nice work.

Agreed - fantastic shot. I'll be trying to trial a little HDR myself over the holidays...

[baby duck monge]

here are some of my HDR photos... the exterior photos are a 3-shot composite taken with bracketing at 3 stops, the interior shot taken at 1 stop intervals combining 7 shots:

I like them all, but I think the way the clouds reflect perfectly and make it look like the building in the final shot is transparent is particularly interesting.

[MortimerJazz]

Wow - love the pictures so far.

Just one quick question: is an SLR camera a must for this? Or would a slightly more compact digital camera be able to do something simliar (although presumably with slightly less quality).

Thanks alot

[Evangelion]

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom

Why? Why should digital photography be limited by technological constraints of the past? Should we also shoot only in black and white, since that is what first cameras did? Why shouldn't we draw the line back there, as opposed to color-pictures in darkrooms?

[klymr]

Wow - love the pictures so far.

Just one quick question: is an SLR camera a must for this? Or would a slightly more compact digital camera be able to do something simliar (although presumably with slightly less quality).

Thanks alot

As long as you can adjust the shutter speed to get at least a full stop or two above and below the proper exposure you should be able to do this. The basic principle here is that it merges all the photos together which pull out a lot more range of colors and details. Give it a shot and see if you like it, that's the best bet.

[AndrewMorrell]

Wow - love the pictures so far.

Just one quick question: is an SLR camera a must for this? Or would a slightly more compact digital camera be able to do something simliar (although presumably with slightly less quality).

Thanks alot

No - any camera that allows you to manually adjust the shutter speed, or that allows you to employ exposure bracketing. BUT, you absolutely need a tripod, and most important, you need software that will allow you to process the photos. I use Photomatix Pro or Photoshop CS3.

[marclapierre13]

I think that everyone should stop talking, and post pictures.(discussing a certain photo that is posted is acceptable of course, as well as questions)
Read the title of this thread - "Post your HDR". Its not "Lets discuss HDR".
No more debating, if you dont like HDR or have different opinions, stay the heck out of this thread...simple.
Now, please, some one start posting more HDRs...

[t-bizzy]

Here's one of my first tries at HDR. This was made from 3 bracketed exposures. I tried not to go overboard on the tonemapping. Any comments or tips are greatly appreciated.

[marclapierre13]

Great shot, i love how you gave it a longer shutter time and the water underneath the ice is blurred, it looks great.

One of mine. Same thing, i didnt over do it on the tone mapping. I liked how it gave the made the snow a little whiter, and the sun stand out a little more than the original.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2117932803_fb0c4bc3bf.jpg
(larger) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2117932803_fb0c4bc3bf_b.jpg

and the original:

[KidneyPi]

Here is a thumbnail my first real attempt. I went out and shot a few pictures with HDR in mind. I included a link to the others. I think this one is the best of the three.

http://lh3.google.com/robertgrimm/R2bVLQhDkpI/AAAAAAAAADk/2zMvTi7-cWA/s144/Photomatix%20Pro%20HDR.jpg (http://picasaweb.google.com/robertgrimm/HDRExperiments/photo#5145034013706261138)
Gallery (http://picasaweb.google.com/robertgrimm/HDRExperiments)

Canon 20D / RAW / 5-6 exposures / F2.8 / 50mm / ISO 100

[Doylem]

I think that everyone should stop talking, and post pictures.(discussing a certain photo that is posted is acceptable of course, as well as questions)
Read the title of this thread - "Post your HDR". Its not "Lets discuss HDR".
No more debating, if you dont like HDR or have different opinions, stay the heck out of this thread...simple.
Now, please, some one start posting more HDRs...

Different opinions... to yours??

[marclapierre13]

Different opinions... to yours??

About any. As I said, this isnt a thread about HDR discussion, it is clearly titled and created to post HDR images.

[valdore]

I think it's okay to discuss different methods for HDR.

Anyway, I actually kind of enjoyed the arguing in this thread, if only because it highlights the silliness of the "purists" who regard photography as a rote science instead of an art form, and regard computing in photography as unethical.

[marclapierre13]

I think it's okay to discuss different methods for HDR.

Anyway, I actually kind of enjoyed the arguing in this thread, if only because it highlights the silliness of the "purists" who regard photography as a rote science instead of an art form, and regard computing in photography as unethical.

I spose. I think if there is to be a discussion, maybe create a thread to discuss HDR. I have heard this discussion many times before and am tired of it, so I was happy when this thread was created just to post the HDR photos. I dont want to see pointless arguing.
IOW, it is fine to discuss it, I just dont think this should be the place for it.

[termina3]

Anyway, I actually kind of enjoyed the arguing in this thread, if only because it highlights the silliness of the "purists" who regard photography as a rote science instead of an art form, and regard computing in photography as unethical.

I get the strange feeling that was directed at me.

Overall in this thread, I feel remarkably beat-up. Everyone is going on and on about how photography is art, art can be anything–but some of these HDRs don't look like photography anymore. They look like a painting. Still art, but they're straying from the trueness of photography into the minds playscape. Yes, that's a relatively purist view, but I'd appreciate some respect and courtesy even if you disagree with me.

Perhaps my opinions derive from what I photograph: sports, landscapes, and some flowers. I see photography as a way to recreate and share something I viewed–not create something new. The science of photography is in recreating that in the exact way you want to–even if it isn't exactly as it appears, the best technical photographer gets exactly what he wants out of his equipment. He doesn't then go back home and make corrections. For me, the art of photography is in the composition: the lighting, the angles, when, where, what's the underlying meaning, et. al.; not the post-production. Post production is merely a tool to correct for my failings as a technical photographer. Others, of course, have a completely different view. That's fine, so long as they appropriately describe their work (i.e. don't call it photography after you've erased a subject or two, put in a new one; call it a derivative work.)

Some of the HDRs above are merely more accurate representations of what the eye sees; others, however, (I'll borrow this:) "look like a nuke went off". Who draws the line between which is OK and which isn't? The viewer. I'll have one line; you'll have another, and there will be multitudes of other variations. As a community we must agree to disagree.

OK, unless further provoked I'll shut up now.

[valdore]

Sorry about that. :) I meant nothing personal.

There is "reason" behind your reason, so you make sense and I can respect that. What doesn't make sense are some of the reactions I've gotten from random people in the past regarding some of my HDRs. It usually goes something like this paraphrasal: "Oh noes!!111 U uzd teh fotoshop!!111 U looze!!111" I've seen that line of reasoning enough times anyway.

What cracks me up is how, there have been two or three times (on boards other than Macrumors) where I posted an HDR straight out of Photomatix, and hadn't even performed any post-Photomatix adjustments. And the response I got was "Uh, could you not Photoshop your pics so much..." or some such similar line of nonsense. Beware anyone who employs the word "Photoshop" as some kind of generalized verb. It is safe at assume they are totally uninformed about digital photography methods, and thus aren't worth paying attention to.

I can see your line of reasoning though since you like to concentrate on sports and so forth. But I think you should give HDR a go for your flowers and landscapes! It can be used for both practical and artistic uses. I think you would find it quite useful for practical enhancements on, say the occasional flower or landscape shots. :)

[koobcamuk]

Feels Christmassy... The CornerHouse:

[Butthead]

Sorry about that. :) I meant nothing personal.

There is "reason" behind your reason, so you make sense and I can respect that. What doesn't make sense are some of the reactions I've gotten from random people in the past regarding some of my HDRs. It usually goes something like this paraphrasal: "Oh noes!!111 U uzd teh fotoshop!!111 U looze!!111" I've seen that line of reasoning enough times anyway.

What cracks me up is how, there have been two or three times (on boards other than Macrumors) where I posted an HDR straight out of Photomatix, and hadn't even performed any post-Photomatix adjustments. And the response I got was "Uh, could you not Photoshop your pics so much..." or some such similar line of nonsense. Beware anyone who employs the word "Photoshop" as some kind of generalized verb. It is safe at assume they are totally uninformed about digital photography methods, and thus aren't worth paying attention to.

I can see your line of reasoning though since you like to concentrate on sports and so forth. But I think you should give HDR a go for your flowers and landscapes! It can be used for both practical and artistic uses. I think you would find it quite useful for practical enhancements on, say the occasional flower or landscape shots. :)

I spose. I think if there is to be a discussion, maybe create a thread to discuss HDR. I have heard this discussion many times before and am tired of it, so I was happy when this thread was created just to post the HDR photos. I dont want to see pointless arguing.
IOW, it is fine to discuss it, I just dont think this should be the place for it.

I think it's okay to discuss different methods for HDR.

Anyway, I actually kind of enjoyed the arguing in this thread, if only because it highlights the silliness of the "purists" who regard photography as a rote science instead of an art form, and regard computing in photography as unethical.

But you highlight your condescending attitude with such a statement, lol. Is Man Ray art, is Ansel Adams art, are they photography? Yes to both answers, just depends on what you like. I prefer HDR used to give a sense of imagery that better approximates what the human eye 'sees' in a scene (even better sometimes if you can get greater DR than the human eye can perceive). This is something the human eye can do, which neither film or digitally images are presently capable of doing...will be moot question, I think, in a decade or two.

I don't care for the 'surrealistic' imagery of valdore's initial group of HDR processed images. Does mean that are terrible (though some people who want only images that look as though how the human eye sees it, will think they look terrible), just one of preferences. I prefer the type of imagery Ansel Adams captured. I hate Ken Rockwell's excessively over-amped contrasty visually 'popping' images...go take a look as these scenes with your eyes, and you know the colors are more subdued. Ken R is as too Pam Anderson, as Ansel Adams is to Jessica Alba :D.

What i find more amusing about all this discussion of examples posted is that HDR is reduced DR as viewed off of the internet on a typical computer screen...you are missing a lot of detail right there, so you aren't really seeing the benefits here, and everyone is commenting like they can see that full range, lol. It ain't so!

BTW, as to CGI, uh hello, all digital images are CGI...they are digital, Do'h. Meaning what is essentially a computer in the form of the imagine processing engine (assuming you are not capturing raw data directly out off the sensor, which some high-end camcorders allow) it constructing a digital image...it's computer generated to look as closely approximate to what your eye sees. So it's merely how those bits have been represented, as accurate representations of what the human eye can see, or some exaggeration or compromise of this. Why do you think the tilt/shift lenses are so popular? Because they help correct for limitations in what the lens can produce, such that it better approximates what you see with your eyes.

Some people love the surrealistic imagery, some don't. if you post pictures, expect people to weigh in with their likes or dislikes as to that particular HDR image. I like some of them, I don't care for others, it's not about being one "right" way.

[marioman38]

Are there any guides on how many stops to bracket for an HDR? If I am doing 3 shots, would I do -1,0,+1 or -2,0,+2 etc. :confused:

[marclapierre13]

Generally 3-5 is enough. Like Valdore does, you can also do a single image HDR, usually shot in RAW because it contains more info and detail. The more shots you have with different exposures, the more detail you get from each of those different light values (at least that is my understanding?)
When using autobracketing, it takes shots in -2, 0, +2

[koobcamuk]

Are there any guides on how many stops to bracket for an HDR? If I am doing 3 shots, would I do -1,0,+1 or -2,0,+2 etc. :confused:

-2 0 +2

[marioman38]

Cool, thanks for the fast replies :) I'll be upgrading to Digital this week for my birthday, once I saw how awesome the results you guys got, I figured I had to try it. There are some great shots here, the one that especially grabs my attention is AndrewMorrell's exterior shot of the building... Sweet... ;)

here are some of my HDR photos... the exterior photos are a 3-shot composite taken with bracketing at 3 stops, the interior shot taken at 1 stop intervals combining 7 shots:

http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/1.jpg

[KidneyPi]

Overall in this thread, I feel remarkably beat-up. Everyone is going on and on about how photography is art, art can be anything–but some of these HDRs don't look like photography anymore. They look like a painting. Still art, but they're straying from the trueness of photography into the minds playscape. Yes, that's a relatively purist view, but I'd appreciate some respect and courtesy even if you disagree with me.

Why can't photography be seen as the medium rather than the subject? Is the motion picture no longer a motion picture because they used chromakey? Chromakey, lumakey, HDR, dodge, burn; these are all tools used by the artist to make their creation.

Look at any of the great photographers from before the digital era. Everything you see of their work is heavily post processed. It was a lot more work in the old days to do it in the darkroom, but it was done all the time. By your standard, the photographer is done when the negative is created. Do a quick print and call it a day.

Anytime it actually worked like that, you probably never learned the name of the photographer because the photographs were nothing special. The ones worthy of art galleries and exhibitions are nearly always very processed.

A great camera operator presses a button and a decent image comes out. A great photographer makes a great image in his mind, presses a button, then processes the hell out of it to make it match what he saw in his mind.

[Macattackphoto]

Here are some of mine:

WOW! These are absolutely brilliant! I especially like the piano and the windy looking one with the light post in the back. The basket ball court is also very well done!

Cheers, and keep up the good work!

[klymr]

Are there any guides on how many stops to bracket for an HDR? If I am doing 3 shots, would I do -1,0,+1 or -2,0,+2 etc. :confused:

-2 0 +2

All the ones I did were -2,-1,0,+1,+2. IF you are only using three shots, it is best to probably go -2,0,+2 because you'll get more range that way. Just play with it, it's a learning experience in and of itself.

Oh, and for the record, I don't own a DSLR (yet). I borrowed someone's Nikon D70 for the weekend which I had never used and had to teach myself how to use on top of figuring out this HDR stuff. Just play around with different settings and enjoy until you get something out you like. Nothing like a hands on way to learn. :D

[Dfndr90]

Took a few shots this morning on the way out of the house. Downloaded Photomatrix just to see what all the fuss is about. I'll definitely have to practice to decide if I want to drop the C-note for the full version. Very first attempt, and without any real playing with the settings. What should I do differently (other than not shoot with the sun right above my subject, and not get so many clouds when the wind is blowing hard)?


I see you live on Mud Island. I used to live in Memphis for a couple of years. Great photo of the pyramid by the way.

Matt...

[Dfndr90]

here are some of my HDR photos... the exterior photos are a 3-shot composite taken with bracketing at 3 stops, the interior shot taken at 1 stop intervals combining 7 shots:

http://www.andrewmorrell.com/macrumors/1.jpg


That must be the Ghery building at case western, I love that place. I miss that Aribica coffe house, it was one of my favorites


Matt...

[pdxflint]

I love a lot of the HDR images I see here, including valdore's. They are simply beautiful. I even plan to experiment with this technique of post processing to see what happens. Having said that... <~ahem..~> very few of them look realistic to me, not that that's a criticism, by the way. It's just that they take on an exaggerated, surrealistic, almost graphically animated quality like seen in Pixar's cgi stuff. It's a neat creative artform. Not everyone likes it, but who cares? I like it, but I also like specular, sometimes blown highlights of a seriously backlit image, where this technique would just "ruin" the effect I captured on film or the digital sensor. I like dark shadows in certain pics. I also like extreme tonality range in b/w landscapes, ala A. Adams. It's all a form of manipulation, so it's all fair game. So, let's not get our shorts in a bind when someone questions the approach, whatever it is, or says they don't like a particular style. There's room for everyone. The thing about some of the seriously "cooked" HDR cityscapes is that they do begin to resemble something other than what most of us (in the past) thought of as what a photograph normally looked like, partly because of the dramatic tonality, moody colors, textures, and (here's what I'm still trying to figure out) the apparent reduction in sharpness (which can suggest computer graphics, games, cgi effects, etc.) Compared to what I would call HD (hi-def) photos, like large format film work you see in print advertisements, most HDR work I've seen takes on a completely different character. I guess if HDR is used to gently bring out shadow detail and restrain blown highlights, it might not be recognizable as a "style," but would be an application of HDR, regardless. So, in the end it's really all about an artist/photographer using whatever means at his disposal to create an image that expresses what he wants. That's why I love photography, because there is no one, single philosophy that can claim it.

To all: keep the HDR experiments coming, they do make me think and contemplate, which is good. Cheers.

[baby duck monge]

I see you live on Mud Island. I used to live in Memphis for a couple of years. Great photo of the pyramid by the way.

Matt...

Indeed. Just moved there about 2.5 weeks ago. It's a nice change from living out east - especially working downtown. And thanks for the kind comment about my picture!

[Dfndr90]

Indeed. Just moved there about 2.5 weeks ago. It's a nice change from living out east - especially working downtown. And thanks for the kind comment about my picture!

Don't tell me you work for FedEx! That would be too funny.


Matt...

[jo1970]

A slightly more realistic HDR. It may be a little over saturated but I kind of like it that way.

[marclapierre13]

A slightly more realistic HDR. It may be a little over saturated but I kind of like it that way.

lol. Although I think that photo looks great, I wouldnt say it looks "realistic" It looks definitely video game ish.

[Cooknn]

lol. Although I think that photo looks great, I wouldnt say it looks "realistic" It looks definitely video game ish.You want realistic? If I win the lottery tomorrow night I'm buying a Leaf AFi-75 (http://www.leafamerica.com/press/AFI_DS_EN_Lores.pdf) which comes bundled with one an Aptus 75S (http://www.leafamerica.com/products/brochures/AptusBrochure.pdf) Digital Camera Back. Can you say 12 F-Stops of Dynamic Range?! That's HDR ;)

No word yet on release date or price. I'm thinking the price will be in excess of $40K :eek:

http://www.listing360.com/temp/AFi.jpg

[jo1970]

lol. Although I think that photo looks great, I wouldnt say it looks "realistic" It looks definitely video game ish.

When I said more realistic I was referring to the way that I would usually do HDR. It isn't "realistic" in the scheme of things but for me personally it is slightly more realistic than some of my other HDR pics.

This is along the lines of what I like to do. This one is very video gameish

[valdore]

That HDR of the train actually looks fairly realistic to me, anyway.

Here's my definition of a photo treading on "non realism..."

http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/15467-1/IMG_7167+copy.jpg

[jo1970]

[QUOTE=valdore;4628856]That HDR of the train actually looks fairly realistic to me, anyway

Thankyou Valdore.

Another fantastic photo from you. I think your work is amazing. It has definately inspired myself and many others also.

[valdore]

That HDR of the train actually looks fairly realistic to me, anyway

Thankyou Valdore.

Another fantastic photo from you. I think your work is amazing. It has definately inspired myself and many others also.


Thanks! ...although I must admit that hyper tone mapped photo I posted above is rather "over the top." :) ...I must reassure the peeps that that's not how I would treat all my HDRs, but it sure is a lot of fun anyway. :)

[seenew]

Hopefully this won't get me burned at the stake…

Does anyone feel like HDR is a little bit of cheating? I think it's a great effect, and produces some really great results, but IMO if you can't capture the scene in one exposure, using a program to correct for this incapability (usually of the equipment, not the photographer) is just wrong.

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom–so if there was some way to do HDR in a darkroom, it's photography straight up; otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.

If you know so much about darkrooms, then you'd know that film can capture so much more tonal range than current digital sensors are capable of capturing. In a darkroom you could indeed produce images this fantastic and surreal; provided you are good at dodging and burning. It is a bit like you said, you still have to capture the image correctly at first, but in film it's MUCH more forgiving, ESPECIALLY black and white.

HDR is not cheating, if anything, it's leveling the dynamic range playing field. However, I have to agree with the posters who said there are times when it is not appropriate and times when it hurts more than helps. I won't name names or quote pictures, but a lot of the photos posted in this thread were terrible. I looked at them and asked myself, "why did they feel the need to use the HDR process here?"

Scenes that don't naturally have a large tonal range do NOT need to be processed in HDR. It is defeating the entire purpose of the process. You should only use the HDR process when a scene contains pure blacks and pure whites, and a large amount of tones in between (or should I say VALUES). If your scene is all evenly lit, DON'T USE HDR.

It's not that hard, guys. I don't mean to sound harsh-- well, I do. But it's all about educating yourself. If you don't even know what dynamic range is, look it up. Read about film and digital sensors. Learn about it. THEN use it, IF YOU NEED TO.

Also, the reason a lot of HDR photos look so hyper-realistic is that we have been trained to accept the shortcomings of photography and what can be captured with a camera (film or digital). The human eye is capable of perceiving many more values at once than any film or sensor. A properly produced HDR image should more closely resemble what the scene actually looked like to the photographer, or the viewer if they were to be there. I will show you my example.

Boring as it seems, I thought the fog and this deforested landscape was so beautiful that I pulled my car over, and climbed a fence to shoot it. The first picture is what the camera was able to record, at EV 0, the most accurate exposure it could come up with.
http://seenew.net/hdrNot.jpg

pretty boring, right?
Well, since I was seeing a whole lot more color and values than the camera was, I decided to bracket the shot. I ended up taking seven shots; normal, +1, +2, +3, and -1, -2, -3.
The result is almost exactly what I saw, and I think you could better understand why I stopped, by looking at this shot, rather than the single exposure.
http://seenew.net/hdrColor.jpg


I would liken the second image to a painting, rather than a videogame still. Not as a compliment to my photographic abilities (it's certainly not a stellar shot), but in relation to the colors and values. Since painters usually work from life and not from photos, they capture the colors their eyes see, and are not limited by a camera's abilities (or lack thereof). Look at older landscape paintings. None would argue against their realism, yet they do not look like photographs-- they look better.

[klymr]

Anyways, klymr all I have to say it wow, what a great shot...your brothers wife is gonna get a sweet piece or artwork! It would probably look awesome in B&W too.

Thanks! Here is what it looks like in black & white, and also with a selenium tone effect (maybe a little strong) I did real quick in photoshop. Enjoy!

[Doylem]

I've been reading the impassioned posts. It's obvious that people have strong feelings about HDR, which is fair enough. I have no ethical problems with HDR, but I side with those who say that too many HDR pix are "over-cooked".

A couple of posters have talked about processing "the hell out of a picture" and tone-mapping "the hell out of a picture". Sounds a little bit macho to me. I know the effects that can be achieved with HDR , just as I know that a slider - in a Spinal Tap kind of way - can go right up to 11.

I agree, too, that the best use of HDR is probably to recreate what we originally saw with our own eyes (and doesn't digital photography prove what amazing instruments are eyes are!). Conversely, spicing up poor pictures, for a spurious kind of effect, seems pointless to me.

The proof, as always, is in the imagery. While there are some pix on this thread that I like, I'm afraid that too many of them just hurt my eyes.

Anyway, here's a shot from yesterday. I've got into the habit of carrying a lightweight tripod, so winter pix can be shot with my usual ISO 100. There was some interesting light yesterday, just not a lot of it. HDR seems to help this kind of 'contre jour' shot: shooting towards the sun... though the sun isn't actually in shot. HDR evened out the lighting a bit: keeping some detail in the shadows as well as the mossy greens.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5451/claifeuo7.jpg

[klymr]

If you know so much about darkrooms, then you'd know that film can capture so much more tonal range than current digital sensors are capable of capturing. In a darkroom you could indeed produce images this fantastic and surreal; provided you are good at dodging and burning. It is a bit like you said, you still have to capture the image correctly at first, but in film it's MUCH more forgiving, ESPECIALLY black and white.

I've used my fair share of film that was pretty dull to say the least. It all depends of the film you use too I'd say. Different types of film captures light differently in my experience.

Here is a shot I took using the cheap Fujicolor SUPERIA200 ISO 200 film that I scanned on the computer (you can see the white bar at the top and bottom). It has a lot more color than some of the stuff I've seen come from a digital camera. I've also had some cheaper film that was completely bland when I had the images printed.

[baby duck monge]

Don't tell me you work for FedEx! That would be too funny.


Matt...

No. I'm a law student and also work in a law office downtown. The only way I will be working for FedEx is if I end up in their General Counsel's office somewhere down the road (and that's out East). And my wife is an attorney working in an office downtown. Her morning commute to work is about 5 minutes.

Composite of 5 shots taken with the camera resting on a guide's shoulder. Taken in 2006 and previously posted in Picture of the Day thread.

That first shot is really amazing. I just wish you couldn't see the tip of the boat at the bottom of the frame.

[AndrewMorrell]

Really dramatic - nice idea.

That HDR of the train actually looks fairly realistic to me, anyway.

Here's my definition of a photo treading on "non realism..."

[AndrewMorrell]

Spot on... I shot it in early autumn this year - was thankful for the clouds. Arabica is still there and as delicious as ever.

That must be the Ghery building at case western, I love that place. I miss that Aribica coffe house, it was one of my favorites


Matt...

[AndrewMorrell]

Marioman...

For exteriors, I use +3, 0. -3 shooting with a 2 second delay - that way, they snap off automatically.

Interiors, I most often do +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3.

Are there any guides on how many stops to bracket for an HDR? If I am doing 3 shots, would I do -1,0,+1 or -2,0,+2 etc. :confused:

[Jeremy!]

..........Anyway, here's a shot from yesterday...........

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5451/claifeuo7.jpg

Nice shot, well composed. I'd love to see what it looked like non-HDR. I wonder if the branches on the left were darker, it might add to the 'mystery' of what is beyond the tree? I think toning down the bright green fern on the right, and boosting the fern right below it might also help establish it as a fern.

Anyway, one of my favorites in this thread.

[Doylem]

Nice shot, well composed. I'd love to see what it looked like non-HDR. I wonder if the branches on the left were darker, it might add to the 'mystery' of what is beyond the tree? I think toning down the bright green fern on the right, and boosting the fern right below it might also help establish it as a fern.

Anyway, one of my favorites in this thread.

Thanks... glad you like it. To be honest, it was one of those shots that seemed to turn out better than expected. The colours were there already, brought out by backlighting. The HDR (from five bracketed exposures) just helped to open up the shadows. This is one of the original exposures...

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3513/pathoriginalid6.jpg

...and this is the HDR version...

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/336/claifeve6.jpg

[pdxflint]

This is one of the cases where I honestly prefer the original exposure you showed (not sure which of the five it is) to the HDR version. I don't like the color cast in the forest on the left, and the colors in the lighted areas seem too saturated. Maybe it "pops" more, but it isn't an improvement over the original. Kind of like music, boosting the bass and treble often initially makes it sound better, or using tons of sound FX, but truly well recorded music sounds best with the equalizer flat. Another example of "interesting at first, but then it gets old" enhancement is what the producers of CSI Miami have done with their show - all those supersaturated colors, very HDR effects in exterior (and interior) scenes. Very gorgeous, hard not to look at at first, but then after awhile starts to seriously intrude on any other artistic efforts - because it seems artificially flavored, with some natural flavors left just...because.

I'm not criticizing HDR, just giving an opinion of how it can make something "lesser" rather than "more."

[koobcamuk]

This is one of the cases where I honestly prefer the original exposure you showed...

Well said.

[Doylem]

This is one of the cases where I honestly prefer the original exposure you showed (not sure which of the five it is) to the HDR version. I don't like the color cast in the forest on the left, and the colors in the lighted areas seem too saturated. Maybe it "pops" more, but it isn't an improvement over the original. Kind of like music, boosting the bass and treble often initially makes it sound better, or using tons of sound FX, but truly well recorded music sounds best with the equalizer flat. Another example of "interesting at first, but then it gets old" enhancement is what the producers of CSI Miami have done with their show - all those supersaturated colors, very HDR effects in exterior (and interior) scenes. Very gorgeous, hard not to look at at first, but then after awhile starts to seriously intrude on any other artistic efforts - because it seems artificially flavored, with some natural flavors left just...because.

I'm not criticizing HDR, just giving an opinion of how it can make something "lesser" rather than "more."

Ironic... 'cos i've been complaining that too many HDR images are 'overcooked'. The biter bit... :)

I've kept both these shots (but not the other exposures that were used for the HDR process). It takes me a while to become familiar with pix, to see if I really like them or not... and to see if I can learn something to take on the next shoot. Right this minute I prefer the HDR version, 'cos the purple cast gives it a frosty feel... and it was bitterly cold. The HDR version is a bit 'fairytale', I know... like there's a hobbit hiding behind the tree...

[pdxflint]

Ironic... 'cos i've been complaining that too many HDR images are 'overcooked'. The biter bit... :)

I've kept both these shots (but not the other exposures that were used for the HDR process). It takes me a while to become familiar with pix, to see if I really like them or not... and to see if I can learn something to take on the next shoot. Right this minute I prefer the HDR version, 'cos the purple cast gives it a frosty feel... and it was bitterly cold. The HDR version is a bit 'fairytale', I know... like there's a hobbit hiding behind the tree...

Well, Doylem, I hope the little nibble didn't hurt...;) Actually, I wasn't criticizing your "particular" efforts - in fact I think experimenting with HDR is perfectly fine as long as it achieves whatever results you, or anyone else, is looking for. I was just saying that of the two shots, I preferred the non-HDR version. I can see why you like the HDR one, especially since you provide your reasoning for that. It does make the forest look more "frosty" which conveys more of that feeling which matches what you recall from being there. My comment was about my preferences, that's all. It's really a great shot, by the way. I love backlit forest scenes. And <~ compliment warning...~> I love your work. I just prefer the more natural style you have. Cheers, mate!

[Doylem]

Well, Doylem, I hope the little nibble didn't hurt...;) Actually, I wasn't criticizing your "particular" efforts - in fact I think experimenting with HDR is perfectly fine as long as it achieves whatever results you, or anyone else, is looking for. I was just saying that of the two shots, I preferred the non-HDR version. I can see why you like the HDR one, especially since you provide your reasoning for that. It does make the forest look more "frosty" which conveys more of that feeling which matches what you recall from being there. My comment was about my preferences, that's all. It's really a great shot, by the way. I love backlit forest scenes. And <~ compliment warning...~> I love your work. I just prefer the more natural style you have. Cheers, mate!

Comments and criticism are fine (otherwise I wouldn't post pix on a forum :)).

Photography, for me, is ALL about light... so the techniques I use (or, more generally, don't use...) are just the means to capture plays of light. What bothers me about a lot of digital tricks is that people think that light isn't important anymore, and that a lighting 'effect' is one more thing that can be recreated with Photoshop. But, well, it can't...

WITH good lighting, HDR can add something... sometimes. WITHOUT good lighting, pix really can't be 'salvaged' by post-production. I see a few pix on these pages that really don't warrant much post-production time spending on them. The time could be better spent learning about light, and looking harder at what they're photographing. Manet painted the same haystack more than two dozen times, in different light, throughout the seasons. He knew what he was doing...

[klymr]

Comments and criticism are fine (otherwise I wouldn't post pix on a forum :)).

Photography, for me, is ALL about light...

Photography for ANYONE and EVERYONE is all about light. Without that light, there would not be a photo. ;)

I'm just messing with ya. I know what you mean. Let's go back to that photo I posted above with the spring/summer in the valley and winter snowy conditions up on the mountains. There is no way that shot would have worked out as well as it did if it wasn't for the natural light and the way the clouds blocked the sunlight. BTW, that photo of mine looks a lot better in person than that scan does. One of these days I need to scan all my negatives.

[Chris14]

Well, I've had a couple more goes at HDR today, and here is one of the best ones, I think it turned out okay, a bit noisy but I'm learning! :o
Unfortunately though, they all seem to look great small, but if I blow them up to native size or larger they look so awful in places... red tones tend to be oversaturated and I end up with ugly ghosting red effects on sharp edges in some cases. Any tips on how to avoid these issues? Feedback always appreciated.

HDR from one RAW image, Canon EOS 400D

Before

http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/35091/2005394099368505702_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005394099368505702)

After

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/36889/2005508372016055633_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005508372016055633)

[klymr]

Decided to give a copy of this one to some friends for Christmas:

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=94726&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1197958056

However, before I had them printed, I did a bit of Photoshopping. I added a little bit of a blur (lensbabies style) and played with the toning a bit. I also found out the frames I bought didn't like the picture very well so I had to expand the edges a bit. After I got the actual prints home and in a frame I noticed how bad of a line there is in the clouds at the top to the left of the spire. Oh well, can't be prefect for how little time and money I spent. Anyway, here is the revised version (and you can see how bad I did at the top, oops!):

[heiesuke]

I for one love the look of the really contrasty HDR photos, I have yet to get mine like that.

[jamesarm97]

Does anyone here use an Olympus E-500 and doing HDR? I gave my Canon Rebel to my sister. The Olympus only seems to have a +-1 on the bracket exposure. How do I get more than that? Do I adjust the shutter speed for each shot manually?

Thanks,
James

[termina3]

Do I adjust the shutter speed for each shot manually?

That sounds like a solution.

[Doylem]

That sounds like a solution.

Hard, though, to avoid nudging the camera out of alignment...

[jamesarm97]

Hard, though, to avoid nudging the camera out of alignment...

So what is the next best solution? Doing +-1 bracket in RAW format, then edit the RAW files and create two more with +-1 from the original low and high to end up with +-2?

[iBecks]

A slightly more realistic HDR. It may be a little over saturated but I kind of like it that way.

I think that this is an amazing picture.

After reading through this thread, I can't wait to try it out.

I hope my Fuji camera is up to the challenge, I'll probably have to re-read the user manual.

[baby duck monge]

Does anyone here use an Olympus E-500 and doing HDR? I gave my Canon Rebel to my sister. The Olympus only seems to have a +-1 on the bracket exposure. How do I get more than that? Do I adjust the shutter speed for each shot manually?

Thanks,
James

I have an E-500, and have just now started beginning to play with HDR (all the cool kids were doing it). +-1 seems to be the max on bracketed exposures, BUT if you have a fast enough memory card it might not be (I don't have a fast card to test it with). If you put it on continuous drive mode, and hold down the shutter, the manual says it will just keep taking bracketed shots until you stop or you run out of buffer space. I have no way of knowing for sure, but this may start bracketing shots at more than +-1.

Conversely, you could just take a 3-shot bracket using RAW and then pick up a few extra stops in PP. Or you could do manual adjustments with a more sturdy tripod. Also, if you don't have one, get a remote.

Here's a snap I took the other day in my desire to start HDR experimenting. This was a single RAW done at -1, 0, +.7. I love how the colors warmed up. Sorry for the low-res. Had to step the quality down to upload to MR.

<EDIT>
Of course, I now see that the browser is using a different color profile, and things are not nearly as warmed as they are in the actual picture. The leaves are about right, but the building should have a much richer color. Oh well.
</EDIT>

[Doylem]

Lake Windermere, earlier today (5 bracketed exposures, Photomatix)...

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4084/storrssunsetbj7.jpg

I had to shoo this fairy out of the way; you know what they're like...

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9163/grimshawnw5.jpg

[jo1970]

I think that this is an amazing picture.

After reading through this thread, I can't wait to try it out.

I hope my Fuji camera is up to the challenge, I'll probably have to re-read the user manual.

Thanks for the compliment iBecks.

I too have been inspired by some of the amazing shots that I have seen on this thread. I have only been at it for about a month and still have a lot to learn but you should give it a go. I'm sure you'll get hooked on it as I am!

[KidneyPi]

I have an E-500, and have just now started beginning to play with HDR (all the cool kids were doing it). +-1 seems to be the max on bracketed exposures, BUT if you have a fast enough memory card it might not be (I don't have a fast card to test it with). If you put it on continuous drive mode, and hold down the shutter, the manual says it will just keep taking bracketed shots until you stop or you run out of buffer space. I have no way of knowing for sure, but this may start bracketing shots at more than +-1.

I like the color in that picture, but the composition causes an optical illusion. The tree in the foreground and the brightly lit side of the building make it look like the building is crooked on the left side. I would either crop it, reshoot closes to the building (using a wider lens if you wanted the building that size in the final image), or reshoot from farther away to reposition the tree in the image and show more of it.

[baby duck monge]

I like the color in that picture, but the composition causes an optical illusion. The tree in the foreground and the brightly lit side of the building make it look like the building is crooked on the left side. I would either crop it, reshoot closes to the building (using a wider lens if you wanted the building that size in the final image), or reshoot from farther away to reposition the tree in the image and show more of it.

Thank you for the feedback! There is no chance I will be reshooting that picture as it was just something I randomly snapped while waiting to meet a fellow MR member for a book exchange in Mississippi. However, I will definitely try to pay more attention to that sort of thing in the future if I continue to attempt HDR. I prefer my HDR images to appear more natural, but it's easy to forget that altering the amount of light seen in various parts of an image can confuse the brain when areas don't seem to be lit from the same place.

[valdore]

http://www.valdorephoto.com/images/gallery2/d/17019-1/inthemirror.jpg

I thought I'd post this here instead of the Photo of the Day thread, since mirrored self portraits are considered verboten and cliche. But it is HDR!

[TimTheEnchanter]

I really have to give this a go, nice work people! :)

[KidneyPi]

I'd like to see some IR HDR. I don't have the filter yet, but I just got a Cokin A series kit. I'm thinking of getting a A007 to try it. Two of my lenses are supposed to be good for IR, including my favorite, the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Do any of you have any IR HDR images, or any IR images that could be converted?

[klymr]

I'd like to see some IR HDR. I don't have the filter yet, but I just got a Cokin A series kit. I'm thinking of getting a A007 to try it. Two of my lenses are supposed to be good for IR, including my favorite, the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Do any of you have any IR HDR images, or any IR images that could be converted?

I have some IR film shots that I need to scan. I haven't gotten the same results outta my scans as I did the digital I shot, but you can still see some more range. I actually wanted to try to merge a few "exposures" together from my IR film scans. I'll keep ya posted on how it works out if I get it done soon.

[AstrayCliche]

I thought I'd post this here instead of the Photo of the Day thread, since mirrored self portraits are considered verboten and cliche. But it is HDR!

Spectacular. Probably my favorite shot in the thread. Good job.

[SummerBreeze]

I love the fairy tale quality on so many of these HDR shots! This thread has gotten me excited about playing with HDR tomorrow.

I've noticed that many of you are creating HDR images from 5 or more source images. My camera only has auto exposure bracketing for three images, and I was wondering how you guys keep the camera steady while changing the settings. Even on a tripod, I tend to get slight camera shake.

[klymr]

I love the fairy tale quality on so many of these HDR shots! This thread has gotten me excited about playing with HDR tomorrow.

I've noticed that many of you are creating HDR images from 5 or more source images. My camera only has auto exposure bracketing for three images, and I was wondering how you guys keep the camera steady while changing the settings. Even on a tripod, I tend to get slight camera shake.

You can do an HDR with 3 shots. For me though, there is a slight blur in a few of my shots because I moved the camera. It's hardly noticable, even blown up to a 16x20" print.

[taylorwilsdon]

Get a remote shutter for the camera so that you don't have to move the camera ever. That will remove the slight movement when you would normally press down the shutter button on the camera.

[homerdog]

Interesting debate about HDR, seems you either love it or hate it. I love it! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/homerdog/av3.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/homerdog/asheffpark.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/homerdog/wh011.jpg

[ksz]

^^^ Very nicely done on 2 an 3! You've used HDR for its intended purpose: to expose both shadows and highlights properly rather than to create an otherworld look. Number 2 evokes very pleasant memories and number 3 is commercial quality. I'd love to have the full version of image 3; let me know by PM if you're willing to offer it!

[Mantat]

I think that a lot of people dont understand what HRD really is. It is not that you have to have high contrast color or have an apocalyptic look.

It mean that the final result image has a higher dynamic range than what the original medium could have captured.

This is why you can do it with RAW files and not (really) with JPEGs. JPEGs dont store additional color information in the file, they only keep the required minimum. So when you play around with the exposure of a JPEG, the application cant pull more details out of the picture, it simply make the picture paler/darker, which gives the impression that the exposure changed while it didnt.

On the other side, a RAW file store the picture as it was captured: one negative per color. Some details might not be visible to one color spectrum but can be visible in another. That is how one can retrieve more details/change exposure in a RAW file.

Got an IR filter for christmast, cant way to see what kind of HRD pic I can do with it!

[onomatopoeia]

homerdog,

Great work. What HDR software are you using to get such natural looking results?

[termina3]

Homerdog:

That. Is. Astounding.

You should start watermarking the 3rd one especially... that's worth some bucks.

[baby duck monge]

Let me reiterate what everyone has been saying: that third shot is amazing, homerdog! Perfect use of HDR to get a good view of the WH while still maintaining the fogular integrity (see, I even had to make up a word). VERY nice. And as much as I hate to say it, I wouldn't be sending anyone high res. wallpaper copies (even though I would love to have one myself).

[taylorwilsdon]

Valdore, I have a quicky that I hope you can answer. With the single shot HDR's, what tone mapping settings are you using to achieve that effect? (You don't have to give me the specifics, just ballpark!)

[SolracSelbor]

Your first and second pictures are nothing new to me, but your 3rd picture...well, do yourself a favor homerdog, delete the 3rd picture and repost it with a watermark. The worst feeling ive ever had was someone taking one of my only good pictures and reposting it as their own on his website. Luckily, I had an actual copyright on it :). It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, my friend. I doubt everyone here on Mac Rumors are all nice.....

[SummerBreeze]

You can do an HDR with 3 shots. For me though, there is a slight blur in a few of my shots because I moved the camera. It's hardly noticable, even blown up to a 16x20" print.

Thanks for the info. I guess I'll just try taking two series of AEB shots. If the blur is noticeable, I'll just use one set.

Homerdog, that third image is probably the best I've seen! It looks like it should be on the cover of a book. Very inspirational!

[valdore]

Valdore, I have a quicky that I hope you can answer. With the single shot HDR's, what tone mapping settings are you using to achieve that effect? (You don't have to give me the specifics, just ballpark!)

I think I try to use similar tone mapping settings whether from a single RAW or multiple source images.

I usually try to have the Strength, Luminosity, White Clip and Black Clip all set at maximum. With Light Smoothing set to 0. If the image somehow won't let me get away with that (happens fairly often), I'll dial back on those settings as much as needed.


Homerdog, best photo of the White House ever.

[jeffzoom91]

Now, the first one is a but noisey (Taken in Yukon Terriritory, CA)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4075/yukonresizeji1.jpg

The second one the Government house in Victoria, CA

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5568/mg25600tonemappedny4.jpg

It's sad really, because these are a little over the top, but some of the above pictures are what I expected from my camera to begin with. I guess I'm dreaming....of a FujiFilm S5...

[Doylem]

Good stuff, homerdog.... but, as others have said, the White House shot is a bit special. And, yes, it would look good on a card, or a calendar, or the cover of a book (The Wit and Wisdom of George Bush, perhaps... :)).

You've used HDR with some discretion (the way it SHOULD be used, 99% of the time, IMO)... so it's a good picture rather than a good HDR picture... if that makes sense.

[JNB]

Ok, gonna embarrass myself. Somehow, I don't seem to be getting it. Is it just me, or does the shot just kinda suck, or is this what I should be going for (Original centerpoint included for comparison)? I think I need to find a shaded spot as opposed to full sun or low-light indoors shots, or narrow the range when I shoot those extremes (currently -2/0/+2). Centerpoint shot was 1/250 @ f/10, ISO 100, everything shot in RAW. Tone mapping defaults were used.

[termina3]

Ok, gonna embarrass myself. Somehow, I don't seem to be getting it. Is it just me, or does the shot just kinda suck, or is this what I should be going for (Original centerpoint included for comparison)? I think I need to find a shaded spot as opposed to full sun or low-light indoors shots, or narrow the range when I shoot those extremes (currently -2/0/+2). Centerpoint shot was 1/250 @ f/10, ISO 100, everything shot in RAW. Tone mapping defaults were used.

This is a relatively realistic one. Note how, in the HDR version, the white wall isn't blown out and the palm tree is lighter. I wish you could've retained the original sky though... such great color.

[Martin C]

I think that a lot of people dont understand what HRD really is.
I think you mean HDR instead of HRD.

[termina3]

I think you mean HDR instead of HRD.

Ironic, right?

[Doylem]

Ok, gonna embarrass myself. Somehow, I don't seem to be getting it. Is it just me, or does the shot just kinda suck, or is this what I should be going for (Original centerpoint included for comparison)? I think I need to find a shaded spot as opposed to full sun or low-light indoors shots, or narrow the range when I shoot those extremes (currently -2/0/+2). Centerpoint shot was 1/250 @ f/10, ISO 100, everything shot in RAW. Tone mapping defaults were used.

Some shots (uniformly lit... big blue sky, etc) aren't going to be improved by HDR... just as some shots won't be improved with a grey grad, or polariser or other photo technique. Experiment with different lighting conditions (I find twilight shots can work well, for example...).

[Martin C]

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4075/yukonresizeji1.jpg
Nice work Jeff, I really like this one.

Ironic, right?
Haha, indeed.

[JNB]

This is a relatively realistic one. Note how, in the HDR version, the white wall isn't blown out and the palm tree is lighter. I wish you could've retained the original sky though... such great color.

I agree--and the interesting thing is that these were shot with the "junk" 18-55 kit lens. I really don't know why folks don't like it, I find it actually has some fairly nice qualities.

[studentmac]

My very first attempt at an HDR. The positioning isn't as good as I wanted (used the car as a tripod), but I'm quite happy with the end result.

95510

Shutter speed: 13secs
Aperture: f8
Focal Length: 32mm
ISO: 200

Created with one RAW file, exposure adjusted in steps of 0.5 in iPhoto to create 7 copies.

[jeffzoom91]

Nice work Jeff, I really like this one.

First of all...

Thanks

Second:

That photo was taken at 22F wind blowing over 20 knots (this is the summer time mind you) and it was as close to the top of the world as I will ever get.

There is noise in the fullsize version, which is hard to believe, it was taken at like ISO100 or ISO200, with an XTI no less. But I am trying to gather whether or not this software is worth buying.

[wheezy]

I'm down in Houston photographing a wedding, that happened yesterday, and the reception was at a really cool Spanish church somewhere downtown, called Paraiso Maravilla. I rented the 10-22mm from Lens Rentals (http://www.lensrentals.com) so I would be able to capture the architecture of the building. This is an HDR, but isn't really too much different from the originals.

http://www.unculturedswine.net/pixelpost/images/paraiso_maravilla.jpg

3 RAW, exposure bracketed tripod mounted @ f9.0, 10mm

[Doylem]

Lake Windermere, Cumbria, UK. Five bracketed exposures, Photomatix...

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1698/rawlinsonsnab2uk9.jpg

[termina3]

I'm down in Houston photographing a wedding, that happened yesterday, and the reception was at a really cool Spanish church somewhere downtown, called Paraiso Maravilla.
<snip>


Wait... I've lived in Houston my entire life and have NEVER seen this place. Where in downtown is this (streets)? (i.e. are you sure downtown and not some other area?)

Awesome shot btw. Love the lighting and angle.

[SolracSelbor]

I'm down in Houston photographing a wedding, that happened yesterday, and the reception was at a really cool Spanish church somewhere downtown, called Paraiso Maravilla. I rented the 10-22mm from Lens Rentals (http://www.lensrentals.com) so I would be able to capture the architecture of the building. This is an HDR, but isn't really too much different from the originals.

http://www.unculturedswine.net/pixelpost/images/paraiso_maravilla.jpg

3 RAW, exposure bracketed tripod mounted @ f9.0, 10mm

nicely done, id like to see the originals

[wheezy]

Wait... I've lived in Houston my entire life and have NEVER seen this place. Where in downtown is this (streets)? (i.e. are you sure downtown and not some other area?)

Awesome shot btw. Love the lighting and angle.

:) 5714 Fairdale Lane, 77057. The family that I'm staying with said the exact same thing when they saw this pictures, they live in Kingwood so about 45 minutes north.

When we got off the freeway, just before getting there last night, the other surrounding buildings, etc part of town did not in any way suggest that this was there, so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it.

nicely done, id like to see the originals

My Flickr HDR Set (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthomasphotography/sets/72157603572484729/) that I just created, so there are only 4 photos in there :)

[termina3]

:) 5714 Fairdale Lane, 77057. The family that I'm staying with said the exact same thing when they saw this pictures, they live in Kingwood so about 45 minutes north.

That's definitely not "Downtown". It's not even inside the loop. I'd call it the Galleria area.

Sorry if that came off harsh; don't intend it too, but... well... you're wrong ( :o )

[wheezy]

That's definitely not "Downtown". It's not even inside the loop. I'd call it the Galleria area.

Sorry if that came off harsh; don't intend it too, but... well... you're wrong ( :o )

Haha, no worries! I'm not from around here, only the second time I've been here. I was told Downtown so I took it at face value :)

[valdore]

Houston's an add one what with that whole "no zoning" thing. </urban planning nerd>

[termina3]

Houston's an add one what with that whole "no zoning" thing. </urban planning nerd>

Of course. We're just weird like that. (but cool?) Hence, we don't always refer to areas by neighborhood, but often by major landmarks. The Galleria (area), The Med Center, Rice, U of H come to mind. As do River Oaks, West U, Southside, Memorial, Braeswood et. al.

Oh, quiz for the forum: pronounce Kuykendahl.

[klymr]

In my life, why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye ?

I love that! Did you come up with it yourself, or is it from a song or something?

[shecky]

thats from The Smiths

[Mark Morb]

I love that! Did you come up with it yourself, or is it from a song or something?

Do yourself a BIG favour and listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mfk9gKomZE

This band have had a bigger impact on my life than any other...and continue to do so to this day

:):):):cool:

[dllavaneras]

Not nearly as spectacular as the other pics in this thread, but it's only my second try! :)

http://www.graphicshost.net/files/epitope/oyc2sy7cnqftofo.jpg (http://www.graphicshost.net/)

Pozo Suruapo
San Diego de los Altos, Miranda, Venezuela

[Doylem]

Not nearly as spectacular as the other pics in this thread, but it's only my second try! :)

http://www.graphicshost.net/files/epitope/oyc2sy7cnqftofo.jpg (http://www.graphicshost.net/)

Pozo Suruapo
San Diego de los Altos, Miranda, Venezuela

Looks pretty good to me... second try or not. I like the subtle tones and colours... and the simple composition.

[dllavaneras]

Looks pretty good to me... second try or not. I like the subtle tones and colours... and the simple composition.

Thanks! :) I had to crop it a bit because there were some branches in the foreground that made a really cool natural frame, but the wind made them move and it didn't look good when I merged the three exposures.

[::Lisa::]

The two primary HDR editors out there are Adobe Photoshop (CS2, CS3) or Photomatix Pro (www.hdrsoft.com).

Photoshop> File> Automate> Merge to HDRThanks for explainging this but can you give me more step by step instructions as it gives me more options and other choices at the end and I have no idea what I'm doing :o

[termina3]

OK... I've finally given in and "cheated". Please critique (as harshly as you care to; I'd rather you come across as mean and me learn than you hold your punches).

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/237632742-S.jpg

Et. al. @ http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4049695/1/237632742

[jessica.]

OK... I've finally given in and "cheated". Please critique (as harshly as you care to; I'd rather you come across as mean and me learn than you hold your punches).

[snip]

Et. al. @ http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4049695/1/237632742

How did you "cheat"? And on your smugmug account, I like the photo you posted here but I love 6 and 8 is great but needs the horizon straightened ever so slightly. Or maybe it's the ball I am sitting on and it is perfectly straight!

[Kashchei]

Or maybe it's the ball I am sitting on and it is perfectly straight!

Football, basketball, or other?

[valdore]

Thanks for explainging this but can you give me more step by step instructions as it gives me more options and other choices at the end and I have no idea what I'm doing :o

Instructions for Photomatix or Photoshop's HDR? I can expound on the Photomatix tone mapping settings, but as for HDR in Photoshop, it's almost useless.



OK... I've finally given in and "cheated". Please critique (as harshly as you care to; I'd rather you come across as mean and me learn than you hold your punches).


Okay, I'll be as harsh as I feel like: HDR is "cheating" in no way whatsoever; Do yourself a favor and rid yourself of this preconceived notion that HDR is a blaspheme and a veritable fragrant piss on the grave of Ansel Adams. It is a useful tool in the photographer's repertoire, and just because it is a relatively new technology does not mean it is any less valid of a tool.

All of our photography will be more prone to success and innovation if we are willing to test and experiment with new things - which helps us to know when and when not to use a technique. But to dismiss a method just because there is no direct parallel in a film darkroom is ludicrous.

[jessica.]

Football, basketball, or other?
Exercise ball. It's blue (appropriately) ;) Take that as you wish. :p

Instructions for Photomatix or Photoshop's HDR? I can expound on the Photomatix tone mapping settings, but as for HDR in Photoshop, it's almost useless.





Okay, I'll be as harsh as I feel like: HDR is "cheating" in no way whatsoever; Do yourself a favor and rid yourself of this preconceived notion that HDR is a blaspheme and a veritable fragrant piss on the grave of Ansel Adams. It is a useful tool in the photographer's repertoire, and just because it is a relatively new technology does not mean it is any less valid of a tool.

All of our photography will be more prone to success and innovation if we are willing to test and experiment with new things - which helps us to know when and when not to use a technique. But to dismiss a method just because there is no direct parallel in a film darkroom is ludicrous.
LMFAO
To whomever has some weird issue with HDR...here's my deal. I prided myself on being a "purist" and avoided digital until about 5 months after the D70 was released. I literally disregarded all technology for some stupid reason. Then I figured it out...I was no more cooler or skilled than the digital photographer. All digital photography did was give people a chance to be picture takers with minimal investment. However, me staying away from technology as far as photography was concerned was stupid because by night I was a purist, during the day I was shooting on a Mamiya with a digital back. Hypocrite! So if HDR is cheating then so is the zone system or using a handheld meter. Sorry.

[Mark Morb]

Couple more that I took this morning....

http://www.synthpunkdiscopanzer.co.uk/store/pics/IMGP0323.jpg

http://www.synthpunkdiscopanzer.co.uk/store/pics/IMGP0361.jpg

:)

[termina3]

I
Okay, I'll be as harsh as I feel like: HDR is "cheating" in no way whatsoever; Do yourself a favor and rid yourself of this preconceived notion that HDR is a blaspheme and a veritable fragrant piss on the grave of Ansel Adams.

Ha! I was asking for critique on the photo, not the accompanying words! Fair enough, though :) (I'm still going to call HDR cheating, but considering the quality of the results I'll continue to use it)

How did you "cheat"? And on your smugmug account, I like the photo you posted here but I love 6 and 8 is great but needs the horizon straightened ever so slightly. Or maybe it's the ball I am sitting on and it is perfectly straight!

No, they're slightly off. I'm away from my home setup right now, so I don't have my usual workflow... actually my workflow is a complete mess now because I'm on Windows and had to switch from Aperture to Lightroom...

[Doylem]

Couple more that I took this morning....

http://www.synthpunkdiscopanzer.co.uk/store/pics/IMGP0323.jpg

http://www.synthpunkdiscopanzer.co.uk/store/pics/IMGP0361.jpg

Sorry, with or without HDR, the out-of-focus foliage in front does the first pic no favours... and there's no obvious point of interest. Both shots could use more contrast. :)

[dllavaneras]

Testing out HDR on some fireworks:

http://www.graphicshost.net/files/epitope/dbyt1n2s9cechqy.jpg (http://www.graphicshost.net/)

One tripod mounted RAW
Canon 400D
18-55@18mm
f/13, 14 seconds (BULB), ISO 100

Subtle, but there's a difference compared to the original :)

[jessica.]

Location: San Clemente State Beach

Photo 1
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 11mm
Shutter: 1/60

Photo 2
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 11mm
Shutter: 1/500

I took two RAW files and tossed them into Photomatix just to see what would happen and it actually worked. I guess it's time to pay the piper for the application.

[LillieDesigns]

Google the discount code if you're gonna buy the program; it's $85 instead of $100.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2400/2155617947_532cfcd13a.jpg

[CBJammin103]

My first crack at HDR... I'm not entirely sure I like that "surreal" HDR look, it often looks too much like photoshop filtering more than anything else. Mine aren't perfect by any stretch, but here's an attempt at a slightly more realistic HDR style. In both of these, HDR seemed to be a useful idea rather than just a fun thing to toy around with, so I gave it a shot.

Yeah, the second's blown out at the sun, but oh well, I don't think it looks terrible. :rolleyes:

http://lh4.google.com/CBJammin103/R3smcNbYr8I/AAAAAAAAANA/zgIP3MG0iQU/s800/IMG_2086%20HDR.png

http://lh3.google.com/CBJammin103/R3smf9bYr9I/AAAAAAAAANI/iJ5sOGIsWfU/s800/IMG_2225%20HDR.png

[nicoritschel]

Location: San Clemente State Beach

Photo 1
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 11mm
Shutter: 1/60

Photo 2
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 11mm
Shutter: 1/500

I took two RAW files and tossed them into Photomatix just to see what would happen and it actually worked. I guess it's time to pay the piper for the application.

Are you a san clementian? I'm from san clemente as well

[Doylem]

Yeah, the second's blown out at the sun, but oh well, I don't think it looks terrible. :rolleyes:

http://lh3.google.com/CBJammin103/R3smf9bYr9I/AAAAAAAAANI/iJ5sOGIsWfU/s800/IMG_2225%20HDR.png

From what I'm finding, HDR can't 'cure' the problem of blown-out highlights, when including the sun in the picture. No matter how many bracketed exposures you take, there always seems to be a 'white hole' where the sun ought to be. And in some cases, HDR can make things worse rather than better.

I've been taking the easy way out: only including the sun when it's much lower in the sky (towards sunset), or partially hidden by cloud or haze. These conditions seem to respond better to the HDR treatment, IMO.

[jessica.]

Are you a san clementian? I'm from san clemente as well

Actually no. I'm north of SC and not from Orange County at all. Born and raised in LA County. ;)

[jo1970]

I thought that this was a nice contrast between old and new buildings. The white line across the top is vapour trail from a plane.

[Evangelion]

Subtle, but there's a difference compared to the original :)

That is probably the best fireworks-shot I have ever seen. Well done!

[onomatopoeia]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/230/498896989_09319853b1.jpg

[Evangelion]

How do you guys make your HDR's so "vivid". I have tried few multi-exposure HDR's, but my attempts have always looked flat and "undynamic". I have so far used Photomatix, and I'll go ahead and buy it if I manage to figure out how to properly create HDR-images...

[Martin C]

You are tone mapping after generating the HDR correct?

[Evangelion]

You are tone mapping after generating the HDR correct?

Yes. I move the sliders around, and the image does change, but I can never get anything that resembles anything like this (http://www.unculturedswine.net/pixelpost/images/paraiso_maravilla.jpg) or this (http://www.fototime.com/885F2AA4D3CEA4A/standard.jpg) :(

[onomatopoeia]

Yes. I move the sliders around, and the image does change, but I can never get anything that resembles anything like this or this

It helps to have a well composed and technically proper shot to begin with. HDR can't save a bad shot. I'm willing to bet that those two excellent examples you link to would stand on their own (non HDR) pretty damn well.

[bootedbear]

Yes. I move the sliders around, and the image does change, but I can never get anything that resembles anything like this (http://www.unculturedswine.net/pixelpost/images/paraiso_maravilla.jpg) or this (http://www.fototime.com/885F2AA4D3CEA4A/standard.jpg) :(

You're not alone Evangelion. I've tried my hand at this as well, and all I can achieve is to make the shots look weird, rather than vivid.

As a real noob at photography, I'm assuming that I'm just not taking good source material to begin with.

Any of the pros here want to lend a hand at suggestions for us beginners? Is it the original photos, or ham-handedness within Photomatix (or both)?

[Doylem]

You're not alone Evangelion. I've tried my hand at this as well, and all I can achieve is to make the shots look weird, rather than vivid.

As a real noob at photography, I'm assuming that I'm just not taking good source material to begin with.

Any of the pros here want to lend a hand at suggestions for us beginners? Is it the original photos, or ham-handedness within Photomatix (or both)?

As has been suggested, HDR isn't a technique to 'rescue' dull pix. And, anyway, HDR works on some subjects/lighting conditions better than others. This is a learning process that may need to come AFTER the ability to shoot good, well-exposed, well-composed pix at every time of asking. I've seen a few pix on the forums that I would have deleted... not spent time putting them through the HDR round-trip.

Patience, too: just because the first efforts don't look so good, keep trying. See what works... and what doesn't. But, yes, work on "good source material"... :)

[eddx]

I don't really shoot much HDR but my friend has a new HDR website which might be worth looking at...

www.dontdopeas.com

Take a look, encourage him to blog because he is new to photography and blogging

[bluewoodboarder]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2376/2167751049_973effdf5b_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2167751049&size=o)http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2175/2175343727_7e48b08dd9_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2175343727&size=o)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2416/2168542680_630c53e5ec.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2168542680&size=o)
Created from one RAW

[Evangelion]

It helps to have a well composed and technically proper shot to begin with. HDR can't save a bad shot. I'm willing to bet that those two excellent examples you link to would stand on their own (non HDR) pretty damn well.

Of course HDR wont turn badly composed or boring picture in to a work of art :). But I would guess that you could turn even such a picture in to one of those "artsy" or "surreal" looking HDR-pictures, they would still be bad pictures though, just different looking.

Note: That extreme HDR-look might not be something I would be pursuing in the long run, I'm just curious as to how people make those images.

All is not lost though. I took few pictures yesterday (crappy as pictures, I was mainly interested in experimenting in HDR), and my results got better than before.

[Airforce]

Here is my first "official" try at HDR. :)

http://www2.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/8ba494a4d04e5e0cfe3ab50eaf92fa296g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=8jlg9sjd1zj&thumb=4)

Three duplicates of one RAW file adjusted to +/- 2
Olympus E410
14-42@42mm
f/10,
2.5 seconds
ISO 100
One very tired dog that didn't want me to go to work!

What do y'all think? :o

[Doylem]

Here is my first "official" try at HDR. :)

http://www2.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/8ba494a4d04e5e0cfe3ab50eaf92fa296g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=8jlg9sjd1zj&thumb=4)


Wow, that fur is amazing! Not sure if I like the pic or not... but it's different. :)

[marclapierre13]

I like it alot! It reminds me of a robert bateman painting. I like the idea of the clothes, and patterns, but you you should remove the other distracting stuff, and JUST have the camo...itd be great than.

[Airforce]

I like it alot! It reminds me of a robert bateman painting. I like the idea of the clothes, and patterns, but you you should remove the other distracting stuff, and JUST have the camo...itd be great than.

Wow, that fur is amazing! Not sure if I like the pic or not... but it's different.


Thanks you two! It's actually pretty fun doing this stuff with the programs I currently have (Lightroom, Photomatix Pro, Gimp). I'm no good at cropping unfortunately(or photography for that matter!). Every time I tried something, it seemed like "too much taken off".

[soup4you2]

Just played around briefly, but i really love almost all of the images i've seen posted in here.

http://gallery.mac.com/soup4you2/100015/Floral_Final_HDR/web.jpg

[wwwdotcomdotnet]

I'd like to get into some HDR photography, but I have a few questions.

When you take the RAW pictures and upload them to your computer, do you use a program to automatically layer them on top of one another, or do you do it by hand. Also, can anyone recommend any cheaper alternatives to PS CS3 for doing something like this?

[Doylem]

I'd like to get into some HDR photography, but I have a few questions.

When you take the RAW pictures and upload them to your computer, do you use a program to automatically layer them on top of one another, or do you do it by hand. Also, can anyone recommend any cheaper alternatives to PS CS3 for doing something like this?

Check out the first post in this thread, for some useful info...

[SolracSelbor]

Just played around briefly, but i really love almost all of the images i've seen posted in here.

http://gallery.mac.com/soup4you2/100015/Floral_Final_HDR/web.jpg

Best HDR shot I have ever seen on this forum!

[wwwdotcomdotnet]

:o I probably should have read the second half of your OP

[wwwdotcomdotnet]

Are there any cheaper or even free programs that will allow me to layer different RAW files? Purchasing both Aperature and something like PS puts a huge dent in the bank account, especially after buying a Mac.

[onomatopoeia]

Are there any cheaper or even free programs that will allow me to layer different RAW files? Purchasing both Aperature and something like PS puts a huge dent in the bank account, especially after buying a Mac.

Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/)is $100. You could use the software that came with your camera to manipulate the RAW files (levels, etc.) until you can purchase Aperature.

[Airforce]

Are there any cheaper or even free programs that will allow me to layer different RAW files? Purchasing both Aperature and something like PS puts a huge dent in the bank account, especially after buying a Mac.

Photomatix + GIMP won't break the bank :)

Lightroom, Aperture, or CS3 aren't needed ;)

[InkMaster]

took it a few days ago

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4231/picture1qq4.jpg

[wwwdotcomdotnet]

Has anyone had any experience with Hydra? Apparently it is very similar to Aperature and it retails for $59.99USD

[onomatopoeia]

took it a few days ago

I like that a lot. Sure took a long time to load though. Where are you hosting the image?

[onomatopoeia]

Has anyone had any experience with Hydra? Apparently it is very similar to Aperature and it retails for $59.99USD

Hydra is going to be a 'budget' HDR app...it's not an Aperture equal in any way. It may be an interesting product to watch (it hasn't released yet) but early word I've seen is that it lives up to it's budget tag.

[InkMaster]

I like that a lot. Sure took a long time to load though. Where are you hosting the image?

imageshack as you can tell by the address :) - of course the fact that its a meg doesn't really help the cause - forgot to change the size for the web :( -- I'll do it a little later in the day

[soup4you2]

Best HDR shot I have ever seen on this forum!

Thanks appreciate the comments.

Actually that image was from a single JPEG file from a crappy digital camera. just used lightroom to bring down the exposure and make 4 tiff files with each with lower or higher exposure ratings, then used those inside photomatrix. the whole process i think really brought out some color into the picture. starting to digg this method.

[termina3]

Thanks appreciate the comments.

Actually that image was from a single JPEG file from a crappy digital camera. just used lightroom to bring down the exposure and make 4 tiff files with each with lower or higher exposure ratings, then used those inside photomatrix. the whole process i think really brought out some color into the picture. starting to digg this method.

Further proof that it's not the camera, but the photographer!

[TimJim]

I have a beginner question, is there 3 types of HDR photos?

1) 1 RAW turned to 3 on computer
2) Bracketed 3 Shots on Camera (Do i use RAW?)
3) 4/5/6/7 etc. shots changing it manually (-3, -2, -1, 0, +1 etc.)

Are those all proper ways of composing an HDR?

[JNB]

I have a beginner question, is there 3 types of HDR photos?

1) 1 RAW turned to 3 on computer
2) Bracketed 3 Shots on Camera (Do i use RAW?)
3) 4/5/6/7 etc. shots changing it manually (-3, -2, -1, 0, +1 etc.)

Are those all proper ways of composing an HDR?

There are not "types", per se, of HDR, only differing methods of achieving the same final result, but all of the methods you list are within the accepted realm of technique. I think that if you reread the original post and associated links of this thread, all your questions will be answered more fully.

[onomatopoeia]

From Key West:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1395/1099596631_fc1c36df60.jpg

[djbahdow01]

Well finally felt like taking the plunge. Here is one of my early HDR attempts, merged from 7 images in PhotoMatrix as I didn't like the output of PSCS3.

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2008/010/f/a/fa854957e6541ecc.jpg

Happy with the outcome. Might have done a little over sharpening, but I like it. Let me know if you feel its a little too sharp.

[Schtumple]

Just played around briefly, but i really love almost all of the images i've seen posted in here.

http://gallery.mac.com/soup4you2/100015/Floral_Final_HDR/web.jpg

that really is beautiful, I really want to get into HDR, but sadly, do not have enough time :(

[Evangelion]

Well, I went ahead and really tried to dabble with HDR. I have posted another(non HDR) version of the attached image in one of the "picture of the day"-threads a while back. The original is a single-shot RAW, and I did not plan to use it for HDR; but it seemed like a good candidate. I ran it through Photomatix (the trial-version as you can see), and I then tweaked the tonemapped picture using the Orton-technique in Pixelmator.

For some reason I like the end-result, but comments and feedback are more than welcome :)

[diccen]

First try here with a panasonic lumix point-and-shoot (had to go into the menu to change the exposure between shots and used the rail of a bridge as tripod). Brought the saturation all the way down while fiddling with the settings and decided to leave it there as it gave some kind of haunted castle look which i tought was kinda neit.

http://users.telenet.be/sickbrain/Kleiner%20kasteel.png

[marclapierre13]

Just a fun shot, went for a walk, and there were tons of ducks that approached us, wanting food. so i went back grabbed my camera and gave them some bread.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/2183541447_7fa76813e9.jpg?v=0

[onomatopoeia]

Well, I went ahead and really tried to dabble with HDR. I have posted another(non HDR) version of the attached image in one of the "picture of the day"-threads a while back. The original is a single-shot RAW, and I did not plan to use it for HDR; but it seemed like a good candidate. I ran it through Photomatix (the trial-version as you can see), and I then tweaked the tonemapped picture using the Orton-technique in Pixelmator.

For some reason I like the end-result, but comments and feedback are more than welcome

HDR or not that's a spectacular photo. I'll have to dig through the photo of the day thread to find the non-HDR to compare. Great job.

[soup4you2]

Here's another attempt.. gotta say i love HDR!!!

the image was imported from a scanner but from what i had to work with i think it looks good. I was trying to checkout the more sureal style you can get out of HDR.

http://gallery.mac.com/soup4you2/100015/4-20-1-20of-201-And4more_tonemapped/web.jpg

[Noted]

First try. Nothing too over the top but I think it looks good

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4084/frintonbeachhousessmallzu5.jpg

[onomatopoeia]

First try. Nothing too over the top but I think it looks good

That is very, very nice. The even gradation in the sky is particularly skillful.

[marclapierre13]

Here's another attempt.. gotta say i love HDR!!!

the image was imported from a scanner but from what i had to work with i think it looks good. I was trying to checkout the more sureal style you can get out of HDR.
http://gallery.mac.com/soup4you2/100015/4-20-1-20of-201-And4more_tonemapped/web.jpg


Wow, this is gorgeous. I can tell the feel you were going for, and it totally works, well done.

[CaddDood]

I have to say I'm inspired by Valdore's incredible HDR images. I went out and took a few of my first HDRs today. Obviously I was shooting for the more surreal look which I find is fascinating. I have a lot to learn about the process but I was able to capture a few shots I was fairly pleased with. :)

http://mountainhighsurety.com/Firehouse.jpg

[TimJim]

Where in Photoshop can you set exposure (-2 0 +2) from a single RAW?

[taylorwilsdon]

Where in Photoshop can you set exposure (-2 0 +2) from a single RAW?

Image > Adjustments > Exposure, I believe.

[KidneyPi]

I have to say I'm inspired by Valdore's incredible HDR images. I went out and took a few of my first HDRs today. Obviously I was shooting for the more surreal look which I find is fascinating. I have a lot to learn about the process but I was able to capture a few shots I was fairly pleased with. :)


For a first attempt at the technique, you did a good job with the HDR, but I have a few suggestions for the rest of the image. I would have filled up more of the frame with the building. It is clearly meant to be the subject, but there is way too much sky. The frame is crooked, so the building appears to lean. You might also want to invest in a lens hood to cut down on the lens flares.