Not Another HDR thread

[G.T.]

Now I know there seems to be lots of questions asked about how to make good HDR photos, but I would like to try something different.

This kind of thread has been done before, however, it never really took off.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=634070

So here goes.

If anyone can post their photos of different exposures for us to download, create an HDR and then upload for feed back. I ask you for these images because I do not have my DSLR camera with me, I'm at Uni, and not everyone who might like to get a better understanding of HDR has cameras (or good ones anyway).

[G.T.]

OK so this one isn't really taking off either, :p. Please if anyone has there exposure shots that they don't mind up loading for us to use and do HDR images with.

[jessica.]

I think your problem is that you're asking people to basically give you something of theirs and you're not really all that clear as to why you want it. So you want people to upload three images so you can make an HDR photo yourself? Why? I have to really ask that. Second who is "us"; you refer to "us" in your second posting.

I think your best bet is to a) understand an HDR image can be created using a JPEG, a very common image output on most cameras both DSLR and P&S, and b) to really explain the point of your request because frankly, to me it is unclear.

Personally, I am not going out to take a photo using three different exposures so I can come back and someone else can use the images to create an HDR photo. I will do that myself and post it for viewing.

The only thing I think I get is that you want a better understanding of HDR. You can have a great understanding of HDR if you would read up on a few sites. I mean, it's not like we don't have a really good understanding of history because we weren't there (well some of us that is).

[M-5]

I think your problem is that you're asking people to basically give you something of theirs and you're not really all that clear as to why you want it. So you want people to upload three images so you can make an HDR photo yourself? Why? I have to really ask that. Second who is "us"; you refer to "us" in your second posting.

I think your best bet is to a) understand an HDR image can be created using a JPEG, a very common image output on most cameras both DSLR and P&S, and b) to really explain the point of your request because frankly, to me it is unclear.

Personally, I am not going out to take a photo using three different exposures so I can come back and someone else can use the images to create an HDR photo. I will do that myself and post it for viewing.

The only thing I think I get is that you want a better understanding of HDR. You can have a great understanding of HDR if you would read up on a few sites. I mean, it's not like we don't have a really good understanding of history because we weren't there (well some of us that is).


The "us" he is referring to are the people who are learning how to create good HDR images. That's what this thread is for----for those people learning how to make HDR images.

The purpose of this thread is not to acquire images from others to make HDRs for personal use. It is to get a better understanding on the processes used to make them. I have seen plenty of HDR images from others in the HDR thread, and some look dramatically "overcooked" while others look exceptional. The question I would like to ask is if this is a result of the quality of the original images or the method used to achieve these HDR images. This question could get answered in this thread. And if crappy HDRs are in fact a result of the method used then hopefully others would get a better understanding of how to produce nicer images.

The photos are just to get everyone started on a common ground. And no one is asking for someone to post their best images. That's not the purpose of this thread.

[G.T.]

The "us" he is referring to are the people who are learning how to create good HDR images. That's what this thread is for----for those people learning how to make HDR images.

The purpose of this thread is not to acquire images from others to make HDRs for personal use. It is to get a better understanding on the processes used to make them. I have seen plenty of HDR images from others in the HDR thread, and some look dramatically "overcooked" while others look exceptional. The question I would like to ask is if this is a result of the quality of the original images or the method used to achieve these HDR images. This question could get answered in this thread. And if crappy HDRs are in fact a result of the method used then hopefully others would get a better understanding of how to produce nicer images.

The photos are just to get everyone started on a common ground. And no one is asking for someone to post their best images. That's not the purpose of this thread.

Yes thats exactly the purpose of this, I don't want people to post their favorite exposures, just simple ones they don't mind people use. For example, someone could quickly take one of a not so good scene and it does have to have a good composition, just something for people to play around with.

[Kronie]

I would, but I'm between computers and Apple is taking there sweet time sending mine.
How would you attach the RAW files? Arent they too big for macrumors?

[G.T.]

I would, but I'm between computers and Apple is taking there sweet time sending mine.
How would you attach the RAW files? Arent they too big for macrumors?

Well I was thinking just jpegs because the size of the raw files, I suppose u could just submit one raw file that has a midrange exposure.

[thr33face]

ahh, well I'll play along.
since i'm interested what you everyone comes up with here's a link to 5 exposures from a d40 with a sigma 30mm.
of course they're test exposures, simple, etc...
just don't go around and create high profile art/whatever out of it without mentioning me ;)

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/380634/thr33face.zip

my try, as posted in the "post your hdr":
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/661/hdrtestrd0.jpg

now, start fiddling around people! :)

[hayduke]

ahh, well I'll play along.
...
now, start fiddling around people! :)

That's the spirit. Thanks for sharing. Nice people don't suck.

[cosmokanga2]

Just started exploring HDR's so C&C appreciated. Here is my take on the sample images.

[shady825]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/mh.jpg

[G.T.]

ahh, well I'll play along.
since i'm interested what you everyone comes up with here's a link to 5 exposures from a d40 with a sigma 30mm.
of course they're test exposures, simple, etc...
just don't go around and create high profile art/whatever out of it without mentioning me ;)

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/380634/thr33face.zip

my try, as posted in the "post your hdr":

now, start fiddling around people! :)


Thanks for the pics.

Here is my first attempt.

159938

The exposure/highlights is a bit high I think.

[G.T.]

If anyone would like to post anymore or give feed back to others, I would really like this thread to take off. Mainly due to the number of people who have started doing HDR photography and I feel there is a lot some of us can learn.

I have CS4 and when I create an HDR image it seems washed out, photomatix is definitely better but I don't want to buy it considering CS4 can do HDR images. I know I can search the internet for tutorials (and I have) but if someone would like to write a tutorial and post here it'll let others see as well.

[G.T.]

I just thought. It might be helpful if someone can post comparison HDR shot e.g. A single RAW vs multiple RAW vs JPeg vs multiple JPeg. This could help people see how far they have to go to get the desired quality for their photos. Obviously multiple exposures of RAW images will be better that a single edited JPeg, however if we can see a difference then someone might realize they do not need to go to great lengths for the kind of image they are looking for.

[Mr.Noisy]

I have CS4 and when I create an HDR image it seems washed out, photomatix is definitely better but I don't want to buy it considering CS4 can do HDR images.

process the HDR in Photomatix then tonemap it, once done, open in CS4 and alter contrast, shadows and highlights to your liking, + or - saturation to your taste, the HDR's produced in PS are too smooth, too flat, use PS to tweak the finished HDR's, myself i use CS3. Check out Valdore's HDR thread it's getting a wee bit long now but plenty of advice in there :)

[G.T.]

Thanks I know Valdor's thread is getting a bit long that is why I kinda wanted to start a new thread with the purpose of helping people rather than just people submitting their HDR images

[G.T.]

Hey just to remind everyone to give each other feed back so that it is not just another thread with loads HDR images, we aim to help people improve, including me I am far from creating the perfect HDR image.

Also if anyone else would like to upload some images for us to use. Thanks thr33face for ur contribution.

[G.T.]

I suppose this is my last attempt to get this thread going and put out there again. If it doesn't take off then I know this thread was just not meant to be :o.

[thr33face]

can I interest you people in another test exposures set?

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/577/hdrexps.jpg (http://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hdrexps.jpg)

link: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/380634/thr33facehdr2.zip

as it was shot with an aperture of f/16 there is sensor dust showing up.

[shady825]

This is a great shot! I wish I had the RAW's to make it look better.
Also, it looks like you might have A LOT of dust on your sensor. I 'repaired' most of it but you can still see a lot of little ones.
Nice shot tho!

Edited using Photomatix & Aperture2

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/macrumors21.jpg

[thr33face]

This is a great shot! I wish I had the RAW's to make it look better.
Also, it looks like you might have A LOT of dust on your sensor. I 'repaired' most of it but you can still see a lot of little ones.
Nice shot tho!

ah well, the original RAWs, not even I have them ;)

hmm, sensor dust. yeah I know it's a lot. but as I mostly shoot in the f/1.4 to f/2.8 region i don't notice it.
last time i cleaned the sensor was, like end of octobre i think. :D
anyways, clonestamp: (and that's not even all of the visible ones)
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/4368/picture1a.png (http://img60.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1a.png)

[cosmokanga2]

Compiled in Photomatix and then tweaked in Aperture 2.
160611
Tried to pop the colours without making the river look like a rainbow.

[svndmvn]

This is a great shot! I wish I had the RAW's to make it look better.
Also, it looks like you might have A LOT of dust on your sensor. I 'repaired' most of it but you can still see a lot of little ones.
Nice shot tho!

Edited using Photomatix & Aperture2

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/macrumors21.jpg

this kicks serious butt, congrats to both shady and thr33face
love the dramatic sorta industrial look, wonder how it would look in black and white. Even though having quite a bit of noise, it feels like it adds to the atmosphere, a more vintage/ damaged film pic

[zoetropeuk]

Please people, stop calling these images HDR when they're not. The final images posted in the this thread are tonemapped images NOT HDR.

Unless you're posting 32 bit images in an actual HDR format ie .exr or .hdr then please call them what they are, tonemapped images.

If you want to learn about HDR images you should grab a copy of this book:

http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

Matt

[G.T.]

Please people, stop calling these images HDR when they're not. The final images posted in the this thread are tonemapped images NOT HDR.

Unless you're posting 32 bit images in an actual HDR format ie .exr or .hdr then please call them what they are, tonemapped images.

If you want to learn about HDR images you should grab a copy of this book:

http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

Matt

They might be tonemapped but they are HDR images that have been tonemapped. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[G.T.]

Thanks for the new set off images. Keep the comments coming. This is my version I felt like this should be a fairly "dark" image.

160633

[zoetropeuk]

They might be tonemapped but they are HDR images that have been tonemapped. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Once they've been tonemapped they're no longer HDR images as the dynamic range has been compressed to fit into an 8bit image format.

It's as simple as that, the images are indeed combined into an HDR at some point during the process but the images you're posting should not be called HDR.

Read any decent book on HDR and most authors have one pet peeve in common and that;s people calling tonemapped output HDR.

I see threads like this posted on most photographic forums but just because it's a common misconception doesn't make it right.

Matt
360precision.com
http://www.360precision.com

[thr33face]

nah, i think calling these images hdr is more convenient than saying tonemapped.
somehow it's like everyone says pencil-lead when in reality it's graphite and whatever else.

[zoetropeuk]

nah, i think calling these images hdr is more convenient than saying tonemapped.
somehow it's like everyone says pencil-lead when in reality it's graphite and whatever else.

No it's nothing like that what-so-ever. So convenience is more important than being correct ? I guess it's just like spelling and grammar no longer matter as long as people know what you mean.

There are various options in Photomatix and other HDR/fusing applications that have nothing to do with HDR. There are other methods for creating similar output using the various fusing applications like enfuse, TuFuse etc. Again these are not and do not create any HDR files during the process.

You can call these images anything you want but calling the HDR images is wrong. If you want to be wrong then go ahead.

Matt

[G.T.]

Glad the title of my thread says "Not another HDR thread" :p. Kinda lucky, lol. Still I understand now thanks for the explanation.

[shady825]

this kicks serious butt, congrats to both shady and thr33face
love the dramatic sorta industrial look, wonder how it would look in black and white. Even though having quite a bit of noise, it feels like it adds to the atmosphere, a more vintage/ damaged film pic

It really is a great shot! Your black and white idea got me thinking... I'll be back shortly with a B&W one!! :D

[shady825]

this kicks serious butt, congrats to both shady and thr33face
love the dramatic sorta industrial look, wonder how it would look in black and white. Even though having quite a bit of noise, it feels like it adds to the atmosphere, a more vintage/ damaged film pic

I dont like it in black & white one bit. The color one I did on page 1 was way better

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/macrumors21-1.jpg

[svndmvn]

I dont like it in black & white one bit. The color one I did on page 1 was way better


thanks, but I have to agree, not enough contrast or clarity... not really the point of black and white, or of a photo for that matter:) I appreciate the effort though

[Mr.Noisy]

You can call these images anything you want but calling the HDR images is wrong. If you want to be wrong then go ahead.

Matt

Does it matter, they are HDR images, just tone mapped after processing the 3 or 5 or 7 exposures, but basically G.T. is learning something here so where is the harm in the learning curve he is experiencing? dont take it so seriously, it's just a bit of fun fella ;)

[shady825]

thanks, but I have to agree, not enough contrast or clarity... not really the point of black and white, or of a photo for that matter:) I appreciate the effort though

No problem. ;)

Does it matter, they are HDR images, just tone mapped after processing the 3 or 5 or 7 exposures, but basically G.T. is learning something here so where is the harm in the learning curve he is experiencing? dont take it so seriously, it's just a bit of fun fella ;)

Exactly.

[valdore]

Please people, stop calling these images HDR when they're not. The final images posted in the this thread are tonemapped images NOT HDR.

Unless you're posting 32 bit images in an actual HDR format ie .exr or .hdr then please call them what they are, tonemapped images.

If you want to learn about HDR images you should grab a copy of this book:

http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

Matt

So does that make it impossible to post HDR images to the web, since .exr and .hdr files aren't web files?

[G.T.]

This is really good folks, keep up the criticisms and comments. If anyone has more exposures to submit they will be appreciated.

[G.T.]

I dont like it in black & white one bit. The color one I did on page 1 was way better

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/macrumors21-1.jpg

Its quite good, although, I think I would have to agree that the colour adds more to the image.

[shady825]

Its quite good, although, I think I would have to agree that the colour adds more to the image.

Yea I like the color one I did way more than this one..
Congrats to 'thr33face' on the great shot!

[G.T.]

Here is another attempt at this image, this time I made it less dark. Not sure if I like it as much.

[termina3]

B&W is better, but add some contrast.

Not much, the image seems to lend itself to being "flat," but it needs more contrast than it has right now.

[valdore]

Okay, I spent an hour with my Sunday coffee and some music, making love to the ole' Photomatix editor.

1) Final color version, perhaps a bit too "fakey-looking" now that I'm done, sometimes that'll happen.

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/zp-core/i.php?a=macrumors-hdr-examples&i=33rdface6-valdore_edited.jpg

2) B&W:

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/zp-core/i.php?a=macrumors-hdr-examples&i=33rdface6-valdore_edited_BW.jpg

3) Here are the tone-mapping settings I used in the Photomatix editor (click for full screen):

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/zp-core/i.php?a=macrumors-hdr-examples&i=Picture-1_1.jpg

4) Minor tweaks to curves and exposure; added a tinge of yellow through Selective Color just because I liked it.

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/cache/macrumors-hdr-examples/Picture-4.jpg_w850.jpg

5) Now we go into Photoshop to fix some things. I run the image through Noiseware Standard (plugin to Photoshop) and I apply a bit of an Unsharp Mask.

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/cache/macrumors-hdr-examples/Picture-5.jpg_w850.jpg

-------------------

Now, I may be getting superfluous here, but sometimes I like to partially "Orton-ize" the photo by merging all adjustment layers with the background layer, duplicating it, increasing exposure by 1.5 to 2.0 or so, and throwing a hefty Gaussian Blur on top of it. Then I overlay that duplicate with my original (Move Tool + Select Key to align) and then in the Layer Blending Mode, select Soft Light. Now, throw a black and white layer between that blurred layer and the original background layer. Play with the Opacities and Fills of both until you are satisfied. Sometimes I find this adds a "richness" to the photo and its colors. Other times (though less often, it makes it worse).

6) Here's what I'm talking about kind of (before I added the black and white layer in between the blurred layer and the background layer) --

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/cache/macrumors-hdr-examples/Picture-6.jpg_w850.jpg

7) Now with the B&W layer thrown in there, and after I had adjusted my opacities and B&W sliders to my preference.

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/cache/macrumors-hdr-examples/Picture-7.jpg_w850.jpg

8) And the Black & White conversion; note the sliders in the adjustments palatte for black and white - experiment with and take advantage of those.

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/cache/macrumors-hdr-examples/Picture-8.jpg_w850.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------

Something to be mindful of -- Color Profiles! Have a look...

http://www.madnessmatrix.com/zenphoto/cache/macrumors-hdr-examples/Picture-2.jpg_w850.jpg

The reddish one resulting from when I opened my Photomatix tone-mapped edit of thr33's photos in my own Photoshop which is set to use ProPhoto RGB. From what I could tell, this would be the difference between ProPhoto RGB and Adobe RGB that thr33 uses (I'm assuming). We've all got to be mindful of the color profiles.

I've come to understand ProPhoto RGB is better at maintaining consistent color across different pieces of software, so that's why I've been using it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that point...

[thr33face]

Okay, I spent an hour with my Sunday coffee and some music, making love to the ole' Photomatix editor.
...

ahh, yes sunday coffee and music, lovely :)


From what I could tell, this would be the difference between ProPhoto RGB and Adobe RGB that thr33 uses (I'm assuming). We've all got to be mindful of the color profiles.

I'm using color mode "Ia", which should be sRGB.
From my understanding "ProPhoto RGB" is a Wide-Gamut colour space that allows for redder reds/greener greens/etc. than sRGB or AdobeRGB, but I might just as well be wrong ;)

[Mr.Noisy]

The reddish one resulting from when I opened my Photomatix tone-mapped edit of thr33's photos in my own Photoshop which is set to use ProPhoto RGB. From what I could tell, this would be the difference between ProPhoto RGB and Adobe RGB that thr33 uses (I'm assuming). We've all got to be mindful of the color profiles.

I've come to understand ProPhoto RGB is better at maintaining consistent color across different pieces of software, so that's why I've been using it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that point...

If your after consistent color your right about ProPhoto RGB, from ACR through to PS from start to finish use ProPhoto RGB for better color control, I use it as my monitors standard profile too, since switching ive found i'm much happier with the sharper colors ive been getting, the color gamet is much wider, perfect for 16 bit workflows.

[G.T.]

Keep up the comments guys, good work. Does anyone wish to take the next test shots for us to use etc. It would be good to have another set of exposures from a different image for us to try :).

[Edge100]

No it's nothing like that what-so-ever. So convenience is more important than being correct ? I guess it's just like spelling and grammar no longer matter as long as people know what you mean.


U R rite! :D

[leighonigar]

So does that make it impossible to post HDR images to the web, since .exr and .hdr files aren't web files?

Not only that but the thing is being rendered by a screen so you're surely not going to have any more 'dynamic range' in the output, you can only have from white to black, as your screen render them.

IMO people are absolutely fine to call these things 'HDR' we are not writing a science paper, and everyone knows what we mean. For the reason I have stated above I don't think it makes any functional difference from the observer's point of view if an image is 'really' HDR or not.

When people say "HDR" they mean "an image which has captured a range of dull to bright exceeding that of traditional capture methods and expressed it within a viewable space". People understand what people mean by "HDR photography". Are you [zoetropeuk] suggesting people refer to images posted as "the eventual product of a process of fusing multiple photographs of differing exposure into one HDR image and then exporting the result in a communicable format"? If it's what you can see of the 'HDR' image, and it is the product of 'HDR' imaging techniques then it is 'the image product of a HDR technique' or a 'HDR image' for short.

[G.T.]

Thanks Valdore for that helpful post. Hope people find it useful.

[thr33face]

I don't know how this exp. set will work out, but have a try if you want:

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/380634/thr33facehdr3.zip

exps:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1327/exps.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exps.jpg)

[shady825]

Not too happy with the way this one turned out but here it is...
Thanks to thr33face for the pics..

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/DSC_0026_5_4_3_2_tonemapped1.jpg

[G.T.]

Not too happy with the way this one turned out but here it is...
Thanks to thr33face for the pics..

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/ddoyle77/DSC_0026_5_4_3_2_tonemapped1.jpg

I think it looks good.Thanks thr33ace for another set of exposures. I will put mine up in a bit.

[shady825]

I think it looks good.

Thank you!
The more I've been looking at it I kinda do like it! :)

[G.T.]

I would love ur opinions on these.

Picture 1, This was the HDR I feel it is too saturated

162033

Picture 2, I then desaturated it and came up with this. I think this is my favorite version though I like 3 and 4 too.

162032

This was the second with a sepia layer to give the bar an aged feel

162034

This is a B&W version I did because others in this thread tried to do one for a different image that did not look to good. I think it was lacking contrast. This image, however, I think is better with contrast and suits B&W.
162035

[G.T.]

Anybody wish to comment on my above images I would love feed back. Also, do anyone else fancy posting their versions?

[G.T.]

Any critism welcome :p

[shady825]

Im gonna try to get out today and shoot a set of images to post up here for people to play with...

[G.T.]

Im gonna try to get out today and shoot a set of images to post up here for people to play with...

That would be really gr8. :D

[G.T.]

shady825

Just wondered if you went out and took some shots. They would be appriciated :D

[nuwomb]

must we get so technical?

it's still an hdr, just viewable in 8-16bit...

but like who cares?

[Joe King]

My pathetic attempts:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/thr33facehdr.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/thr33facehdr2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/thr33facehdr3.jpg

Generally, what I do is crank the Strength slider up pretty high (>90% usually) and then fiddle with the Color Saturation and Light Smoothing settings until I get a result I like. I also see what results I can get with the temperature slider (usually works best in the range of +/- 7). Then I push the Microcontrast slider up a bit to remove any noise.

Photomatix settings files for each of the above are available here:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af67746/n/thr33facehdr_xmp
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af67748/n/thr33facehdr2_xmp
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af67749/n/thr33facehrd3_xmp

This is a good tutorial: http://beforethecoffee.wordpress.com/photomatix-tutorial/

[G.T.]

[QUOTE=Joe King;7325655]My pathetic attempts:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/thr33facehdr.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/thr33facehdr2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/thr33facehdr3.jpg

They are all pretty good. It really take a good shot first, u can't just expect the hdr technique to just improve an image.

[imfrog2002]

Okay, here's one for ya' It takes a lot of work to get it right, but I was able to get this in the end:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3376953015_91856c8c8a_b.jpg

(Never used drop.io We'll see if this works...)
http://drop.io/rainyroadbyimfrog2002

Enjoy, and good luck!

[thr33face]

here, here: ~12mins in photoshop:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/962/roade.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roade.jpg)

[G.T.]

Here is mine, please comment

163899

[shiunn]

Joe King, I like your HDR of the bar the best!

[imfrog2002]

Wow, I like both of the versions. I was thinking more of a darker theme, but the lighter version are awesome too!

[sangosimo]

this tutorial helped me alot

http://i.gizmodo.com/5168454/how-to-create-stunningly-realistic-high-dynamic-range-photographs

[G.T.]

Joe King, I like your HDR of the bar the best!

I would agree

[G.T.]

this tutorial helped me alot

http://i.gizmodo.com/5168454/how-to-create-stunningly-realistic-high-dynamic-range-photographs

Thanks for sharing the tutorial for everyone to use. This thread is starting to get somewhere thanks to all who have contributed.

[G.T.]

Wow, I like both of the versions. I was thinking more of a darker theme, but the lighter version are awesome too!

Here is a darker version, feel free to comment.

164169

[Mark Morb]

Some good images in this thread...I processed a couple of HDR's from my last photo shoot...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3561/3356215672_0502785d83.jpg

[nuwomb]

This is a pretty cool thread because we're seeing that multiple people can create the HDR from the same images and tone mapping is a personal thing. the images are different and you start to realize an image can be tone mapped totally different ways to convey a completely different feeling or message.

[G.T.]

This is a pretty cool thread because we're seeing that multiple people can create the HDR from the same images and tone mapping is a personal thing. the images are different and you start to realize an image can be tone mapped totally different ways to convey a completely different feeling or message.

Thats a very good point, because so many people have their own personal ways to tone map it is possible to make an image have a very different feel, compared to others.

[G.T.]

Some good images in this thread...I processed a couple of HDR's from my last photo shoot...



Any of the other ones you wish to show us. Or if you have some exposure shots for us to use.

[G.T.]

Im gonna try to get out today and shoot a set of images to post up here for people to play with...

Hey did you get anymore images for us to play with, :D

[Joe King]

Here, try this:

Tree.zip (http://drop.io/0cuemjz/asset/tree-zip#)

My attempt:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/Tree.jpg

[G.T.]

Here, try this:

Tree.zip (http://drop.io/download/49da539f/cbc1858ebff6a5a6963c4183bbef8f240dc31297/596caf00-050b-012c-c22b-f8cefed01fcb/3979db30-050c-012c-536f-fea0b48b18cd/tree.zip/tree_zip.zip)


Sorry link does not work is there another way for you to try this?

[Joe King]

Sorry link does not work is there another way for you to try this?

OK, try this link: http://drop.io/0cuemjz/asset/tree-zip#

(I've amended the link in the original post as well)

[FrankieTDouglas]

Please people, stop calling these images HDR when they're not. The final images posted in the this thread are tonemapped images NOT HDR.

Unless you're posting 32 bit images in an actual HDR format ie .exr or .hdr then please call them what they are, tonemapped images.

If you want to learn about HDR images you should grab a copy of this book:

http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

Matt

This past summer, I worked with one of the leading photographers in the HDR category. He leads workshops nationwide on the topic and has published books concerning it. We even tone mapped images and still referred to them as HDR images.

So... yeah.

[G.T.]

OK, try this link: http://drop.io/0cuemjz/asset/tree-zip#

(I've amended the link in the original post as well)

Thanks, it worked, will post my version later.

[G.T.]

166173

This is my attempt, please feel free to comment, I would love feedback.

[Joe King]

166173

This is my attempt, please feel free to comment, I would love feedback.
It's pretty good. You've managed to make the sky more vibrant than I was able to achieve (I found a setting that brought up the sky but didn't like the colour cast on the vegetation; if I'd more time, I'd have rendered both versions and blended them in photoshop). There's something strange going on in the lower section of sky to the right of the tree where the image seems a bit blown out to me. Again, adjusting the HDR to fix and then blending might fix. (You're always going to have to do some tweaks in photoshop).

[G.T.]

It's pretty good. You've managed to make the sky more vibrant than I was able to achieve (I found a setting that brought up the sky but didn't like the colour cast on the vegetation; if I'd more time, I'd have rendered both versions and blended them in photoshop). There's something strange going on in the lower section of sky to the right of the tree where the image seems a bit blown out to me. Again, adjusting the HDR to fix and then blending might fix. (You're always going to have to do some tweaks in photoshop).

Thanks for your response I'll keep those points in mind.

[iBecks]

I would love ur opinions on these.

Picture 2, I then desaturated it and came up with this. I think this is my favorite version though I like 3 and 4 too.

162032

This is a B&W version I did because others in this thread tried to do one for a different image that did not look to good. I think it was lacking contrast. This image, however, I think is better with contrast and suits B&W.
162035

Nice HDR's

[G.T.]

Nice HDR's

Thanks.

[G.T.]

It's pretty good. You've managed to make the sky more vibrant than I was able to achieve (I found a setting that brought up the sky but didn't like the colour cast on the vegetation; if I'd more time, I'd have rendered both versions and blended them in photoshop). There's something strange going on in the lower section of sky to the right of the tree where the image seems a bit blown out to me. Again, adjusting the HDR to fix and then blending might fix. (You're always going to have to do some tweaks in photoshop).

Here is another attempt keeping in mind the bit near the tree that is "blown out"

166470

Please feel free to comment.

[jons]

I'm not a huge fan of this type of HDR. It seems like another fad in photography like soft focus, selective color and vignettes.

I have seen HDR used very effectively in making scenes appear more realistic, which IMO is where it's strength lies.

[G.T.]

I'm not a huge fan of this type of HDR. It seems like another fad in photography like soft focus, selective color and vignettes.

I have seen HDR used very effectively in making scenes appear more realistic, which IMO is where it's strength lies.

I agree, HDR allows for more realistic scenes, however, its effects can also help make an image look amazing and dramatic. I do understand where your coming from though, sometime it is used to an extreme that the image can look a bit unrealistic or over the top.

Here are a few where it makes an image look amazing IMO.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregoryhughdavidson/1103684653/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/459418289/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippop/2949358069/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9147703@N03/2176897085/

Here are a few that I think HDR helps look natural and allows more detail.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/New_York_City_at_night_HDR.jpg
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=401234&page=38 Scroll to jrm27 #934
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeunejedi/598885132/

Finally, here are a couple that are a bit over the top.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/204476471/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jb1/2064975152/


Lastly this site has some nice examples http://webbyarts.com/30-attractive-hdr-pictures

[Joe King]

Here's another set to play with:

Leeson.zip (http://drop.io/0cuemjz/asset/leeson-zip)

My attempt. This is done with some additional post production in Photoshop to straighten the image, remove blemishes and a slight crop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/GrandCanalLeesonStreetBridge.jpg

C&C please.

[G.T.]

Here's another set to play with:

Leeson.zip (http://drop.io/0cuemjz/asset/leeson-zip)

My attempt. This is done with some additional post production in Photoshop to straighten the image, remove blemishes and a slight crop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/2Orangey4Crows/GrandCanalLeesonStreetBridge.jpg

C&C please.

I like it, I think u have done well removing blemishes etc. I am going to upload my version in a bit. I will try do one that looks as natural as possible and one... well we'll see.

[G.T.]

Here is one I have tried to keep as natural as possible for one of the previous posters jons.

166599

Here is the Other.

166598


I had to remove the blemishes too. I think one is dirt on lens and the other is because exposure is too high in the clouds for some the images, correct me if I'm wrong.

Please feel free to comment

[G.T.]

Anyone, feel free to comment lol.

[G.T.]

Not been a few post for awhile. Just wondered if anybody has any shots to share, I currently can't post any exposures for u to try but I will be able to in about 2 weeks. I will try have some then. Please feel free in the mean time to post some of ur own or just to comment and give advice on submitted images.

[iBecks]

Here is one I have tried to keep as natural as possible for one of the previous posters jons.

166599

Here is the Other.

166598


I had to remove the blemishes too. I think one is dirt on lens and the other is because exposure is too high in the clouds for some the images, correct me if I'm wrong.

Please feel free to comment

I think they could do with the images being straightened.

I have a few HDR's on my Flickr photoset, take a look at those for ideas.

I used Photomatix Pro and am happy to share some preset template files to show what different effects they have.

[G.T.]

I think they could do with the images being straightened.

I have a few HDR's on my Flickr photoset, take a look at those for ideas.

I used Photomatix Pro and am happy to share some preset template files to show what different effects they have.

Thanks that would be gr8. I agree they probably would look better straightened.

[G.T.]

Just wondered if anyone has something to upload, nothings really been happening te last few days. I have exams the next few days so can't get any of my own exposures to upload.

[designguy79]

nah, i think calling these images hdr is more convenient than saying tonemapped.
somehow it's like everyone says pencil-lead when in reality it's graphite and whatever else.

I know this is kinda old, but I just thought of an analogy to help people understand the difference between tone-mapped "HDR" photos and actual HDR images. (and I agree with the other guy, it *is* important to be accurate!)

Have you ever converted a color image to black and white (not gray scale, I mean exactly 2 "colors": black and white)? You get a lot of "dithering" -- the computer is using algorithms to decide how closely to put the dots together to retain as much of the image as possible.

When you create a tone-map of an HDR photo, you are converting an HDR to a 8 or 16-bit image so that it can be displayed on your computer. Photomatix lets you modify the algorithm used by adjusting the settings to your hearts content.

Saying that these JPGs are HDR is as inaccurate as stating a 2-color GIF is a full-color JPG. The main problem is that technological limits keep monitors form being able to display a *true* HDR photo.

In closing: if you want to be accurate and help clear up confusion on the subject, refer to it as a "HDR rendering" or "tonemapped HDR"

Thanks for reading, and I hope this was helpful to someone!