7 image hand held HDR

[georgemann]

Nikon D300 - 7 image hand held bracketing, Adobe Lightroom and Photomatix Pro.

http://nikondp.com/2010/01/hdr-cambodia-angkor-thom/



Photo by George Mann

[finnschi]

Originally Posted by georgemann

Nikon D300 - 7 image hand held bracketing, Adobe Lightroom and Photomatix Pro.

http://nikondp.com/2010/01/hdr-cambodia-angkor-thom/



Photo by George Mann

Its too much, I don't like HDR's that do not look "real" anymore

check this HDR out:

[OrangeCuse44]

[QUOTE=finnschi;9174827]Its too much, I don't like HDR's that do not look "real" anymore

I have to agree. Perhaps you would have been better off using less exposures being that it was hand held. The alignment looks a little blurry at the top left in addition to it being over done.

[Sdashiki]

HDR should add something to your photo, not become your photo.

This attempt does nothing but make the image less understandable.

[markie]

I'm going to be harsher because I want people to be able to tell me the truth about my work too. Your image is HORRIBLE. I hope you have the original files. I bet the 0EV image, with maybe a little bit of tweaking in Photoshop, is a really cool picture. I love the scene. But seriously, your HDR picture is terrible and the perfect example of everything wrong with HDR.

Yes, I said it... Please take it constructively and don't be offended.

[NathanCH]

Its too much, I don't like HDR's that do not look "real" anymore

I agree. But then why did you post a "surreal" HDR right below that?

[Phrasikleia]

I think the novelty of cartoonish HDR effects wore off on most people years ago. If you're going to push things that far, it's best to have an image that seems conceptually in sync with the technique. I've seen some edgy urban images that have worked well with it--graffiti, neon signs, Times Square madness--that kind of thing. Otherwise, HDR seems to work best if it's used merely to gain more dynamic range in high-contrast scenes inconspicuously.

[OrangeCuse44]

Originally Posted by Phrasikleia

I think the novelty of cartoonish HDR effects wore off on most people years ago. If you're going to push things that far, it's best to have an image that seems conceptually in sync with the technique. I've seen some edgy urban images that have worked well with it--graffiti, neon signs, Times Square madness--that kind of thing. Otherwise, HDR seems to work best if it's used merely to gain more dynamic range in high-contrast scenes inconspicuously.

I agree, which is why I used it for this shot below. Granted, this was/is my first attempt at the technique and I'm not saying it's even that good, but a beach scene like this at 0EV just won't look great through the camera's eye. You will lose detail due to the very bright sun and heavy shadows. I tried finding a happy medium between the two.

[georgemann]

Interesting comments, thank you, I am not offended at all. Oddly enough though, I am much closer to representing the "real" colors of that scene, at that moment, then any of you seem to realize. The HDR adjustments are actually fairly conservative and the colors are more of a combination of the time of day, weather condition (light breaking through clouds after a brief rain storm) and the unique color of the red dirt, stones and lichen on the walls at that location.

George

[markie]

George Mann, would you be willing to email me your 0 EV exposure? I'd just like to play with just that (even if it's a JPEG) in Photoshop and send it back to you and see which YOU prefer.

[soup4you2]

As much as I love HDR, i think there's a good time for surreal vivid effects and a bad time, you don't really want to take away from the picture but add to it.

A good non-surreal image


A little surreal imagery


But everybody has their preferences.

[FrankieTDouglas]

Make it surreal through content, not post-process.

[wheezy]

I think the biggest problem in over-surreal HDR shots is the lack of any kind of solid focal point, there simply just isn't enough contrast, or the contrast is spaced over everything and you just don't know where to look. Here's my best HDR to date, 3 shots tripod.

[georgemann]

Originally Posted by markie

George Mann, would you be willing to email me your 0 EV exposure? I'd just like to play with just that (even if it's a JPEG) in Photoshop and send it back to you and see which YOU prefer. If so, my email is hiskid@gmail.com

Markie, I find all the comments interesting, but no thank you, I do not wish to see my images manipulated by someone else. I would love to see the same scene interpreted by someone else though (with their own photography).

George

[jessica.]

It has it's place and it's neat all in itself but mind the comments above, HDR should add to and not take away.

[bzollinger]

Originally Posted by markie

I'm going to be harsher because I want people to be able to tell me the truth about my work too. Your image is HORRIBLE. I hope you have the original files. I bet the 0EV image, with maybe a little bit of tweaking in Photoshop, is a really cool picture. I love the scene. But seriously, your HDR picture is terrible and the perfect example of everything wrong with HDR.

Yes, I said it... Please take it constructively and don't be offended.

This is a little too harsh I think. It's not like the OP asked for you to rip on his photo? Or did I miss something.

I think with some tweaking in PhotoMatix this could be a pretty sweet HDR. Yep, I still think it could be a good photo as an HDR.

I'm a little skeptical of the "hand held" part though, not that it can't be done, but it sure is tough. You'd need some real fast shutter speeds and a real steady hand, especially when you change your AEB. Or can your Nikon capture 7 frames with one AEB series??

[bzollinger]

Originally Posted by soup4you2

As much as I love HDR, i think there's a good time for surreal vivid effects and a bad time, you don't really want to take away from the picture but add to it.

A good non-surreal image


A little surreal imagery


But everybody has their preferences.

I really like the flower picture! Nice job really good use of the effect!

[georgemann]

Originally Posted by bzollinger

This is a little too harsh I think. It's not like the OP asked for you to rip on his photo? Or did I miss something.

I think with some tweaking in PhotoMatix this could be a pretty sweet HDR. Yep, I still think it could be a good photo as an HDR.

I'm a little skeptical of the "hand held" part though, not that it can't be done, but it sure is tough. You'd need some real fast shutter speeds and a real steady hand, especially when you change your AEB. Or can your Nikon capture 7 frames with one AEB series??

Thanks, but I don't mind the harsh criticism at all, it usually indicates that there is some interest and is much more welcome then apathy.

Tweaking for better results I can not argue with, the image still has a ways to go before I would hang it on a wall.

This is part of a handheld HDR series and yes the images are captured in one 7 shot AEB series (Nikon D300). Motion in these images is of course unavoidable so I am working on incorporating the motion (a sense of time, etc.) into the images.

http://nikondp.com/2010/01/hdr-cambodia-angkor-thom/

Please continue with the critiques and don't hold back the punches.

George

[tr0ggins]

IGNORE CAN'T READ, thought you said d3000 ! haha

[NeGRit0]

Originally Posted by georgemann

[...]I am much closer to representing the "real" colors of that scene, at that moment, then any of you seem to realize[...]

Odd, cause that image looks cartoony, and somewhat animated. Plus there is a great amount of haloing around the edges of the trees. I doubt that was present when you were shooting...