Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Neat adjustments for last ditch effort. But I agree with the OP that a using a fill in flash (or perhaps HDR) upfront would do better than after the fact maniuplations. Or, give a better starting point for PS/PSP/ etc to polish up. IMHO of course :p

Oh yeah i agree. Give yourself the best possible chance of getting the shot at the time. This was a 'just in case you messed up' moment :p
 
I agree. Here are my examples:

I wish I had it a few weeks ago when we went camping. It might have saved this photo because the flash couldn't do it.:

IMG_0145.jpg

thats where tap to focus came in handy. All you had to do was tap on the kids and the lighting would've brightened up for them.
 
Oh yeah i agree. Give yourself the best possible chance of getting the shot at the time. This was a 'just in case you messed up' moment :p

Neat adjustments for last ditch effort. But I agree with the OP that a using a fill in flash (or perhaps HDR) upfront would do better than after the fact maniuplations. Or, give a better starting point for PS/PSP/ etc to polish up. IMHO of course :p

I agree. But also will add that many cameras shoot in RAW mode now. Many consumers don't understand why/what purpose this serves. They only know that it takes a lot of storage space so they often opt to save as jpg on their cameras.

RAW mode provides the ability to do many wonderful things to photos that become semi-null and void once you save it down to jpg.
 
thats where tap to focus came in handy. All you had to do was tap on the kids and the lighting would've brightened up for them.

I took a second picture that way and, while the family was properly exposed, the background was washed out. Had I used the HDR feature, I would have tapped the family to set the exposure and then let HDR stop down the background.
 
HDR is great but not for every image.

It's great for low light such as this photo.

But when outside and taking a picture of a tree for example, the colors of the HDR looks too light and is not as vibrant...
HDR will only show an improvement if the photo you are taking has a high dynamic range (hence the acronym 'HDR'). If you just take a photo of a tree and everything around it is in similar lighting with no significant highlights or shadows, it won't do much, if anything, to enhance the image. Take a picture of somebody underneath the shade of the tree at a beach with white sand and a bright sky behind them and HDR will do wonders to improve the picture.

A casual glance at the OP's photo may not reveal the significant differences. Don't focus on the table - look again at the completely blown highlights through the windows and blocked-up shadows inside the room in the first image, and the improvement in the second image becomes much more obvious.

HDR is a great tool if you know how - and when - to use it. In many situations it's useless and better left turned off.
 
HDR is not intended as a substitute for flash! HDR allows your photo to simulate higher dynamic range by combining over and under exposed shots into a single image with detail in the highlights and shadows.

The best application for HDR is stills and nature photography. Apple's implementation of HDR is tuned to make the photo appear natural versus the dramatic, but somewhat artificial looking HDR images by pro photographers.
 
I like Apple's implementation. It doesn't look like HDR, it just looks better exposed. It's not over done and it keeps the regular shot on your roll by default.
 
HDR is not intended as a substitute for flash! HDR allows your photo to simulate higher dynamic range by combining over and under exposed shots into a single image with detail in the highlights and shadows.

The best application for HDR is stills and nature photography. Apple's implementation of HDR is tuned to make the photo appear natural versus the dramatic, but somewhat artificial looking HDR images by pro photographers.

Actually HDR can be an excellent substitute for flash.

And flash should be avoided at all cost, particually with protraits (vast majority of the time, unless it absolutly essential to get any exposure at all).
 
Right is the HDR.. Just happened to see this one in my camera roll.. I posted this in another HDR photo thread as well.

axmddf.jpg
 
I hope these aren't showing up HUGE for everyone. I downsized the images to 1024x768 but they load up HUGE on all 3 browsers on my computer. *sigh*


Original:
IMG_0085.jpg


Apple HDR:
IMG_0086.jpg


TrueHDR Full Auto:
IMG_0087.jpg
 
I hope these aren't showing up HUGE for everyone. I downsized the images to 1024x768 but they load up HUGE on all 3 browsers on my computer. *sigh*


Original:


Apple HDR:


TrueHDR Full Auto:

The apple one looks the best out of the 2 HDR ones...

and yep they come up huge on mine too lol :) try them as attachments rather than using IMG tags.
 
Yup. I've seen comparisons of Pro HDR, True HDR and the Apple HDR.. Pro HDR is easily the best.. easily!

I've found that very subjective....as basically anything with HDR is. I find Pro HDR too aggressive many times. I also get really aggravated when it crashes which it's been doing since the last update.
 
I havent tested apples hdr.But pro hdr makes too much halos and sometimes bit too tonemapped look,and i just downloaded true hdr but at first look it made very noisy picture and second test it just got all f*cked up ,i dont know,isnt there any tweaking in true hdr ?
 
Yup. I've seen comparisons of Pro HDR, True HDR and the Apple HDR.. Pro HDR is easily the best.. easily!

I have all three. Both applications have significant artifacts issues that are deal breakers for me.

True HDR - Frequent blending artifacts; blurry patches around high contrast areas (2.0 seems to be better, but I need to test it more thoroughly)
Pro HDR - Glowing halo artifacts; silhouetted object have a light colored band around them.

At the end of the day Apples implementation is by far my favorite since it exhibits neither issue listed above (and it's very fast); however the effect may be too subtle for some and there are no options to adjust.
 
I've been pleased with the HDR function. I'd say that I keep about half of the photos it comes up with which is a pretty good ratio.


And flash should be avoided at all cost, particually with protraits (vast majority of the time, unless it absolutly essential to get any exposure at all).

Ok, so every portrait studio I've ever been in was doing it wrong?

You'd think one of them would have figured that out by now!
 

Attachments

  • studio.jpg
    studio.jpg
    105 KB · Views: 589
Ok, so every portrait studio I've ever been in was doing it wrong?

You'd think one of them would have figured that out by now!

Hopefully the studio flash was a bit better then the one on your phone :rolleyes:
The flash an any point and shoot camera does not reproduce what a studio is trying to achieve. Proper studio lighting is a fairly complex setup with multiple lights, large diffusers and never putting the flash next to the lens.

The flash on your phone is only good if it makes the difference in not getting the shot at all. You may get the shot, but it wont be very flattering.
 
I've been pleased with the HDR function. I'd say that I keep about half of the photos it comes up with which is a pretty good ratio.




Ok, so every portrait studio I've ever been in was doing it wrong?

You'd think one of them would have figured that out by now!

:rolleyes: Oh dear, you need to learn about photography. Studio flash is COMPLETELY different. It's defused, softened and correctly angled (and often multiple bulbs in sync) to prevent red eye, washed out skin tones, unflattering shadows which exaggerate facial features and a generally unnatural photo. And importantly, the iPhones flash also causes the background to underexpose.

The flash on the iPhone (and all cameras really) SHOULD be avoided at all costs. There are some situations where is it impossible for an amateur to get an exposure of the subject without flash if they dont know what the manual settings (shutter speed, aperture and ISO) do, or have access to them at all. Flash allows an amateur to get a photo 99% of the time, but it does not mean it will be a great photo. Normally the ISO should be increased and shutter speed be decreased as much as possible before resorting to flash.

As the iPhone does not give you any control over these settings and has very poor ISO performance (and a low dynamic range), HDR processing can be used to compensate for these limitations in certain situations before deploying the flash. Flash would be useless for landscape pictures anyway. There are times in very dark/night situations where flash will be needed whatever though.

FYI, the way to get the best possible natural and organic portrait shot from a camera like the iPhone 4 (which is bloody good for a camera phone, and the first real compact point-and-shoot replacement i have used) is to take them outside on a cloudy day. It can also really help to get them to hold a crumpled piece of kitchen foil under their face just out of shot if your in the mood and have it to hand:) That not always possible, but with a bit of thought and knowledge great photo can be achieved far more often.

Anyway, there is two different types of HDR - corrective and creative. Apple have the corrective side monopolised now, so what apps like HDR need to do now is work on the creative side and improve - starting with the ability to blend more than 2 exposures. I would like to see Pro HDR go up to 8 shots. Some really cool and beautiful HDR uses as many as 15. They might not look natural, but they can be amazing works of art - http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/03/10/35-fantastic-hdr-pictures/ and http://designerfied.com/10-amazing-photos-of-winter.html for a few quick googled examples of great CREATIVE HDR. I would love to take photos almost as good as this on my iPhone when i dont have my SLR, no reason its not possible :)
 
Quick, off-handed snapshot taken while standing under an umbrella, raining hard, with some action on the field. You can see a little ghosting if you look carefully.

But frankly, the HDR image is MUCH closer to what I was seeing with my own eyes. The green of the field is far more refined, you can tell its wet, and the horizon is foggy further out instead of all over the field.

For what it is...a quick snapshot-enhancing piece of software that was given to me for free with the recent upgrade, I'm pretty happy thus far.

Without HDR is first, with HDR is the second.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0617.jpg
    IMG_0617.jpg
    624.8 KB · Views: 97
  • IMG_0618.jpg
    IMG_0618.jpg
    948.1 KB · Views: 97
Is there any downside to using HDR on the iPhone if I'm saving the original exposure? Is that pic identical to the HDR Off photo? I know that the shutter stays open longer when HDR is on so you are more vulnerable to blur, but I don't know if the speed of the first photo with HDR on is the same as the shutter speed with HDR off.

Thanks.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.