Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iOS 4.1 HDR Photo overview and comparison photos.

The examples in the video are terrible. Sorry - but they are. And that's going to be an issue for people who don't know how to use HDR photography. They'll probably just turn it off after taking a bunch of pictures they think look worse than the original.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the native functionality works compared to the PRO HDR app. Here are two examples I took using that...
 

Attachments

  • bikeride_3.jpg
    bikeride_3.jpg
    227.7 KB · Views: 138
  • hdr.jpg
    hdr.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 185
there is allready some hdr apps for iphone,so i dont think that brings anything new..meaby if you could bracker 3-9 shots (sometimes i use 9 shots when making hdr on my D90)
 
HDR only has one good use

high contrast pictures with over exposed or underexposed areas

everything else is either useless or stupid

I'm talking about
a) properly exposed pictures "hdr" = washed out
b) Night time "groovy light" pictures = that's not what reality looks like
 
A simple example of HDR on 4.1 - works well.

See 2 simple attached images, one with & one without.
 

Attachments

  • WithoutHDR.JPG
    WithoutHDR.JPG
    192.8 KB · Views: 99
  • WithHDR.JPG
    WithHDR.JPG
    222.3 KB · Views: 125
In b4 a flood of "my HDR doesn't work, it looks rubbish, should I take it back to the Apple store" threads in the next few weeks...
 
It looks like iPhone HDR just properly exposes the photo. It doesn't look like it has harsh tone mapping going on.

Why are HDR photos so bad for some people? That's how our eyes see images, so why wouldn't we want our cameras to be able to capture it?

Blown out highlights are better? Great highlights, but muddy dark areas are better?

HDR is fantastic and I'm glad Apple has included it into the system software.

It just sucks because 2 days ago, I bought an HDR app for my iPhone. DOH!
 
Amino Man said:
It looks like iPhone HDR just properly exposes the photo. It doesn't look like it has harsh tone mapping going on.

Why are HDR photos so bad for some people? That's how our eyes see images, so why wouldn't we want our cameras to be able to capture it?

Blown out highlights are better? Great highlights, but muddy dark areas are better?

HDR is fantastic and I'm glad Apple has included it into the system software.

It just sucks because 2 days ago, I bought an HDR app for my iPhone. DOH!
Click to expand...

I think people hate HDR photos becouse they only think about badly over done hdr pics..
 
Most (70% maybe) of my photography is HDR, i make a decent living from it. I dont really care what the purists say about it, so long as it sells. The 4.1 HDR doesnt look anything like HDR to me, more like auto levels in PS.

ded151fbce8bf662903f06c706f8142b17b1233_r.jpg


ebf3593cfbefc5f083ebf78c686aece0cfa25c2_r.jpg


efe155f6cc84f76b76ba02a3e39bf7cd28e1db4_r.jpg


c912536fa8ce888cf916d8e429e77591e90722e_r.jpg
 
Streethawk said:
The 4.1 HDR doesnt look anything like HDR to me, more like auto levels in PS.
Click to expand...

you do know it is a Phone , right?

you cant compare a dslr with a phone!

The HDR thing that apple put on the camera, works well, not comparable to a real camera obviously!! But it does its job just like "PRO HDR" on the app store...
 
Anyone who knows anything about photography understands HDR. Stupid people who have no clue what it does or how to use it should stay away from the feature. It's clear from all the idiotic posts here that few people understand how to use this function. Don't rely on YouTube videos and Gizmodo articles to explain something that even they don't understand or want to understand. Professional photographers have had several excellent HDR applications to choose from, and even Photoshop has a built-in (albeit somewhat retarded) HDR function.

HDR is used when you cannot capture the scene's full dynamic range in one shot. Since digital photography has far less dynamic range than film, you can't properly capture bright sky details while still properly exposing the foreground. Or what if you have bright sky in one part of your photo and shadows in another where you want to see some detail? HDR will take three shots - a middle "normal" exposure, one optimized for highlights and another for shadow detail. The three are then combined using Apple's HDR algorithm to "blend" the three photos together and get a good exposure with detail in bright and shadow areas.

My question is this. Why is Apple putting effort into incorporating a feature that maybe 5-10% of its customers will take the time to understand? Wouldn't it have been a better idea to add much needed features to other areas of iOS, features that people have been wanting for quite some time? Features like being able to selectively delete individual calls from your call log, forwarding of visual voicemails to anyone via email, being able to delete emails in bulk or "mark all as read", adding a priority flag to emails, allowing animated GIFs to animate when viewed in your photo roll, etc.

There should have been a lot of other priorities ahead of HDR.
 
Streethawk said:
Most (70% maybe) of my photography is HDR, i make a decent living from it. I dont really care what the purists say about it, so long as it sells. The 4.1 HDR doesnt look anything like HDR to me, more like auto levels in PS.
Click to expand...

That's because most people who shoot casually don't want their photos to have the fake "HDR" look as in your photos. Yes, the photos are stunning, and that "HDR look" is very popular because it gives a lot of atmosphere and drama to a scene. However, Apple's implementation of HDR is designed to provide more natural looking scenes.
 
Amino Man said:
It just sucks because 2 days ago, I bought an HDR app for my iPhone. DOH!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about it. The Iphone's HDR is all automatic while HDR apps give you a lot of control. I'll likely still be using Pro HDR for my needs since it gives me control over saturation, tint, warmth, contrast and brightness, none of which the built-in app does, and all of which make a significant difference in how well the HDR effect comes out. (Not to mention you can choose to use auto-mode to take the pictures or choose your own bright and dark areas for the images. My only gripe is that it only uses two pictures rather than three like most HDR situations do.)

My guess is that with HDR being included, it will be the death of HDR. Why? Because 99% of people will not understand it, misuse it, hate it, and when they see/hear the term "HDR," they will think of their experience on the Iphone and immediately get a bad taste in their mouths. It produces beautiful results in the right hands, but most people don't take the time to learn anything, they just want to point and shoot. I'm frankly surprised Apple would bother to include this - it's beyond their "it just works" mantra. It won't, for most people.
 
AZREOSpecialist said:
My question is this. Why is Apple putting effort into incorporating a feature that maybe 5-10% of its customers will take the time to understand?
Click to expand...
Because Apple has the magic touch. Now that they've put an HDR button on the camera apps interface you can bet this will bring HDR to the masses. People are curious and will use it once they see HDR takes better pictures.
 
AZREOSpecialist said:
That's because most people who shoot casually don't want their photos to have the fake "HDR" look as in your photos. Yes, the photos are stunning, and that "HDR look" is very popular because it gives a lot of atmosphere and drama to a scene. However, Apple's implementation of HDR is designed to provide more natural looking scenes.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, the first two are HDR's, the third is a single exposure, with a few PS tweaks to increase dynamic range. The fourth is a manual 2 image composite. I posted them because I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it. ;)
 
malnar said:
My guess is that with HDR being included, it will be the death of HDR. Why? Because 99% of people will not understand it, misuse it, hate it, and when they see/hear the term "HDR," they will think of their experience on the Iphone and immediately get a bad taste in their mouths. It produces beautiful results in the right hands, but most people don't take the time to learn anything, they just want to point and shoot. I'm frankly surprised Apple would bother to include this - it's beyond their "it just works" mantra. It won't, for most people.
Click to expand...
I understand "HDR" and I hate it. I hate the word too. People were doing this stuff years ago, first in the darkroom and then in Photoshop, and the goal was to compress the tonal range and still make the photo look natural. Sometimes it was used for effect but not often.

HDR is just a tool and it has been beaten to death!
 
Streethawk said:
Most (70% maybe) of my photography is HDR, i make a decent living from it. I dont really care what the purists say about it, so long as it sells. The 4.1 HDR doesnt look anything like HDR to me, more like auto levels in PS.

ded151fbce8bf662903f06c706f8142b17b1233_r.jpg


ebf3593cfbefc5f083ebf78c686aece0cfa25c2_r.jpg


efe155f6cc84f76b76ba02a3e39bf7cd28e1db4_r.jpg


c912536fa8ce888cf916d8e429e77591e90722e_r.jpg
Click to expand...


Cool pics! Nice job!
 
Streethawk said:
Funny thing is, the first two are HDR's, the third is a single exposure, with a few PS tweaks to increase dynamic range. The fourth is a manual 2 image composite. I posted them because I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it. ;)
Click to expand...

There's no reason for them to. The first two are obviously HDRs, with the typical overprocessed "HDR Look." They're pretty, well composed, and the long peninsula one in particular has great color. I see why they sell.

The second two simply look like photographs. Ideally, this is what HDR photography tries to achieve. In my mind, an HDR photograph should not shout "I'M AN HDR PHOTOGRAPH!" It SHOULD look like a properly leveled photograph.

This is not to say those that do are bad, just that I think it is a misrepresentation of HDR to hold those up as the definitive example of the technique, and deride images that achieve the true goal of HDR as being "simply auto-leveled in PhotoShop."

Edit: Note - The use "overprocessed" above is not meant to be derogatory, which upon re-reading it kind of sounded like. It was meant simply to state that the processing made itself known... obvious processing... something like that.
 
Streethawk said:
Most (70% maybe) of my photography is HDR, i make a decent living from it. I dont really care what the purists say about it, so long as it sells. The 4.1 HDR doesnt look anything like HDR to me, more like auto levels in PS.

ded151fbce8bf662903f06c706f8142b17b1233_r.jpg


ebf3593cfbefc5f083ebf78c686aece0cfa25c2_r.jpg


efe155f6cc84f76b76ba02a3e39bf7cd28e1db4_r.jpg


c912536fa8ce888cf916d8e429e77591e90722e_r.jpg
Click to expand...


Using topaz or photomatix is just a form of HDR, HDR is just high dynamic range. What you're doing isn't traditional HDR, since it's been around since film days.

Photographers such as dave hill use a technique of HDR that does well in commercial photography.

Real Estate photography utilizes HDR to show more detail, so the person that said HDR is useless indoors doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about.


The examples are fine, I just don't think a lot of people on here have utilized it properly.
 
Amino Man said:
You're not very good at HDR.

You're supposed to use HDR in areas where there's high contrast. Pointing at fruit indoors or pointing it at the ground isn't going to do anything. If the photo is already properly exposed, HDR looks like crap.

Take a photo of some landscapes where the sky is bright and the ground is dark. It will even out both the sky and ground to make a more balanced exposure.

Using all 3 exposures, the iPhone combines them so the black areas become lighter and the washed out areas become darker, thus giving you the maximum detail in your photos.

Go out and learn how to use HDR, then do another demo. Please.

Here's a real HDR photo I took with my DSLR.
attachment.php
Click to expand...

And THAT is exactly why HDR has a bad reputation.
 
orbis said:
Real Estate photography utilizes HDR to show more detail, so the person that said HDR is useless indoors doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about.
Click to expand...

This is true. Here is a crappily composed, quick, still-too-bright HDR shot I took to send to my family as I was unpacking into a vacation home we just rented (case of wine on the stairs - yum!). It looks like a regular photograph, but you can see both the interior and out the windows. I still blew out the highs, but I never really intended anyone to see it... it gets the point across, I guess.

I deleted a few similar views from the same location because you either saw the interior and completely white windows, or you saw out the windows and the interior was way too dark. This is an ideal situation for an HDR.
 

Attachments

  • photo.jpg
    photo.jpg
    338.3 KB · Views: 698
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back