Geez give the guy a break. Is his photo realistic looking? No not one bit. It is cool to look at. I say it is. While it may not be your cup of tea, I would not mind looking at this shot every day on a wall somewhere. It looks more like a painting than a photograph, but I happen to like paintings too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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.
- Thread starter Nikos
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Typically in photography, blown highlights can usually be saved in RAW files by using recovery in RAW editor, importing into photoshop, and furthermore saved under Shadows/hightlights blending/layering. HDR isn't used to save blown highlights, it used to show more detail in shadows as well.
It's not about being realistic, it's about being a bad HDR. The HDR pics some other member posted here are also not realistic but they're very good.
It was more a description of the flaws in the photo I posted than any discussion of the technique. And the thing was done on an iPhone, so once highlights are blown out they're gone... there's no being saved by post-processing with RAW. And even then your options are limited. Changing white balance after the fact, sure, but playing with the exposure is going to degrade image quality (probably only slightly, but still a degradation).
All HDR is intended to do is for scenes with both very bright and very dark areas, create an exposure where the bright areas aren't blown out and the dark areas aren't underexposed. That's it.
Of course RAW editing won't work for an iphone, because they don't take pictures in RAW format.
I agree, the point of HDR is to give a full dynamic range.
And what's so wrong with his picture? HDR photography/editing can be used to either keep an image looking realistic, or give it a surreal and dramatic effect. At least his picture is edited nicely, no eyesore haloing, excessive noise, etc...
I disagree with teh good/bad HDR stuff. Photography is art. The photograph is the end product. how you get that end product is dependent on equipment, technique, tools, and many other factors. The end result of that photograph is pleasing to my eye. That is all that matters. He used HDR and got a result that I think looks damn cool. it does not matter to me if he used HDR the way it was designed or not. He used it as a tool to get a desired effect and it worked.
I don't really see anything particularly wrong with it either. The saturation seems to be jacked way up, but the overall effect is decent. If I had any complaint it would be that it seems blurry (probably from the merging), but that'd be it.
It may not be great, but the comments here would suggest we need eye bleach or something.
I have no problem with the photo being dramatic and even unrealistic. The colors are overblown and it looks blurry. I couldn't call that "edited nicely". The nice thing about HDR is all the nice details, in this pic they're lost in the blurriness.
That was kind of my take as well, I just didn't think it was all that bad.
In general, photos with plant life make for poor HDR subjects since they move in the wind.
Agreed. I just don't think his particular picture showed much reason to be singled out as a "horrible" example of HDR. I've seen MUCH worse...
And this is what an average Joe can do with the iPhone 4 and iOS4.1 with HDR.
HDR Enabled.
HDR Disabled.
The marks on the sky are from my dirty window on my car.
meh, not impressed really. Certainly not worth losing my jailbreak.
Hmm - I see a lot of people not understanding HDR and the benefits if this is your example. I don't blame you - I blame Apple's processing here.
The brightness of the sun should be over exposed in one photo and dark in the underexposed.
If you had more control over the process - or selecting high and low light levels in the image before it took the picture (like with Pro HDR) you'd be able to get a full range in the photo. As it is there - it's still way too dark and doesn't benefit from HDR really.
Wow, I wonder if you realize how condescending and arrogant you sound. It's a shame that these threads are infested with people like you.
You're another one. That person was only trying to contribute to this thread. Your comment, on the other hand, showcases nothing but negativity and insult.
Makes me wonder what kind of bitter, scorned people troll around here, that get off on putting down others. I realize we don't have to agree or like everything we read/see on here but, really, there's no need to act so bitter. It only makes you guys look like you have a complex of inferiority.
But that looks awesome. Who cares if it's obviously overprocessed? Every photo doesn't have to be HDR but sometimes they can come out pretty cool.
My understanding of HDR is that you take 3 pictures one over exposed one normal exposed and one under exposed.
The over exposed one gives you good detail on the dark areas but washes out the detail on the light/ bright areas. So in my example photo the street should be nice and clear but the sky washed out and looses all of the detail.
The under exposed picture gives you the detail of the sky but puts all the dark areas in shadow so loosing the detail of the street.
The "normal" photo is used as a reference to blend the 3 together.
The two photos taken are one that the iPhone does as standard no filtering and the second is one with the HDR option turned on.
Neither of them are supposed to be the over exposed or under exposed raws so to speak.
I am sorry if i have missed the point totally of your post but I want to learn.
this is the best example i've seen of why hdr matters to regular people and i think it bears repeating beyond the last post of the second page. it was a quick and dirty shot in a situation that would make a dslr cry. if apple's hdr software works as well as this, they've hit a gold mine.
It meets the goals of HDR by reducing the over-exposure in the sky while adding detail to the under-exposed areas. It's not dramatic, but overall I'd call it a success considering that it does not require ANY effort from the user. For most users, all they will notice is that the exposure seams "better" with it on.
More knowledgeable users can continue to use more customizable tools, so this is a win-win.
It's not horrible - but it's not a GREAT example. The darks are still too dark. I posted examples I did with Pro HDR (posted here again) which illustrate how you can get a full range of light without sacrificing a real looking photo. I didn't adjust anything (saturation, etc)
I'm guessing from the previous example - the Apple created app didn't choose the right dark area to meter or else there would have been a lot more visible in his picture. My .02
Attachments
Just a quick shot I did of my parents garden this afternoon, the HDR has definately improved the image, making the top of the tree, sea and clifftops visible
While it certainly could be better, it's a fine line to walk with a fully automated tool targeted to novices. It needs to produce fast and natural results consistently. I use True HDR and Pro HDR and while they can produce very good results, they take a long time to process and I've seen them both create occasional unnatural looking results.
Wow! Some of you really need to get a grip! This is on a freakin PHONE, it WILL improve pictures for the majority of the people using it on their PHONE...... remember that part I said about it being a PHONE?
Some of you will bitch about ANYTHING, ffs get a life.
Some of you will bitch about ANYTHING, ffs get a life.