18 replies to this topic

[Bibs]

Here are a couple of efforts of HDR using PS's automated HDR script

First is a pic of Aylesford, where we live, taken yesterday at around 4pm.



Second is from a photoshoot I did yesterday with the LTT Evora.

[Malcolm Feth]

I was exploring HDR a while ago. It is interesting, but at the end - much better and realistic results you will get by making HDR yourself, not really HDR, but taking few photos on different exposure and putting them together and deciding what requires highlight or blacks etc... This way you won't get overburns or mirrory kind of paintwork. And normal HRD looks crap with red-ish colours, orange, yellows.

It is mostly taste thing I think it is really hard to find nice, balanced photo where HDR actually improves the photo, rather than screw up everything HDR manipulation also cause some issues like you can see on clouds, on your first photo, where white clouds, create dark shadow arround on blue sky.

My two HDR from ages ago...



And a nice Aston... here actually HDR helped me a lot.
Car was in shadows in dark pit garage and outsite I had full sun. On normal shot, you would get light car and just white background, or really dark car and maybe some details in back... pretty much useless in both cases. HDR ads this dynamic range, where you could make it relativaly balanced.
If I would take this photo once more, I would not HDR it at the end, just 3 different exposures in RAW and grab all details I want to show (or hide)


Anyway, it is worth to play with different techniques, try new things and learn
It helps to connect all little bits into one piece at the end...

Edited by Malcolm Feth, 16 April 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[Bibs]

Those 2 were using 5 images from under to correctly to over exposed. I even used a grad filter to get more of the sky involved which I guess defeats the point but I was pleased with the results non the less

[Malcolm Feth]

Yee for first time, they look nice... you have a nice places around there

[VisualEchos]

I used to do a lot of HDR with programs such as Photomatix, which is much better than PS's HDR bit. However, I do it all manually now, and to much better effect...no halo's, and no grain.

[Malcolm Feth]

I actually never used PS HDR function.... I used a lot of Dynamic Photo HDR

[red vtec]

For HDR do you take several images with different exposures? I have been reading that a RAW file should give you enough detail to not have to do this. I have not tried HDR yet, also have any of you printed an HDR image?

[VisualEchos]

To use 1 RAW file to make an HDR is impossible, it's always going to be some sort of fake. You can see this yourself. Take a standard shot, then a shot +1EV. Process the standard shot to +1EV in RAW and tell me they look identical. They won't. One is capturing the information, one truly isn't, it's only faking.

That said, HDR is pretty easy to fake nowdays, so it doesn't mean you can't get a great result, it just means that it won't be done right with 1 file. The biggest issue you'll have with 1 file is noise, no way to duplicate 3 files with 1 without the noise, simply isn't possible, even with the best noise programs out there. But there again, if you're not viewing it huge, will it really make that much of a difference? I like to think so, but to most eyes, probably not.

[red vtec]

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to have a play and maybe acrylic mount a large image. I think the acrylic will really work with an HDR image.

[Malcolm Feth]

I usually take 3 shos for HDR... or I was.
Now really when I take first shot I see if there is something I need more light on... other darker...
sometimes it ends with even 7 shots, because each has something I... but in most cases 2-3 is good enough.

[Bibs]

Just saw this one on facebook, stunning!

[VisualEchos]

Wow!

[Bibs]

[Alex --GT3--]

You have to love jargon, after reading the thread I am no wiser as to what HDR is. Off to google it

[red vtec]

HDR= allows a greater dynamic range thus supposedly representing a more realistic image. But I think some can look like over saturated images. Because people have HD TV's etc they are used to brighter images.

[VisualEchos]

HDR isn't more realistic at all, but it does come closer to how much more detail our eye can see, compared to a camera.

[Bibs]

Then surely by definition it's more realistic?

[VisualEchos]

Not really, the eye chooses one or the other, either to have more detail in the lights, or in the darks, not both. A properly done HDR will go further than that, giving the viewer details that are super real.

Please remember that a properly done HDR has nothing to do with the tone-mapped images that are so popular nowdays. Let me put it this way, when looking at a properly done HDR, the viewer will be captivated, but won't know why. However, when looking at one of these psudo-tone-mapped images, they quickly realize something is going on with the halo's and obvious sunlight in shadow. No disrespect to anyone, or their work, but true HDR is a lot more subtle, and is simply detail in places where there would be none, given a single exposure.

And yes, the eye captures much more than a single exposure from a DSLR, but it's a different type of detail, and not so much exposure-based.

[Malcolm Feth]

I just found nice HDR photo... and that does not happen often...
http://pingallery.deviantart.com/art/Tight-loud-and-totally-obsolete-but-lots-of-fun-311637039