I'm typically in the 'don't like' category. Like someone mentioned, it is noticeable. The colors always look off to me...not always, but I can tell something isn't right. I wish I could add more than my thoughts, but since most of my photography is on the run - action stuff, it isn't a technique I've used, so I can't discuss that. That being said, I would like to try 2 image blends on some landscape photos.
The only way to get a huge HDR range is to use a Medium/Large format camera. It can be hard to judge a scene from memory 'how you saw it' in photomatix.
Pentax 67 bodies are only like £250 though (about $340?)
I have been thinking more about what Ron said about Photomatix vs. hand blending of three exposures and decided to try and experiment. So, I'm throwing a bit of a grenade over the wall here.
I took one of my recent shots that I used Photomatix to preprocess the initial tonemapping and continued in Photoshop and then took the same shots and did hand blending in Photoshop (no HDR software at all). I applied the same curve adjustment techniques once I had blended I used with the HDR version. It's not completely scientific since everything isn't exactly the same and blending techniques become subjective, but what do people think? Admittedly both take a little while to process like this but there is some definite differences. Now I do use a polarizer and grad ND on these so I'm already knocking down the range to start in all three exposures.
Same three exposures used in both cases.
First is the Photomatix processed tif which was then adjusted in Photoshop
Second, hand blended exposures then similar curve adjustments.
Certainly there are differences and I made different decisions on how I wanted them to look but I was trying for a similar feel. I wanted to get details in the clouds and also some of the yellow light reflecting off the rocks to show through. I didn't look at my original attempt until I had completed the second so I wasn't trying to match just see what naturally fell out.
I have been thinking more about what Ron said about Photomatix vs. hand blending of three exposures and decided to try and experiment. So, I'm throwing a bit of a grenade over the wall here.
I took one of my recent shots that I used Photomatix to preprocess the initial tonemapping and continued in Photoshop and then took the same shots and did hand blending in Photoshop (no HDR software at all). I applied the same curve adjustment techniques once I had blended I used with the HDR version. It's not completely scientific since everything isn't exactly the same and blending techniques become subjective, but what do people think? Admittedly both take a little while to process like this but there is some definite differences. Now I do use a polarizer and grad ND on these so I'm already knocking down the range to start in all three exposures.
Same three exposures used in both cases.
First is the Photomatix processed tif which was then adjusted in Photoshop
Second, hand blended exposures then similar curve adjustments.
Certainly there are differences and I made different decisions on how I wanted them to look but I was trying for a similar feel. I wanted to get details in the clouds and also some of the yellow light reflecting off the rocks to show through. I didn't look at my original attempt until I had completed the second so I wasn't trying to match just see what naturally fell out.
I have my opinion, what's yours?
I have tried this experiment as well, with mixed results. Admittedly, my photoshop blending skills are novice, but I prefer the photmattix version in this non-scientific experiment.
Aside from Schmoo......
Are there any women HDR'ers?
or is this just a mans techno geeky item to hang on the tool belt?
Me, me!
I love what the HDR technique allows me to achieve when the dynamic range of the scene is too great, but like most of you I am not a fan of exaggerated cartoon-like processing. It's a fine line though and very easy to cross. Those sliders are just sooo tempting. Seriously, the natural look is often quite hard to achieve and I don't always succeed.
As for my methods, sometimes I use three photos with different exposures and merge them in Photomatix, and other times I blend them in Photoshop, and sometimes both. It really depends on the scene.
Some of you may have seen some of my HDR work posted here before.
Here is one from our walk yesterday afternoon. This was 3 exposures taken handheld with my Cannon s90. I was pretty happy with the results. I agree with the comments that HDR is just another tool in the tool box.
Ron
"The question is not what you look at, but what you see". Henry David Thoreau
Some beautiful images here and some great words too. I use some minimal HDR techniques. Mostly in camera multiple exposure and combining when light is not ideal. I have thought about software for it but have not pulled the trigger.
But what makes me smile is when I am accused of doing HDR when I was lucky enough to be blessed with wonderful light and maybe tweak it a bit with a Circ Polarizer or Grad ND filter.
I am not against HDR but I love it when the light and exposure all come together.
In camera multi exposure 1/3 stops 5 shots. I can tell from the buzzard that it was a five shot he was the only thing moving
Recent sunset with Grad ND
I'm finding that I end up bracketing shots more often than not these days. Sometimes I turn them into HDR, sometimes not. Here are a couple that were bracketed, but I tried to keep it somewhat subtle.
#1
#2
#3
Thoughts?
Thanks!
PC
flickr
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
I'm finding that I end up bracketing shots more often than not these days. Sometimes I turn them into HDR, sometimes not. Here are a couple that were bracketed, but I tried to keep it somewhat subtle.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
PC
Dang, those church shots are amazing. I had to check my face to see if I was wearing 3-D glasses. Nice work.
Dang, those church shots are amazing. I had to check my face to see if I was wearing 3-D glasses. Nice work.
--RxRick
Thanks, I'm pretty happy with how they turned out, even though some of the stained glass windows were a little hotter than I would like. I'm very impressed with the workmanship that went into this building. Really some amazing detail.
This is St. Joseph's Cathedral in downtown San Jose, CA.
Thanks again,
Mike
flickr
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
I'm a for HDR, I have only got the program on Friday night just gone and I'm well hooked, however I'm a shamed to say that I do transferrer into cartoon land with my images at times by over doing them, hey a least I'm honest and admit it.
Anyhoo, I will set myself up to be smashed and post my site address, tried to upload the below image, however it keeps asking me for a key.
The images I have been playing with are single images not multiple one's as they have been taken when I was on holiday's in Hong Kong
I would like to get some feedback what you guys think and if you can tell me about noise reduction program/s as the image I have posted/ sent a link has a slight amount of noise from the HDR process.
Stig, many here would say (I am sure) that they do not like these. "They are over processed, cartoonish, unnatural, etc". I am clear they they are not intended to look natural, but rather surreal. I like them a lot and appreciate them for what they are intended to be. I looked at your website, and clearly you know how to capture natural looking landscapes. These are supposed to be 'cartoonish' and surreal, and they are very good imo.
I view HDR techniques as just another tool in my box used to recreate a scene the best I can. I love it for certain situations, and I bracket almost all of my shots now with the intent of creating a tone mapped end result.
James,
Aside from the HDR aspect, these shots are amazing. Thank you for sharing the shots and your insight.
Mike
flickr
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
I think the biggest "problem" with HDR is that people who use it too much get to a point where their eyes don't really REMEMBER what the scene was like -- and you get these over saturated over vivid images that scream 'Look at me look at me, I'm over done HDR!". But the people don't realize it because they've spent so much time looking and processing those images, they've lost their grasp of the reality of the moment they were trying to capture.
There are some GREAT HDR images in here. Ones that bring out what the eye saw but was lost in the camera (in one shot). But there are many where I'm looking for the 'vivid' control bar and trying to tone it back, because that image? It's NOT reality.
Hate me for it, don't really care. Just have fun with it -- people don't have to love what you do so long as you do.
I just think there are two kinds of HDR images - photos and art.
Photos that still look like photos
There are HDR images where HDR is used to enhance a photo to be able to see things that your eyes would have been able to see, but the limited DR of the sensor cannot capture well in one shot. These will not look like HDR images. They will not show halos. Colors will look like colors typically look in photos. You will just be able to see detail in a wider dynamic range than a typical photo can show. If you're really experienced, you may be able to recognize that the scene probably couldn't be recorded in a single shot, but other than that, the image won't scream HDR to you in any way. You won't see the HDR processing itself.
Photos that have been turned into art
When it no longer looks like a photo to me, it's art. There's nothing wrong with art as long as the creator realizes that it is now art and no longer really looks like a photo. I've seen some beautiful HDR art.
The in-between
In my opinion, the misuse of HDR is when the creator wants their image to be perceived as a realistic photo, yet they've changed it so much from reality using HDR tools that it no longer looks anything like a photo and certainly no longer looks anything like the original scene. Here the image is stuck in between. in my opinion, it should either be presented as art or maintained as a realistic photo.
The technically bad
Some HDR techniques can be overused and they just look bad no matter what the intention of the image. The misuse doesn't make good photos and doesn't make good art. Large and significant halos are one such example. They can be a by-product of either too much shadow/highlights or too much of some HDR settings.
Comments
Ski Mountaineering stories: www.cascadecrusades.org
Jason Hummel photography on:
FACEBOOK
Pentax 67 bodies are only like £250 though
I took one of my recent shots that I used Photomatix to preprocess the initial tonemapping and continued in Photoshop and then took the same shots and did hand blending in Photoshop (no HDR software at all). I applied the same curve adjustment techniques once I had blended I used with the HDR version. It's not completely scientific since everything isn't exactly the same and blending techniques become subjective, but what do people think? Admittedly both take a little while to process like this but there is some definite differences. Now I do use a polarizer and grad ND on these so I'm already knocking down the range to start in all three exposures.
Same three exposures used in both cases.
First is the Photomatix processed tif which was then adjusted in Photoshop
Second, hand blended exposures then similar curve adjustments.
Certainly there are differences and I made different decisions on how I wanted them to look but I was trying for a similar feel. I wanted to get details in the clouds and also some of the yellow light reflecting off the rocks to show through. I didn't look at my original attempt until I had completed the second so I wasn't trying to match just see what naturally fell out.
I have my opinion, what's yours?
Website: Tom Price Photography
Blog: Capturing Photons
Facebook: Tom Price Photography
Single frames either had burned-out highlights or muddy shadows and the HDR shows it all. Only a little PP done on HDR image after images were merged.
I have tried this experiment as well, with mixed results. Admittedly, my photoshop blending skills are novice, but I prefer the photmattix version in this non-scientific experiment.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Spoken like a true diver, Marc! And I am certain hdr will be with us for the long haul, one way or another.
I do like hdr and the ability it offers to create images that may, or may not, reflect the viewer's perceived reality.
Like a lot of sauces, it can be very good or very bad, depending on the chef. But it is still just the sauce!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I love what the HDR technique allows me to achieve when the dynamic range of the scene is too great, but like most of you I am not a fan of exaggerated cartoon-like processing. It's a fine line though and very easy to cross. Those sliders are just sooo tempting.
As for my methods, sometimes I use three photos with different exposures and merge them in Photomatix, and other times I blend them in Photoshop, and sometimes both. It really depends on the scene.
Some of you may have seen some of my HDR work posted here before.
Ana
SmugMug Support Hero Manager
My website: anapogacar.smugmug.com
Nikon D600
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 | Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Induro CT-014 Tripod
karllindsayphotography.com | Photos on Facebook | 500px
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
You have obviously been exercising your HDR skills
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Here is one from our walk yesterday afternoon. This was 3 exposures taken handheld with my Cannon s90. I was pretty happy with the results. I agree with the comments that HDR is just another tool in the tool box.
Ron
http://ront.smugmug.com/
Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
But what makes me smile is when I am accused of doing HDR when I was lucky enough to be blessed with wonderful light and maybe tweak it a bit with a Circ Polarizer or Grad ND filter.
I am not against HDR but I love it when the light and exposure all come together.
In camera multi exposure 1/3 stops 5 shots. I can tell from the buzzard that it was a five shot he was the only thing moving
Recent sunset with Grad ND
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/
#1
#2
#3
Thoughts?
Thanks!
PC
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Thanks Dan. I really appreciate the feedback.
Mike
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Dang, those church shots are amazing. I had to check my face to see if I was wearing 3-D glasses. Nice work.
--RxRick
Thanks for the shares.
Pat
Thanks, I'm pretty happy with how they turned out, even though some of the stained glass windows were a little hotter than I would like. I'm very impressed with the workmanship that went into this building. Really some amazing detail.
This is St. Joseph's Cathedral in downtown San Jose, CA.
Thanks again,
Mike
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
I'm a for HDR, I have only got the program on Friday night just gone and I'm well hooked, however I'm a shamed to say that I do transferrer into cartoon land with my images at times by over doing them, hey a least I'm honest and admit it.
Anyhoo, I will set myself up to be smashed and post my site address, tried to upload the below image, however it keeps asking me for a key.
http://www.sinclairjonesphotography.com/Other/HDR/12020661_Sn3G6#852922802_Ctahj
The images I have been playing with are single images not multiple one's as they have been taken when I was on holiday's in Hong Kong
I would like to get some feedback what you guys think and if you can tell me about noise reduction program/s as the image I have posted/ sent a link has a slight amount of noise from the HDR process.
Thanks again and fantastic images above
Chris ;p
www.sinclairjonesphotography.com
WOW........ they are amazing................. that is by far the best HDR I have looked at in a while, well done.
PS: I particularly like the 'table' shot.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
James,
Aside from the HDR aspect, these shots are amazing. Thank you for sharing the shots and your insight.
Mike
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
I really like those first two! Some wonderful shots.
Mike
I welcome your feedback, but leave the editing to me - thanks!
There are some GREAT HDR images in here. Ones that bring out what the eye saw but was lost in the camera (in one shot). But there are many where I'm looking for the 'vivid' control bar and trying to tone it back, because that image? It's NOT reality.
Hate me for it, don't really care. Just have fun with it -- people don't have to love what you do so long as you do.
Photos that still look like photos
There are HDR images where HDR is used to enhance a photo to be able to see things that your eyes would have been able to see, but the limited DR of the sensor cannot capture well in one shot. These will not look like HDR images. They will not show halos. Colors will look like colors typically look in photos. You will just be able to see detail in a wider dynamic range than a typical photo can show. If you're really experienced, you may be able to recognize that the scene probably couldn't be recorded in a single shot, but other than that, the image won't scream HDR to you in any way. You won't see the HDR processing itself.
Photos that have been turned into art
When it no longer looks like a photo to me, it's art. There's nothing wrong with art as long as the creator realizes that it is now art and no longer really looks like a photo. I've seen some beautiful HDR art.
The in-between
In my opinion, the misuse of HDR is when the creator wants their image to be perceived as a realistic photo, yet they've changed it so much from reality using HDR tools that it no longer looks anything like a photo and certainly no longer looks anything like the original scene. Here the image is stuck in between. in my opinion, it should either be presented as art or maintained as a realistic photo.
The technically bad
Some HDR techniques can be overused and they just look bad no matter what the intention of the image. The misuse doesn't make good photos and doesn't make good art. Large and significant halos are one such example. They can be a by-product of either too much shadow/highlights or too much of some HDR settings.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Nice to see how people are using same technique for different looking styles of HDR.
My Gallery